Mcintyre v. RentGrow, Inc. ( 2022 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 21-1637
PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
RENTGROW, INC., d/b/a Yardi Resident Screening,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Allison D. Burroughs, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Selya, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
John Soumilas, with whom James A. Francis, Jordan M. Sartell,
and Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. were on brief, for appellant.
Keith Levenberg, with whom James W. McGarry, Joseph F.
Yenouskas, Tierney E. Smith, and Goodwin Procter LLP were on brief,
for appellee.
May 13, 2022
SELYA, Circuit Judge. The principal question in this
putative class action is whether the facts, taken in the light
most congenial to plaintiff-appellant Patricia McIntyre, would
permit a rational jury to find that defendant-appellee RentGrow,
Inc. (RentGrow) willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. The district court answered this
question in the negative and entered summary judgment in favor of
RentGrow. See McIntyre v. RentGrow, Inc., No. 18-12141, 2021 WL
3661499, at *1 (D. Mass. July 22, 2021). After careful
consideration, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
We briefly rehearse the relevant facts and travel of the
case. The abiding truth against which this litigation plays out
is that "[c]onsumer credit reports play an important role in the
lives of individuals and the economy." Consumer Data Indus. Ass'n
v. Frey, 26 F.4th 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2022). Such reports affect the
availability and terms of a variety of economic opportunities,
including housing.
Congress enacted the FCRA in 1970, in part, "to ensure
fair and accurate credit reporting." Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v.
Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007). Recognizing the high stakes that
credit reporting portends for consumers, the FCRA requires that
"[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report
it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
- 2 -
accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom
the report relates." 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
RentGrow is a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that
generates reports used by landlords and property managers to screen
prospective tenants. The information contained in these tenant-
screening reports includes summaries of public records of court
proceedings involving each prospective tenant. RentGrow neither
obtains nor reviews these court records itself but, rather,
purchases reports synthesizing the court records from TransUnion
Background Data Solutions (TUBDS), which is a subsidiary of
TransUnion (one of the three largest CRAs in the United States).
RentGrow conducts some modest filtering to sift out some
of the court-records information it receives and then synopsizes
the remainder into its tenant-screening reports. In a declaration
signed under penalty of perjury by Patrick Hennessey, RentGrow's
vice president of resident screening, RentGrow describes the
arrangement in the following terms:
[W]hen a prospective tenant applies to rent
from one of RentGrow's clients, information
from the prospective tenant's application is
sent to RentGrow electronically. That
information is in turn sent by RentGrow to,
among others, [TUBDS]. [TUBDS] then returns
civil court records (if any) to RentGrow.
RentGrow then makes sure that the information
from [TUBDS] is about the tenant applicant
(meaning, we make sure it is not information
about someone else), makes sure the
information can be reported (meaning, for
example, if the case was dismissed or does not
- 3 -
relate to a landlord-tenant action, RentGrow
filters it out), and then transmits the
reportable civil records information from
[TUBDS] about the applicant (if any) to the
property [manager].
In deposition testimony, Hennessey indicated that RentGrow was
largely unaware of the procedures that TUBDS used to collect its
court-records information and what procedures it had in place to
ensure the accuracy of that data.
In 2017, McIntyre expressed interest in renting an
apartment in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The property manager of
the apartment complex used RentGrow's services to screen
prospective tenants and asked RentGrow for a tenant-screening
report. RentGrow, in turn, asked TUBDS for court-records
information pertaining to McIntyre.
As matters turned out, McIntyre had a somewhat checkered
housing history: three previous landlords had taken her to court
in eviction proceedings and related matters. The original tenant-
screening report that RentGrow prepared, using court-records
information supplied by TUBDS, reflected this history but
(McIntyre alleges) contained some meaningful inaccuracies.
Those inaccuracies related to things like the current
status of the cases brought against McIntyre and whether the
arrearages allegedly owed by McIntyre were still outstanding. For
instance, one entry from 2012 showed a suit against McIntyre along
with the amount sought in the suit without noting that the
- 4 -
complaint subsequently had been withdrawn. Another entry showed
that a suit had been filed and a judgment entered but neglected to
mention that the judgment had later been paid.
RentGrow delivered this original tenant-screening report
to the property manager, recommending that McIntyre's application
be rejected. The property manager determined that McIntyre was
ineligible to rent an apartment in the complex.
The rejection of McIntyre's bid to lease the apartment
was not the end of the matter. After learning the contents of
RentGrow's original tenant-screening report, McIntyre notified
RentGrow that she disputed portions of certain entries in the civil
court records section. RentGrow promptly notified TUBDS of
McIntyre's complaints and updated its tenant-screening report
within a month (using newly acquired information from TUBDS). Even
with updates to the report, McIntyre remained ineligible to lease
the apartment. And in her view, the revisions were too little and
too late.
