De Koning v. Trans Union LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-23331-BLOOM/Elfenbein
JOHANNES L. DE KONING,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS UNION LLC,
Defendant.
_________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Trans Union LLC’s (“Trans Union”)
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Motion”). ECF No. [34]. Plaintiff Johannes L. De Koning
(“De Koning”) filed a Response in Opposition (“Response”). ECF No. [36]. Trans Union filed a
Reply in Support (“Reply”). ECF No. [38]. The Court has reviewed the Motions, the supporting
and opposing submissions, the record, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow,
the Motion is granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In April 2025, De Koning reviewed his credit reports from three “nationwide consumer
reporter agencies”, each of which reported different delinquency information for the same
OpenSky credit card account. ECF No. [15] ¶ 8. Thereafter, on April 17, 2025, De Koning
submitted a consumer dispute to Trans Union “requesting reinvestigation pursuant to 15 USC §
1681i. Id. ¶ 10. On May 6, 2025, Trans Union “confirmed the tradeline was deleted, as reflected
in its written Investigation Results.” Id. ¶ 11. On May 25, 2025, De Koning found the OpenSky
tradeline reinserted into his Trade Union credit file. Id. ¶ 12. De Koning received no notice of the
reinsertion. Id. ¶ 13. De Koning submitted a subsequent dispute regarding the reinsertion, and
Case 1:25-cv-23331-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-23331-BLOOM/Elfenbein
2
Trans Union posted its “Investigation Results”, stating the tradeline was verified and updated. ECF
Nos. ¶¶ 15, 16. On June 1, 2025, De Koning requested a method of verification from Trans Union,
but Trans Union provided only generic and non-responsive answers. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18.
De Koning alleges Trans Union violated 15 USC § 1681i(a)(5)(B) for unlawful reinsertion
without notice (Count I), violated 15 USC § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii) for failure to provide method of
verification (Count II), and violated 15 USC § 1681n for willful non-compliance with the Fair
Credit Reporting Act or in the alternative violated 15 USC § 1681o for negligence (Count III). In
the Motion, Trans Union argues De Koning’s § 1681i claims fail as a matter of law because no
factual inaccuracy has been pled. ECF No. [34] at 3. Moreover, Trans Union contends De Koning’s
willfulness claims fail because “he fails to establish that Trans Union either knowingly or
recklessly failed to comply” with 15 USC § 1681i. Id. at 8. De Koning responds that, “[t]he dispute
does not concern the accuracy of historical payment data but rather Trans Union's disregard for
the procedural safeguards Congress required to ensure transparency and fairness in consumer
disputes.” ECF No. [36] at 1.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
“After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for
judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A party may move for judgment on the pleadings
if there are no material facts in dispute. See Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 404
F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1291 (11th Cir.
2002). In rendering judgment, a court may consider the substance of the pleadings and any
judicially noticed facts. Termilus v. Marksman Sec. Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20356 (S.D.
Fla. Feb. 19, 2016) (citing Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir.
1998)).
Case 1:25-cv-23331-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-23331-BLOOM/Elfenbein
3
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.” Guarino v. Wyeth LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2011). As such,
a complaint must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);
see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard
“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). Nor can a
complaint rest on “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)). “To survive a motion to dismiss
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
B. Fair Credit Reporting Act
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e, “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer
report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). “The
Act, however, does not make reporting agencies strictly liable for all inaccuracies.” Cahlin v. Gen.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1156 (11th Cir. 1991). If a consumer notifies the
consumer reporting agency of a dispute as to the “completeness or accuracy of any item of
information contained” in the file, “the agency shall...conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to
determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the
disputed information, or delete the item from the file...before the end of the 30-day period[.]” 15
U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A); Mesa v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance, Case No. 16-24577-Civ, 2018 WL
1863743, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2018) (“[W]here a consumer notifies an agency that he or she
disputes the completeness or accuracy of any item in his or her file, the agency must conduct a
‘reasonable reinvestigation’ to determine whether the item is inaccurate and either record the item's
Case 1:25-cv-23331-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 3 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-23331-BLOOM/Elfenbein
4
status or delete it within 30 days.”), report and recommendation adopted, Case No. 16-24577-Civ,
2018 WL 11202683 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2018).
“If, after any reinvestigation...an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or
incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall-- (i) promptly delete that
item of information from the file of the consumer[.]” 15 U.S.C.§ 1681i(a)(5)(A). A consumer may
request a description of a consumer reporting agency's reinvestigation procedure, and the consumer
reporting agency must provide the description “by not later than 15 days after receiving a request
from the consumer for that description.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(7). Congress created a statutory
private right of action for negligent or willful violations of the duties imposed on a person under
the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n., 1681o.; Bresky v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., CASE NO. 0:20-CV-
62180, 2021 WL 2590132, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2021) (“Sections 1681n and 1681o provide for
private rights of action against those who willfully or negligently fail to comply with the FCRA's
requirements.”).
