|
Article:
Verdict in Williams v. Equifax
Jacksonville Attorney - Lawyer,
providing experienced Consumer Protection, Family Law, Estate Law,
Employment Law, Business Law, and Bankruptcy Law legal
representation in Jacksonville, Hilliard, Duval County,
Nassau County and the surrounding Northeast Florida areas.
In my last column, I wrote about important rights under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I am happy to report that
an Orlando jury recently recognized just how important
those rights were for a Nassau County client. On Friday,
November 30, 2007, an Orlando jury entered a $2.9
million verdict against Equifax and in favor of Angela
Williams after five days of testimony. The plaintiff was
a consumer whose credit file had been mixed up with
another person with a similar name and social security
number (the last two digits were reversed). The mixing
was first discovered in 1994 and Equifax was repeatedly
notified in dispute after dispute that there were many
false and derogatory accounts that were on Mrs.
Williams’ credit report but they did not belong to her.
Over the course of the next 13 years, Equifax would
remove the derogatory collection, charge-off and
repossession accounts only to later include them and
others on Mrs. Williams’ credit report given to her
existing and prospective creditors. The reporting of
approximately 25 false accounts over the years resulted
in repeated denials of credit, lost opportunity to
receive credit, economic loss, damage to her reputation,
loss of self-esteem, invasion of privacy, interference
with her normal and usual activities, and emotional
distress. To make matters even worse, Equifax reported
Mrs. Williams account information on the credit reports
released to the creditors of the other lady, including
debt collectors.
In August 2003, Mrs. Williams retained me and Robert
Sola of Portland Oregon. Suit was filed in September
2003. In the lawsuit, Equifax’s representatives took the
position that their policies were followed, their
policies were reasonable and they had no intention of
changing them. Indeed, Equifax even denied that there
was evidence of inaccurate information being included on
Mrs. Williams’ credit file. Equifax resisted producing
certain documents even in the face of a court order. As
a result, the Honorable George Sprinkel struck Equifax's
answer and entered a 20 page Order setting forth the
factual findings supporting the Order. The Order details
other recent instances where Equifax was warned by
federal judges in Virginia not to engage in such conduct
or it would risk severe sanctions.
The evidence at trial was that Equifax violated numerous
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The jury
heard over a full day of testimony from the plaintiff as
to how false accounts were repeatedly reinserted onto
her credit report after Equifax had said they were
deleted. Yet Equifax’s representative at trial claimed
that Equifax had not reinserted any false accounts on
Mrs. Williams’ credit reports. In addition, Equifax kept
placing Mrs. Williams’ private account information on
the other lady’s file for at least three years after the
lawsuit was filed.
A reasonable view of the evidence was that Equifax had
abused its power, it was careless and did not comply
with the Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of
course. For example, the jury learned that Equifax had
notice of a mixed file problem as early as 1992 but had
not implemented sufficient procedures to address the
problem. In 1992, there was an Agreement of Voluntary
Assurances with the Florida Attorney General and many
other state attorney generals relating to mixed files
and other issues relating to the credit bureau's grave
responsibility to follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy. In 1994, there was a similar
FTC consent order. In 1996, the FCRA was strengthened.
Each of these actions should have placed Equifax on
notice to correct its policies and procedures.
In addition, Equifax was notified by Mrs. Williams or
her mother repeatedly from 1994 through 2007 that she
was being mixed. Despite all of this notice about the
problem of mixed files, the jury heard evidence that
Equifax merely took steps to make the investigation it
was required to do cheaper and less effective. By 2002,
it had fired many of its investigators in Atlanta and
its reinvestigations were outsourced to Jamaica and
later the Phillipines. In 2002, Equifax even merged one
of Mrs. Williams’ many files with another file and
changed the identity of the owner of the file to the
other person.
Evan Hendricks, an author and expert on credit reporting
and credit scores, assisted in the case by describing to
the jury the history of credit reporting, how
investigations were conducted and recommended
improvements to make reinvestigations reasonable.
Equifax at times suggested that there were limitations
with using the industry standard but the other major
credit bureaus either did not mix Mrs. Williams with
someone else or corrected the problem shortly after
being notified that it had mixed her. In addition, Mr.
Hendricks testified that Equifax had significant
influence over the organization that decided the
industry standards.
The testimony from Equifax’s representatives was that it
was able to reduce the cost of the reinvestigations to
about $2.00 per dispute by automation and by not
providing furnishers (debt collectors, creditors,
prospective creditors, public record vendors, etc.) with
a consumer’s supporting documentation submitted with
disputes to Equifax such as driver’s licenses and social
security cards. Incredibly, Equifax did not even tell
its furnishers that Mrs. Williams had previously been
mixed with a person with a similar name and social
security number. Indeed, Equifax even submitted some
disputes in the name of the person with whom Mrs.
Williams was mixed.. Testimony also suggested that more
and more “reinvestigations” were conducted without any
person from Equifax being involved and that furnishers
were only asked to match two of four fields rather than
conduct an investigation as to whether the false
accounts belonged to someone of a similar name and
social security number..
Equifax defended the case by admitting very little. It
admitted that it had destroyed important records and it
had a policy of doing so even if litigation was filed.
It denied any inaccuracies after the consumer filed
suit. Throughout the years of litigation, Equifax said
it did nothing wrong, had no regrets and its policies
worked as intended. On the last day of trial, however,
Equifax changed course and suggested that there may have
been "human error" and that Equifax may have “dropped
the ball" but it came four years after the lawsuit was
filed and was contradicted by much of the deposition
testimony.
The jury’s verdict is a victory for consumers. Justice
was achieved. The jury’s verdict is also a recognition
as to how important someone’s reputation can be and was
an implicit rejection of Equifax’ suggestion that a
verdict of $37,000 for compensatory damages was
appropriate. The jury appropriately sought to punish and
deter Equifax and others in the future by awarding
punitive damages. Equifax's net profits over the last
five years were approximately 1.1 billion. During this
time, Equifax’s net worth had almost quadrupled. The
jury awarded $219,000 for compensatory damages and $2.7
million for punitive damages. The punitive damages
amount is one percent of Equifax's 2006 profits.
It is hoped that the verdict will lead to a change in
the policies of Equifax. Congress enacted the FCRA and
said that the credit bureaus had a grave responsibility
to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information reported on
consumers. There were many other provisions of the FCRA
that were violated. The system has worked and it is
hoped that Equifax will get the message.
For additional information, contact:
In Florida: Steve Fahlgren, Esq (407) 852-1711
Outside Florida: Robert Sola, Esq. (503) 295-6880
Disclaimer: The above Article
is intended to give you, the consumer, insight into various legal topics. This
information is not intended as legal advice, but rather helpful topical
information.
 If
you require professional legal services regarding
Consumer Protection, Family Law, Estate Law,
Employment Law, Business Law, and Bankruptcy Law issues, be proactive in
protecting your legal
rights by seeking the legal advice of
an experienced
Jacksonville criminal defense attorney
& lawyer. Contact
The Law Offices of
Steven M. Fahlgren, P.A.,
by calling
904.845.2255.
Jacksonville Attorney - Lawyer,
providing experienced Consumer Protection, Family Law, Estate Law,
Employment Law, Business Law, and Bankruptcy Law legal
representation in Jacksonville, Hilliard, Duval County,
Nassau County and the surrounding Northeast Florida areas.
|
|