The FCRA furnishes a private right of action to consumers
who claim to be harmed by violations of its strictures. See 15
U.S.C. § 1681p. Invoking this private right of action and noting
that RentGrow maintained its principal place of business in
Waltham, Massachusetts, McIntyre commenced a civil action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
She sued RentGrow both on her own behalf and as the representative
- 5 -
of a putative class of similarly situated persons.1 In her
complaint, she alleged that the inaccurate information in the
original tenant-screening report, coupled with RentGrow's reliance
on TUBDS's court-records information, transgressed section
1681e(b) of the FCRA, see 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and gave rise to
liability for both negligent and willful noncompliance with the
statute, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681o, 1681n.
Negligent noncompliance and willful noncompliance are
two different bases of liability for violation of the same
substantive obligation. McIntyre's complaint, though, pleaded
RentGrow's alleged violation of the statute in a single count.
The district court treated that count as a unitary claim, asserting
dual theories of liability. See McIntyre, 2021 WL 3661499, at
*13. For simplicity's sake, we treat negligent noncompliance and
willful noncompliance as distinct (but largely overlapping)
claims.
For present purposes, it is helpful to distinguish
between these two kinds of claims. The FCRA contains substantive
provisions (like section 1681e(b)) that set out the compliance
McIntyre sought to certify a class (nationwide, state-wide,
1
and/or city-wide) of persons "who were subjects of tenant screening
reports created by [RentGrow] that contained eviction information,
but which failed to state that the action had been withdrawn,
dismissed, non-suited, or resulted in a judgment for the tenant
defendant according to court records dated at least 30 days prior
to the date of the report."
- 6 -
duties of CRAs with respect to consumer information. Section 1681o
and section 1681n provide for liability for negligent
noncompliance and willful noncompliance, respectively, with those
compliance duties. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o.
A negligent noncompliance claim resembles a garden-
variety negligence claim, with a substantive provision of the FCRA
providing the relevant duty and standard of care. Section 1681e(b)
is the relevant substantive provision here. It requires CRAs to
"follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy
of the information" included in consumer credit reports. Recovery
in negligent noncompliance claims is limited to actual damages and
attorneys' fees. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a). Thus, such a claim
requires a plaintiff to show a failure to follow reasonable
procedures for assuring maximum possible accuracy, resulting in
inaccurate information in the plaintiff's consumer report and
thereby injuring the plaintiff. See Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC,
617 F.3d 688, 708 (3d Cir. 2010); Philbin v. Trans Union Corp.,
101 F.3d 957, 963 (3d Cir. 1996).
Because a willful noncompliance claim rests on the same
substantive obligation, its elements are similar to those of a
negligent noncompliance claim. There is an added requirement,
though, of showing willfulness. And unlike a negligent
noncompliance claim, a willful noncompliance claim may entitle a
plaintiff to statutory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees
- 7 -
without proof of actual damages.2 See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a), (c);
see also Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc., 711 F.3d 1173,
1179 (10th Cir. 2013). Thus, a willful noncompliance claim under
section 1681e(b) requires a plaintiff to show a willful failure to
follow reasonable procedures for assuring maximum possible
accuracy, resulting in inaccurate information in the plaintiff's
consumer report. See Birmingham v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
633 F.3d 1006, 1009 (10th Cir. 2011). Proving willfulness requires
the plaintiff to show that the noncompliance was knowing or
reckless. See Safeco, 551 U.S. at 57-58; Birmingham, 633 F.3d at
1009.
Following pretrial discovery, RentGrow moved for summary
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). McIntyre opposed this motion
and cross-moved for class certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a), (b)(3). Although the parties attach different meaning to
them, the number of reports RentGrow prepares using TUBDS's court-
records information and its dispute rates are undisputed:
2 Even without a showing of actual damages, a plaintiff who
seeks to press a willful noncompliance claim must show an injury
in fact sufficient to support standing. See TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2200 (2021). Here, the district court
supportably determined that RentGrow's dissemination of allegedly
inaccurate information crossed that threshold. See McIntyre, 2021
WL 3661499, at *6.
- 8 -
• TUBDS returned civil court records for use in
380,559 tenant screenings conducted by RentGrow
between October 12, 2016 and October 12, 2018.
• After applying its filtering process, RentGrow
reported civil court records in 272,893 tenant-
screening reports.
