In Scarbo v. Wisdom Fin., No. 22-1398, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31020, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 9, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that a furnisher conducted a reasonable investigation as a matter of law.

We conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of LVNV and Great Lakes on Scarbo’s claims under the FCRA. Scarbo failed to introduce any direct or circumstantial evidence that either LVNV or Great Lakes did not conduct reasonable investigations with respect to the disputed information. See Chiang v. Verizon N. Eng. Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2010) (“The burden of showing the investigation was unreasonable is on the plaintiff.”). Scarbo’s complaints about the accounts, which were forwarded by the CRAs to LVNV and Great Lakes, were vague at best and failed to specifically identify the alleged errors or otherwise explain or support why information was believed to be inaccurate or incomplete. See Seamans, 744 F.3d at 865 (stating that “where a given notice contains only scant or vague allegations of inaccuracy, a more limited investigation may be warranted.”). To the extent that Scarbo claims that the investigations were unreasonable because a reasonable investigation would have revealed the inaccuracies alleged, her conclusory assertion is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 287 (3d Cir. 2014) ( “[A]n inference based upon a speculation or conjecture does not create a material factual dispute sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” (quoting Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 382 n. 12 (3d Cir. 1990)). The discrepancies noted by Scarbo regarding account opening dates and updates to addresses are not material to and have no other bearing on the reasonableness of the investigations.