The “Objective-and-Readily-Verifiable” Gatekeeper Doctrine:
11th Circuit Narrows FCRA Liability in Martino v. Bank of America (2025)

Introduction

In Marcelo Martino v. Bank of America, N.A., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed and sharpened a growing doctrinal trend in Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) litigation: a consumer reporting agency (CRA) cannot be held liable for reporting information—even if arguably misleading—unless that information is both (i) inaccurate or likely to mislead a reasonable user and (ii) “objectively and readily verifiable.”

The case arose from an employment-scam fraud that resulted in Bank of America closing the plaintiffs’ accounts and reporting “Checking Account Fraud” to Early Warning Services LLC (“Early Warning”). After Early Warning declined to amend the notation, the plaintiffs sued under FCRA §§ 1681e(b) (reasonable procedures/maximal accuracy) and 1681i (duty to reinvestigate). The district court dismissed the complaint, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed—explicitly resting its decision on the second element: verifying who was a victim versus a perpetrator of fraud was not “objectively and readily verifiable.”

Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: The plaintiffs’ §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i claims fail as a matter of law because the disputed information—whether Mr. Martino intended fraud—was not “objectively and readily verifiable” by the CRA.
• Disposition: Judgment on the pleadings for defendants affirmed; no remand.
• Key Teaching: When a dispute turns on subjective intent or complex factual determinations beyond a CRA’s institutional capacity, liability under the FCRA will not attach, even if the plaintiff plausibly alleges the report was misleading.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel’s reasoning is deeply rooted in four leading authorities:

• Erickson v. First Advantage Background Servs. Corp., 981 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2020) – Provided the two-part “factually true and not objectively misleading” standard for maximum possible accuracy.
• Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 98 F.4th 1359 (11th Cir. 2024) – Introduced the additional requirement that the challenged inaccuracy be “objectively and readily verifiable” and contrasted simple factual errors with disputes lacking a “straightforward answer.” Martino accepts, applies, and broadens Holden.
• Cannon v. City of West Palm Beach, 250 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) – Recited for the judgment-on-the-pleadings standard but also illustrates the court’s willingness to dispose early when legal sufficiency is lacking.
• Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) – Quoted in Holden; underscores that furnishers, not CRAs, are better positioned to resolve complex factual disputes.

By choosing to affirm solely on the verifiability prong—and expressly declining to analyze inaccuracy—Martino signals that the “objective and readily verifiable” requirement is an independent gatekeeper. Once that element fails, the litigation ends.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Framework – §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i impose duties on CRAs to ensure accurate reporting and to reinvestigate disputes. But the Eleventh Circuit, reading the statutes alongside its precedent, interprets those duties as process-oriented, not adjudicative. CRAs need not determine ultimate truth; they must verify verifiable facts.
2. Objective Reasonableness Test – Even if the notation “Checking Account Fraud” might be misunderstood, the test is whether a reasonable user of the report would be misled. The court hints (but does not decide) that a reasonable banker might infer fraud participation. Nonetheless, it bypasses this step because the second element is dispositive.
3. Verifiability Analysis – Distinguishing between a fraud perpetrator and a fraud victim requires weighing motive, correspondence, and third-party interactions— matters outside a CRA’s typical document repository. Such determinations are akin to intent or state of mind adjudications, not mechanical fact checks. Therefore, Early Warning’s inability to certify Martino’s innocence without replicating a law-enforcement investigation absolves it under FCRA.

3. Impact on Future Litigation and Industry Practice

• Pleading Stage Filter: Plaintiffs must now allege not only why a report is inaccurate but also why the correct information was straightforwardly verifiable by the CRA at the time of the dispute. Expect more early dismissals.
• Scope of CRA Duties: The decision solidifies that CRAs are data wholesalers, not fraud investigators. Duties to ferret out intent-based disputes fall on furnishers (banks) or law enforcement, not CRAs.
• Compliance Playbook for CRAs: When confronted with disputes involving alleged identity theft, fraud schemes, or contested intent, CRAs can now rely on Martino to defend the limits of their investigative obligations.
• Strategic Advice for Plaintiffs: Victims of complex frauds should concentrate claims against furnishers under § 1681s-2(b) or pursue state-law tort avenues, rather than suing CRAs under §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA)

An entity that compiles and sells consumer credit information—e.g., Equifax, Experian, Early Warning.

FCRA § 1681e(b)

Requires CRAs to follow “reasonable procedures” so that reports are as accurate as possible.

FCRA § 1681i

Obliges CRAs to reinvestigate disputed information and amend inaccuracies within 30 days.

“Objectively and Readily Verifiable”

A judicially-created filter: the disputed fact must be determinable by consulting clear documentary evidence or applying an unambiguous legal rule. Subjective intent or complex factual controversies fail this test.

Judgment on the Pleadings

A procedural device (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)) allowing courts to dispose of a case when the pleadings reveal no factual dispute, saving the expense of discovery.

Conclusion

Martino v. Bank of America does not invent an entirely new rule, but it elevates the “objective-and-readily-verifiable” requirement from supporting rationale to dispositive doctrine—what this commentary labels the “Gatekeeper Doctrine.” The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion provides CRAs with a robust shield against claims involving subjective or investigative disputes, while simultaneously guiding litigants on how to craft viable FCRA complaints.

In the broader legal landscape, the decision harmonizes the consumer-protection goals of the FCRA with the practical confines of the credit-reporting industry. Going forward, lawyers and courts alike will ask, at the very outset: Is the truth the plaintiff seeks one that a CRA could have verified by merely checking its files? If the answer is no, Martino tells us the case likely ends before it begins.