• Consumers disputed reports in 6,194 screenings
involving civil court records generally
(approximately 2.3 percent), and 2,953 of those
disputes (approximately 1.1 percent) concerned
eviction records specifically.
• With respect to the disputes concerning eviction
records, 2,526 (approximately 85 percent) resulted
in updates to the tenant-screening reports.
The district court assessed the shared elements of the
negligent and willful noncompliance claims under section 1681e(b).
First, the court determined that a jury could find that RentGrow
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy. McIntyre, 2021 WL 3661499, at *8. Although the court
acknowledged that RentGrow had certain procedures to limit
inaccuracies in the tenant-screening reports that it prepared, it
noted that RentGrow was "largely unaware of the procedures [TUBDS]
uses to collect its data" and did not itself review civil court
filings. Id. The court posited "that a reasonabl[e] jury could
- 9 -
arguably find that relying on data acquired by a third party,
through unknown procedures," fell short of section 1681e(b)'s
requirement to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum
possible accuracy. Id. Second, the court found that McIntyre had
adduced enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether omissions in the tenant-screening report rendered
that report inaccurate. See id. at *7-8.
Withal, the court determined that McIntyre had not
adduced sufficient evidence of actual damages, thus pretermitting
her negligent noncompliance claim. See id. at *11. McIntyre does
not challenge that determination.
This left McIntyre's willful noncompliance claim as her
only potential avenue for recovery. But the district court
determined that although a jury could arguably find that RentGrow
failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible
accuracy, McIntyre had not adduced sufficient evidence to ground
a finding of willfulness. See id. at *11-13. In support, the
court observed that there was "no evidence that [RentGrow] was on
notice that [TUBDS's] civil court data was inaccurate and then
ignored such warnings." Id. at *11. And, moreover, neither extant
case law nor a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
publication touted by McIntyre would have "ma[d]e clear that a CRA
cannot rely on public court records compiled by a vendor." Id.- 10 -
Because neither negligent noncompliance nor willful
noncompliance could in its view supply a basis for liability, the
court entered summary judgment in RentGrow's favor. See id. at
*13. This ruling also served to sound the death knell for
McIntyre's motion for class certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a); Yan v. ReWalk Robotics Ltd., 973 F.3d 22, 36 (1st Cir.
2020). Accordingly, the district court denied class certification
and dismissed McIntyre's action. This timely appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
We review a district court's entry of summary judgment
de novo. See Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 98 (1st Cir.
2006). In conducting that appraisal, we construe the evidence of
record in the light most congenial to the non-moving party (here,
McIntyre) and draw all reasonable inferences to that party's
behoof. See id. We are not wedded to the district court's
reasoning but, rather, may affirm on any independent ground made
manifest by the record. See id.A district court may grant summary judgment only if "the
record, construed in the light most congenial to the nonmovant,
presents no genuine issue as to any material fact and reflects the
movant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law." McKenney v.
Mangino, 873 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 2017); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). Where, as here, the motion is premised on the absence of
a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant bears the burden
- 11 -
of adducing evidence showing "an issue of fact that is 'more than
merely colorable.'" Faiella v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 928 F.3d
141, 145 (1st Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted).
A. The Willfulness Framework.
On appeal, McIntyre challenges only the district court's
determination that she did not adduce evidence sufficient to show
that RentGrow willfully failed to comply with its obligations under
section 1681e(b). In Safeco, the Supreme Court clarified that,
under the FCRA as under the common law, willfulness encompasses
not only intentional or knowing violations but also reckless ones.
See 551 U.S. at 57-58. McIntyre does not contend that RentGrow
intentionally or knowingly failed to comply with section 1681e(b).
Instead, she contends that the summary judgment record, construed
in the requisite light, suffices to show recklessness on RentGrow's
part.
To define recklessness, the Safeco Court looked to the
common law. See id. at 68-69. Recklessness — which usually is
measured under an "objective standard" in civil cases — entails
disregard for "an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either
known or so obvious that it should be known." Id. at 68 (quoting
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994)). The "essence of
recklessness," the Court stated, is the "high risk," id. at 69,
which must be "substantially greater in amount than that which is
necessary to make [] conduct negligent," id. (quoting Restatement
- 12 -
(Second) of Torts § 500(g) (1965)). Thus, to prove actionable
recklessness, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or had
reason to know of facts that would lead it to understand that it
was running an "'unjustifiably high risk' of violating the
statute." Id. at 70.
