In Reed v. First Premier Bank, 2011 WL 6153100 (D.S.D. 2011), Judge Schreier found for a furnisher against a consumer’s claim that the furnisher failed to report the account as disputed. Judge Schreier explained:
A furnisher cannot be held liable under section 1681s–2(b) simply for failing to report that a debt is disputed. Rather, a furnisher may only be liable if the omission is “misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to have an adverse effect.” See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1163 (9th Cir.2009); Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Virginia, 526 F.3d 142, 148 (4th Cir.2008); Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890, 895–95 (5th Cir.1998); Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37, 40 (D.C.Cir.1984). The Ninth Circuit explained that: In other words, a furnisher does not report “incomplete or inaccurate” information within the meaning of Section 1681 s–2 (b) simply by failing to report a meritless dispute, because reporting an actual debt without noting that it is disputed is unlikely to be materially misleading. It is the failure to report a bona fide dispute, a dispute that could materially alter how the reported debt is understood, that gives rise to a furnisher’s liability under Section 1681s–2(b). Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1163. Here, Reed alleges that she “doubted the veracity” of the reported charge-off. Docket 1 at ¶ 6. But she does not allege that she paid the debt or that she is not the individual responsible for the debt. In fact, Reed admits that she “fail[ed] in her obligation to the Defendant.” Id. at ¶ 5. Thus, Reed has not alleged a bona fide dispute that would require First Premier to report Reed’s debt as disputed to the credit bureaus.