4th Cir.: Fernandez v. Rentgrow- Standing for FCRA Violation Requries Evidence that Misleading Information was read and understood

Summary:

In Fernandez v. RentGrow, Inc., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s class certification in a case where plaintiff Marco Fernandez sued RentGrow under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Fernandez alleged that RentGrow included misleading Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) alerts (flagging potential matches to a U.S. Treasury list of criminals) in its tenant screening reports without adequate accuracy procedures, harming his reputation. The district court certified a class, reasoning that all affected individuals suffered harm simply from the dissemination of inaccurate information.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that concrete reputational harm for Article III standing requires more than just disseminating a report; the recipient must read and understand the misleading information. Evidence showed the property manager reviewing Fernandez’s report did not comprehend the OFAC alert, meaning no reputational harm occurred. Since Fernandez lacked standing, the court ordered the lower court to re-evaluate class certification based on this understanding of harm and standing requirements.

With proper attribution,  please share this post.