The Safeco Court applied this general paradigm to a
situation in which a defendant claimed compliance with the FCRA
based exclusively on interpretation of the relevant statutory
provision. The statute sub judice required a consumer to be
notified if something in her credit report resulted in "adverse
action," including "an increase in any charge for . . . any
insurance." 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(k)(1)(B)(i). But the statute was
silent on how an "increase" should be measured. Safeco, acting
"[on] the rationale that 'increase' presupposes prior
dealing, . . . took the definition as excluding initial rate
offers for new insurance." Safeco, 551 U.S. at 69. As a result,
it made no effort to comply with the notice requirement when
dealing with the plaintiff. See id.The Court rejected Safeco's reading of the statute but
acknowledged that Safeco's reading, even though incorrect, "ha[d]
a foundation in the statutory text." Id. at 69-70. And up to
that point, neither the Court itself nor any court of appeals had
addressed the issue. See id. at 70. By the same token, no
"authoritative guidance" had yet emerged from the Federal Trade
- 13 -
Commission (FTC).3 Id.; see id. at 70 n.19 (rejecting as
insufficient an opinion letter from a single FTC staff attorney
and noting that the letter "did not canvass the issue" and
"explicitly indicated that it was merely 'an informal staff
opinion . . . not binding on the Commission'" (alteration in
original)). In these circumstances, the Court determined that
Safeco lacked the "benefit of guidance . . . that might have
warned it away from the view it took." Id. at 70. "Given this
dearth of guidance and the less-than-pellucid statutory text," the
Court concluded, "Safeco's reading was not objectively
unreasonable, and so f[e]ll[] well short of raising the
'unjustifiably high risk' of violating the statute necessary for
reckless liability." Id.The Supreme Court's reasoning suggests that if a CRA is
acting in compliance with a reasonable reading of an ambiguous
statute — or, as the Supreme Court carefully put it, a reading
that is not "objectively unreasonable" — it cannot have been acting
recklessly. See id. at 69 ("[T]here is no need to pinpoint the
negligence/recklessness line, for Safeco's reading of the statute,
3Until 2011, the FTC was the principal regulatory agency
charged with enforcement of the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s; see
also Fed. Trade Comm'n, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit
Reporting Act 3-4 (July 2011). On July 21, 2011, the CFPB was
given primary regulatory and enforcement authority. See generally
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203,
124 Stat. 1376 (2010); id. at 2090-92 (codified at 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s(e)).
- 14 -
albeit erroneous, was not objectively unreasonable."); id. at 70
("Safeco's reading was not objectively unreasonable . . . .").
Following that reasoning, "[a] credit reporting agency may act in
reckless disregard of a statute's requirements by adopting an
objectively unreasonable interpretation of the law." See Cortez,
617 F.3d at 721 (citing Safeco, 551 U.S. at 69).
But compliance need not necessarily turn squarely on a
question of statutory interpretation. After all, the statute may
be very clear or the reasonableness of a CRA's compliance may
depend more on context than on the CRA's reading of the statutory
text. RentGrow concedes that section 1681e(b), which requires
that a CRA "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy" of reported information, presents just such a situation,
that is, a situation in which compliance does not turn squarely on
statutory interpretation but, rather, on the facts. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681e(b). In such a case, we must evaluate whether a CRA acted
in disregard of facts that would make it obvious, considering the
totality of the circumstances, that there was an unjustifiably
high risk that it was not complying with the statute. See Cortez,
617 F.3d at 721-22 ("A credit reporting agency may also willfully
violate the FCRA by adopting a policy with reckless disregard of
whether it contravenes a plaintiff's rights under the FCRA.").
- 15 -
B. McIntyre's Willful Noncompliance Claim.
Against this backdrop, we train the lens of our inquiry
upon McIntyre's claim that RentGrow recklessly failed to comply
with section 1681e(b). The essence of this inquiry is whether,
considering the totality of the circumstances, a jury could find
that RentGrow implemented its procedures in disregard of facts
that would have made it obvious that it was running an
unjustifiably high risk of failing to satisfy its compliance
obligations under section 1681e(b). To reach this question,
though, we first consider two antecedent queries. First, could a
jury find that McIntyre's report contained material inaccuracies
resulting from the procedures employed by RentGrow?4 Second, could
a jury find that RentGrow failed to follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy? We address these queries
sequentially, mindful that — if the answer to either is in the
negative — RentGrow cannot be liable for willful noncompliance
with section 1681e(b).
1. Accuracy. In order to succeed on a section 1681e(b)
claim, the plaintiff must show that her credit report contained
one or more material inaccuracies. See DeAndrade v. Trans Union
LLC, 523 F.3d 61, 65-66 (1st Cir. 2008). This demands a showing
that the report contained an entry or entries that a jury could
Our references, here and elsewhere, to what a jury could
4
find contemplate a reasonable jury, making supportable findings.
