In Ghazaryan v. Equinox Information Services, LLC., 2018 WL 5098835 (9th Cir. (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished opinion affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a consumer reporting agency.

In conducting a reinvestigation, a consumer credit reporting agency must “review and consider all relevant information” that the consumer submits regarding the disputed information, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(4); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.16(b), notify the furnisher within five business days, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.16(a), and “promptly” correct or delete from the consumer’s file any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A)(i); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.16(b).Viewing the factual record in the light most favorable to Ghazaryan, Equifax’s investigation was reasonable as a matter of law. Equifax notified Discover that Ghazaryan disputed being late on her credit card payment and stated that Discover representative Jordan “confirmed … that she was never late.” Equifax also passed along the phone number for Jordan that Ghazaryan had provided. Equifax transmitted this information “in the manner established with” Discover, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A), using ACDV, the “automated system” envisioned by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(D).Equifax had no duty, as Ghazaryan contends, “to resolve the ultimate contradiction between Discover’s response to the ACDV versus the confirmation of inaccuracy made by [Jordan].” “[C]redit reporting agencies are not tribunals. They simply collect and report information furnished by others.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 891 (9th Cir. 2010). Equifax had determined Discover to be a reliable source, and Ghazaryan gave Equifax no reason to question that determination. Therefore, Equifax was entitled to rely on Discover’s confirmation that Ghazaryan had missed a payment notwithstanding that this information ultimately proved to be inaccurate.