“To state a claim under § 1681e, the plaintiff must show that the agency's report contained
factually inaccurate information, that the procedures it took in preparing and distributing the report
weren't ‘reasonable,’ and that damages followed as a result.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 995
F.3d 937, 944 (11th Cir. 2021). As part of a plaintiff's showing, she “must ‘show that a credit
reporting agency prepared a report containing “inaccurate” information,’ which, if not shown, fails
to establish a violation of the FCRA.” Padilla v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 23-cv-60669, 2023
WL 4014700, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 12, 2023) (quoting Cahlin, 936 F.2d at 1156).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. De Koning’s § 1681i Claims Do Not Plead a Factual Inaccuracy
As his burden, the consumer must “show that a credit reporting agency prepared a report
containing ‘inaccurate’ information,” which, if not shown, fails to establish a violation of the Fair
Case 1:25-cv-23331-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 4 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-23331-BLOOM/Elfenbein
5
Credit Reporting Act. Cahlin, 936 F.2d at 1156; Lacey v. TransUnion, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-
519-02, 2021 WL 2917602, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2021) (“Plaintiff's claims under 15 U.S.C.
1681e(b) and 1681(i) [sic] require her to plead and prove an inaccuracy in her credit report or
credit file.”). The “maximum possible accuracy” standard is used for determining whether a
consumer report contains inaccurate information, which requires that the “information...be
factually true and also unlikely to lead to a misunderstanding.” Erickson v. First Advantage
Background Servs. Corp., 981 F.3d 1246, 1252 (11th Cir. 2020). This requires that a plaintiff show
that the consumer report was “factually incorrect, objectively likely to mislead its intended user,
or both[.]” Id.; see Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 98 F.4th 1359, 1367-68 (11th Cir.
2024) (same).
However, “factual allegations that are merely consistent with the Defendants’ liability do not
satisfy the Plaintiff's burden, as mere consistency does not establish plausibility of entitlement to
relief even if it supports the possibility of relief.” Lacey, 2021 WL 2917602, at *3. Indeed, “the
alleged inaccurate information” must be “objectively and readily verifiable” to the consumer
reporting agency. Holden, 98 F.4th at 1368. Blanket and conclusory assertions that a report was
inaccurate are insufficient to satisfy a plaintiff's burden. See, e.g., Daley v. Trans Union LLC, Case
No. 23-cv-24329, 2023 WL 7495089, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2023) (finding that the plaintiff's
allegations that “a certain item on his credit report was ‘not [his] debt’ and that the credit report
reflects inaccurate dates for the debt and the dollar amounts” were insufficient, as it was unclear
which debt the plaintiff claimed did not belong to him, because there were eleven accounts in the
credit report); Padilla v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., CASE NO. 23-CV-60669, 2023 WL 4014700,
at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 12, 2023) (finding that the plaintiff failed to show that the credit report
contained inaccurate information, as the plaintiff inadequately alleged “threadbare recitals” of the
Case 1:25-cv-23331-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 5 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-23331-BLOOM/Elfenbein
6
elements of an FCRA claim); Reyes v. Trans Union LLC, CASE NO. 24-cv-21045, 2024 WL
2976750, at *3-*4 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2024) (concluding that allegations that “Trans Union does
not reinvestigate disputed inquiries; does not notify the source of the disputed inquiry about the
consumers’ disputes of the information; does not provide the source with all the relevant
information about the dispute; and does not delete disputed inquiries that it cannot verify” were
insufficient to make a threshold showing of inaccurate information).
Here, De Koning identified “a material inconsistency in payment history reporting” among
three nationwide consumer reporting agencies. ECF. No. [15] ¶ 8. Trans Union argues De Koning
fails to “plausibly allege how or why the ‘payment history’ of the Account is somehow reporting
inaccurately.” ECF No. [34] at 5. Moreover, Trans Union contends that an “inconsistency” among
the three national consumer reporting agencies is not, as De Koning suggests, a “verifiable conflict
in the accuracy.” Id. The Court agrees with Trans Union. Inconsistent information across three
credit reports indicates not an objectively verifiable error, but rather a dispute about which version
is correct. See Verlus v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 23-CV-11426-DJC, 2025 WL 836588, at
*4 (D. Mass. Mar. 17, 2025) (“allegations of discrepancies of the dates of alleged late payments
between the Experian and TransUnion reports, without more, do not permit an inference that either
report contains ‘false or materially misleading’ information.”); see also Cruel v. Experian, No. CV
22-5236, 2023 WL 4140828, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2023) (“Plaintiff points to inconsistent
information between the three Defendants as evidence that the information is inaccurate; however,
Plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding what the accurate information actually is.”). De
Koning ultimately concedes factual inaccuracy in his Response, “[t]he dispute does not concern
the accuracy of historical payment data, but rather Trans Union’s disregard for the procedural
safeguards Congress required to ensure transparency and fairness in consumer disputes.” ECF No.
Case 1:25-cv-23331-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 6 of 7

Case No. 25-cv-23331-BLOOM/Elfenbein
7
[36] at 1. As such, because De Koning has failed to plead an objectively and verifiable factual
inaccuracy, his claims must be dismissed.
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings must be granted. Moreover, because De
Koning has indicated his claims do not concern “accuracy”, the Court finds any further attempt to
amend the Complaint would be futile. See Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(11th Cir. 2004) (“a district court may properly deny leave to amend the complaint under Rule
15(a) when such amendment would be futile.”).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. [34], is GRANTED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. 	The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 13, 2026.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
Johannes L. De Koning
7744 Collins Avenue
Apt. 15
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Pro Se
Case 1:25-cv-23331-BB Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026 Page 7 of 7