- 16 -
find were either false or materially misleading. See, e.g.,
Saunders v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co. of Va., 526 F.3d 142, 148
(4th Cir. 2008) ("[A] consumer report that contains technically
accurate information may be deemed 'inaccurate' if the statement
is presented in such a way that it creates a misleading
impression."); Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890,
895 (5th Cir. 1998) ("A credit entry may be 'inaccurate' within
the meaning of the statute either because it is patently incorrect,
or because it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent
that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions.").
McIntyre's report contained entries with omissions that
a jury could find were materially misleading and, thus, inaccurate.
A few examples serve to illustrate the point. The entries in the
report concerning one of McIntyre's cases (LT-12-01-18-5230)
contained no indication that the complaint in the case had been
withdrawn. A jury could find that the omission was materially
misleading. Without knowing that the complaint was withdrawn, a
landlord might well think either that the case was still velivolant
or — even worse — that there was an unsatisfied judgment hanging
over McIntyre's head. In another case (LT-12-10-05-3884), the
satisfaction of the judgment was not reflected in McIntyre's
tenant-screening report, notwithstanding that the judgment had
been paid in full more than two years before the report was
prepared. A jury could find that this omission constituted a
- 17 -
material inaccuracy. After all, the implication that a consumer
is saddled with an unsatisfied civil judgment could adversely
affect credit decisions.
To cinch the matter, TUBDS (upon inquiry from RentGrow)
admitted that the court-records information in the original report
was "inaccurate or incomplete" in various respects. Moreover, the
updated report that RentGrow prepared deleted several entries and
corrected others. TUBDS's admission and RentGrow's revisions
bolster the conclusion that a jury could find that the original
credit information was inaccurate.
RentGrow suggests that certain of these entries were
actually accurate and that because the report, on the whole,
correctly reflected that McIntyre had difficulties with prior
landlords, the report's omissions cannot be characterized as
materially misleading. These suggestions are not without some
force, but they are, as the district court determined, see
McIntyre, 2021 WL 3661499, at *8-9, grist for a jury's mill.
We need not tarry. The short of it is that the district
court did not err in concluding that the question of whether
McIntyre's report contained materially inaccurate information was
for the jury. See id. Thus, McIntyre has checked the first box
necessary for a willful noncompliance claim.
2. Compliance with Reasonable Procedures. We next ask
whether a jury could find that RentGrow failed to follow reasonable
- 18 -
procedures for assuring the maximum possible accuracy of the
information included in its reports. It is undisputed that
RentGrow relied on TUBDS's reporting and did not itself review
civil court filings, dockets, or other court records. The fact
that a CRA relies on a third-party vendor to furnish court-records
information does not automatically render its procedures
unreasonable as a means of assuring the maximum possible accuracy
of the information in its reports. In the context of such a third-
party vendor relationship, the question is what the record shows
about the reasonableness of the procedures that the CRA implemented
to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the vendor-sourced
information included in its reports.
Here, a jury could find that RentGrow failed to implement
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.
Although RentGrow did engage in an ad hoc filtering process, it
did not have procedures in place to verify whether the court-
records information it received from TUBDS was either correct or
complete. Nor did it independently spot-check or otherwise review
the underlying dockets.
A jury could evaluate RentGrow's handling of this aspect
of its business in light of facts sufficient to support an
inference that RentGrow knew or should have known that TUBDS's
data was not presumptively reliable. For one thing, RentGrow's
reliance on TUBDS for court-records information resulted in a not-
- 19 -
insignificant number of disputes over a two-year period (from
October of 2016 through October of 2018): 6,194 disputes out of
272,893 tenant-screening reports containing court-records
information. This means that roughly 2.3 percent of the reports
were disputed — and many of those disputes appear to have been
successful in securing corrections. Of 2,953 disputes containing
eviction-litigation records (a subset of court-records
information), 2,526 resulted in corrections of some sort.
For another thing, industry trends suggested that
TUBDS's court-records information might not be presumptively
reliable. Following a 2015 settlement with over thirty state
Attorneys General that required TransUnion (TUBDS's parent
company) and other large CRAs to adhere to stipulated accuracy
standards for the reporting of certain information, TransUnion for
the most part stopped reporting civil court judgments in credit
reports to end-users. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bur., Quarterly
Consumer Credit Trends: Public Records, at 3-4 (February 2018)
("The most significant changes were observed for civil judgments.
