In Anderson v. EMC Mortg. Corp., — F.3d —-, 2011 WL 409095 (8th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a furnisher did not violate FCRA by failing to re-investigate a purported inaccuracy as to which month an account was past due on.  The Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff had failed to notify the CRA, and hence the furnisher, that the claimed inaccuracy was based on which month the late payment was made in.  The Court of Appeals implied that if the consumer does not properly put the furnisher on such notice of the claim, the claimed inaccuracy must not be material:


Assuming this theory was preserved in the district court by the last-minute submission of a third party’s June 2009 report, the “Your Credit Report” document failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact whether EMC violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681o and 1681s-2(b) by failing to investigate and correct an immaterial discrepancy as to which two months in 2007 Anderson’s account was thirty days past due. Because a furnisher’s obligation to conduct a reason-able investigation under § 1681s-2(b) arises when it receives a notice of dispute from a CRA, it need in-vestigate only “what it learned about the nature of the dispute from the description in the CRA’s notice of dispute.”   Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1157; see Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir.2005); Scheel-Baggs v. Bank of Amer., 575 F.Supp.2d 1031, 1040 (W.D.Wis.2008). Here, ACDVs from the defendant CRAs notified EMC that its reporting of the account as past-due for two months had been challenged. EMC investigated, correctly determined that the reported account status was accurate, and verified that information to the CRAs. Its duties as a furnisher of information under the FCRA required no more.