Troutman Pepper Locke partner David Anthony and associate Noah DiPasquale co‑authored a recent article for the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section, “Reasonable Reinvestigation, Not Legal Adjudication: CRAs and Furnishers under the FCRA,” together with Jennifer Sarvadi of Hudson Cook. The piece examines how courts nationwide are refining what counts as a “reasonable” investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) reasonable procedures and reinvestigation provisions, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681i, and 1681s‑2(b).

Drawing on recent appellate decisions from the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, the authors discuss the developing case law establishing that CRAs and furnishers are liable only for failing to correct inaccuracies that are “objectively and readily verifiable” — concrete, historical facts that a reasonable investigation can confirm or refute — while disputes that turn on contract defenses, fraud allegations, or unsettled legal questions belong in court as direct challenges to the underlying obligation, not as collateral attacks in FCRA litigation. The article underscores that “reasonableness” does not require CRAs or furnishers to behave like tribunals with subpoena power or to adjudicate the legal validity of debts, and it situates this “objectively and readily verifiable” standard as the modern boundary between actionable FCRA claims and impermissible collateral attacks on the debt itself.

You can read the full ABA article here.