They had been the most common public record prior to July 2017,
but after the [program required by the settlement] they disappeared
entirely."); see also Settlement Agreement, In re Investigation by
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York,
of Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. (March 8, 2015).
But TransUnion continued to make this information available,
- 20 -
through TUBDS, to intermediary CRAs like RentGrow. Here, moreover,
the record (including the testimony of RentGrow's corporate
representative) indicates that RentGrow continued to purchase
civil court records from TUBDS while remaining largely unaware of
both the processes by which TUBDS collected those records and the
procedures that TUBDS used to update records and verify their
accuracy.
Notwithstanding this chiaroscuro background, the record
does not suggest that RentGrow was indifferent to the accuracy of
its reported information. Importantly, RentGrow took care to
select the court-records provider that it deemed best. Over the
course of several years, RentGrow had received business
solicitations from other court-records vendors, thoroughly
considered their offerings, and tested samples of their proffered
data against the data that TUBDS was supplying. In these
comparisons, TUBDS's data appeared to be the most reliable and
complete. These comparisons led RentGrow to deem TUBDS the "gold
standard" for the industry and to continue using TUBDS as its
court-records vendor. In addition, RentGrow's filtering process
culled a substantial portion — nearly a quarter — of the court
records from TUBDS to ensure that it was not including mismatched
or unreportable information in tenant-screening reports. And,
finally, the record — at least with respect to McIntyre — indicates
- 21 -
that RentGrow promptly responded to disputes and made corrections
as warranted.5
In sum, the evidence as to the reasonableness of
RentGrow's procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy was
conflicting and, thus, presented a question of fact for the jury.6
See McIntyre, 2021 WL 3661499, at *8. It follows that McIntyre
has checked the second box needed for prosecution of her willful
noncompliance claim.
3. Recklessness. Although a jury could find that
McIntyre's report contained material inaccuracies and that
RentGrow failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy, a willful noncompliance claim requires more: a
showing that a CRA's failure to comply was knowing or reckless.
See Safeco, 551 U.S. at 57. McIntyre does not assert that RentGrow
intentionally or knowingly violated section 1681e(b), so her claim
stands or falls on whether she can show that RentGrow acted
5 Although the record indicates that RentGrow routinely made
corrections with respect to other consumers, the record is
tenebrous with respect to the average timeline on which corrections
were made in response to other consumer disputes.
6 RentGrow suggests that the district court should not have
reached the issue of reasonableness because McIntyre did not
introduce evidence of "unreasonable procedures." Considering that
McIntyre's claim was that RentGrow's lack of procedures and its
lack of knowledge about its vendor's procedures could be regarded
as unreasonable, this suggestion gains RentGrow no ground. If
chased to its tail, the logic of this suggestion would effectively
allow CRAs to insulate themselves from section 1681e(b) willful
noncompliance claims by relying blindly on third parties for
information.
- 22 -
recklessly. Surviving summary judgment on recklessness requires
the record to show sufficient facts to make it obvious to a CRA
that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was an
unjustifiably high risk that the CRA was not following reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.
In the case at hand, McIntyre argues that guidance from
an edition of the CFPB's Supervisory Highlights publication should
have given RentGrow clear notice that its procedures were
unreasonable and thus that it was not fulfilling its compliance
obligations.7 RentGrow tries to ground this argument before it
takes flight. It contends that the argument was not raised below
and, therefore, cannot take wing on appeal. See Teamsters Union,
Local No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 21 (1st Cir.
1992); see also United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.
1990). RentGrow, however, reads the record too myopically.
McIntyre quoted the purportedly relevant guidance in her complaint
McIntyre argued below that other data points could have
7
given RentGrow notice that there was a high risk that it was
violating section 1681e(b). These data points included RentGrow's
dispute rate (approximately 2.3 percent), the nature of its
business arrangements with TUBDS, and certain decisions of federal
courts of appeals. In this venue, though, McIntyre does not
develop any arguments as to how these data points might be assessed
by a jury in the course of a totality-of-the-circumstances
analysis. Consequently, we treat these points as waived. See
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (stating
that it is "not enough merely to mention a possible argument in
the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work,
create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones").
- 23 -
and both quoted and discussed it in her opposition to RentGrow's
motion for summary judgment. No more was exigible to preserve the
argument for appeal.
Turning to the merits of McIntyre's argument, we do not
gainsay that there was sufficient evidence for McIntyre to take
the question of whether RentGrow's procedures were reasonable to
the jury. See supra Part II(A). But the Supervisory Highlights
publication does not clearly warn RentGrow off the use of the
procedures that it had in place.
RentGrow attempts to end this discussion before it
begins. In this regard, RentGrow asserts that Safeco requires us
to find that the Supervisory Highlights publication cannot, as a
matter of law, provide notice to RentGrow as to whether its conduct
violates section 1681e(b). This is so, RentGrow submits, because
Safeco requires that a publication be "authoritative guidance" in
order to provide clear notice.
The Safeco Court used the term "authoritative guidance"
in discussing what might inform the interpretation of an ambiguous
statutory term, but it is not readily apparent what the Court meant
by that usage. Here, however, we need not delve too deeply into
the meaning and application of the "authoritative guidance" rubric
because the Supervisory Highlights language embraced by McIntyre
simply does not give the clear notice that she attempts to read
- 24 -
into it. Its utility is eroded by its sparse detail and the fact-
specific nature of the examination actions it recounts.
Some context is helpful. The CFPB is the principal
enforcer of the FCRA, see supra note 3; see also 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s(e), and since 2012 it has published Supervisory Highlights
— summaries of examination results, supervision actions, and
enforcement actions — to let compliance professionals in the
industry know how the CFPB applies the law. See Consumer Fin.
Prot. Bur., Supervisory Highlights: Fall 2012, at 2 (2012). The
CFPB has cautioned, however, that Supervisory Highlights gives
only a pinhole view of the "requirements of relevant laws and
regulations" through summaries of the agency's actions in fact-
specific settings and "does not impose any new or different legal
requirements." Consumer Fin. Prot. Bur., Supervisory Highlights:
Summer 2018, at 2 (2018); see id. ("[T]he legal violations
described in this and previous issues of Supervisory Highlight are
based on the facts and circumstances reviewed by the [CFPB] as
part of its examinations. A conclusion that a legal violation
exists on the facts and circumstances described here may not lead
to such a finding under different facts and circumstances.").
McIntyre asks us to accord decretory significance to the
Summer 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, which discussed the
CFPB's examination and supervision actions against certain CRAs
that relied on third-party furnishers of public records. See
- 25 -
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bur., Supervisory Highlights: Summer 2015, at
6 (2015). Citing "weaknesses" including "hav[ing] never conducted
a formal audit of their public record providers" and "not hav[ing]
defined processes to verify the accuracy of public record
information provided by their public records providers," the CFPB
"directed one or more CRAs to establish and implement suitable and
effective oversight of public records providers." Id. It also
reported that the agency had initiated supervisory action against
CRAs when, even though "processes existed to analyze and improve
the quality of incoming data, there was no post-compilation report
review or sampling to test the accuracy of consumer reports." Id.
The publication suggests that compliance procedures should include
processes to audit and verify public-records information and to
supervise third-party public-records vendors.
McIntyre submits that these comments should have put
RentGrow on clear notice that its procedures were unreasonable
and, thus, that in maintaining them, it was undershooting its
compliance obligations under section 1681e(b). We do not agree.
The "weaknesses" identified in the Supervisory Highlights
publication touted by McIntyre were just that — weaknesses — and
not clear indications that any single deficiency would render a
CRA's procedures, as a whole, unreasonable. And in all events,
the spare and cryptic four paragraphs upon which McIntyre leans do
little more than restate factors that the CFPB considers in
- 26 -
assessing compliance.8 They do not add much more than common sense
would add in considering what might be reasonable steps to take
toward assuring the accuracy of data acquired from vendors.
Indeed, other sections of the same Supervisory Highlights edition
contain vastly more substance and detail about industry practices
and appropriate compliance procedures.
Seen in this light, no reasonable jury could find that
the publication relied on by McIntyre was sufficient to put
RentGrow on clear notice that its battery of procedures to assure
accuracy — selecting the best-available records provider,
reassessing that choice in comparisons with competitors, filtering
out roughly a quarter of returned results to remove mismatches and
unreportable information, and responding promptly to disputes —
was inadequate under the circumstances to satisfy its compliance
obligations. Accordingly, we conclude that McIntyre has not
adduced, by means of the Supervisory Highlights publication on
which she stakes her case on appeal, sufficient evidence to show
that RentGrow was acting recklessly. Put another way, no
In assessing whether procedures for ensuring accuracy are
8
reasonable under section 1681e(b), the CFPB has said that it will
consider "all relevant factors" set forth in a non-exhaustive list.
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bur., CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual,
at Procedures 10 (Version 2, October 2012). Those factors include
the "[s]creening of furnishers," "[f]orm and manner in which
information is reported," "[s]creening and matching of information
from furnishers," "[m]easures to prevent duplicative tradelines on
reports," and "[o]ther measures to test accuracy." Id.
- 27 -
reasonable jury could conclude, based on that publication, that
RentGrow was disregarding an unjustifiably high risk, of which it
knew or had reason to know, that it was failing to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information contained in its tenant-screening reports.
III. CONCLUSION
We need go no further. In order to thwart the swing of
the summary judgment axe, a plaintiff must adduce competent
evidence sufficient to prove each and every element of her claim.
See Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23, 30 (1st Cir. 2007).
McIntyre has failed to carry this burden with respect to proof of
recklessness. And because McIntyre premised her willful
noncompliance claim solely on recklessness, RentGrow was entitled
to summary judgment on that claim. The district court, therefore,
did not err either in granting RentGrow's Rule 56(a) motion or in
denying McIntyre's motion for class certification.
Affirmed.
— Concurring Opinion Follows —
- 28 -
LYNCH, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. I
read Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007),
differently in several respects. I prefer to follow Chief Justice
Roberts's statement in PDK Laboratories Inc. v. United States Drug
Enforcement Administration: "[I]f it is not necessary to decide
more, it is necessary not to decide more." 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C.
Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J., concurring).
The dispositive question in this appeal is whether
McIntyre has asserted sufficient evidence to permit a jury to
conclude that RentGrow's purported violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") was willful. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). I
would not address other issues. Safeco holds that in the absence
of actual knowledge of a violation of the statute, willfulness may
be shown by demonstrating recklessness. 551 U.S. at 57-59. Safeco
focuses on the test under the recklessness standard of whether
RentGrow's procedures were "objectively unreasonable." Id. at 69-
70. Here, RentGrow's procedures were plainly not "objectively
unreasonable."9 That should end the matter.
Safeco states that "there is no need to pinpoint the
negligence/recklessness line, for Safeco's reading of the statute,
albeit erroneous, was not objectively unreasonable." 551 U.S. at
9 RentGrow selected the best-available records provider,
reassessed that choice in comparisons with competitors, filtered
out those results to remove mismatches and unreportable
information, and responded promptly to disputes.
- 29 -
69. Safeco gives no guidance as to relative risk assessment.
Thus, I think we should go no further than the Supreme Court was
willing to venture.
In my view, as well, the "objectively unreasonable" test
applies whether the asserted violation is one of pure statutory
interpretation or one of application of the statutory standards to
particular facts. After all, in the FCRA, Congress referred to
the "reasonable[ness]" of the procedures used. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681e(b) ("Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a
consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information . . . ." (emphasis
added)).
Safeco, in its analysis of the "objectively
unreasonable" test, states that "no authoritative guidance ha[d]
yet come from the FTC" and "no court of appeals had spoken on the
issue," Safeco, 551 U.S. at 70 (emphasis added). I would approach
the analysis of McIntyre's reliance on the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau ("CFPB") Supervisory Highlights differently than
the majority. In my view, the question of what constitutes
"authoritative guidance" is not the same question as the adequacy
of notice. The words "authoritative" and "notice" are different
words and have different meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary
first defines "authoritative" as "[i]ssued by a person or group in
authority; proceeding from an official source and requiring
- 30 -
compliance or obedience." Authoritative, OED Online (Mar. 2022),
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/13346?redirectedFrom=authoritativ
e (last visited May 4, 2022). One circuit court has held that
CFPB "authoritative guidance" cannot be "authoritative" until
after it has gone through the Administrative Procedure Act's
notice-and-comment rulemaking or an administrative adjudication.
See Van Straaten v. Shell Oil Prods. Co. LLC, 678 F.3d 486, 488
(7th Cir. 2012) (holding that FTC bulletin "not only lacks a
definition but also has no authoritative effect; it is neither an
exercise in notice-and-comment rulemaking nor the outcome of
administrative adjudication."). We need not resolve that question
here.
Here, we know that the Supervisory Highlights is not
"authoritative guidance" because the CFPB itself states that the
Supervisory Highlights is not authoritative or binding. The
Supervisory Highlights states that the document "does not impose
any new or different legal requirements." Consumer Fin. Prot.
Bureau, Supervisory Highlights: Summer 2018, at 2 (2018). And
when the CFPB did publish a regulation through notice-and-comment
rulemaking on the "Role of Supervisory Guidance" in February 2021,
it stated that "supervisory guidance does not have the force and
effect of law. As such, supervisory guidance does not create
binding legal obligations for the public." Role of Supervisory
- 31 -
Guidance, 86 Fed. Reg. 9261, 9261 (Feb. 12, 2021) (to be codified
at 12 C.F.R. pt. 1074).
For the above stated reasons, I concur in the judgment.
- 32 -