McDaniel v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-CV-00500-KDB-MTO (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2026)
In McDaniel v. Experian, the Western District of North Carolina provides a useful reminder of an increasingly important distinction in Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation: a consumer’s dispute over whether she should have to pay a debt is not, standing alone, an “inaccuracy” in her credit report.
The case began with what was essentially a consumer contract dispute with Verizon. In September 2022, Tigress McDaniel obtained Verizon wireless and home Wi-Fi service, along with promotional iPhones and Apple Watches. She cancelled the services several months later, contending that Verizon had failed to provide the promised “best service.” Verizon then charged the remaining non-promotional device balances and other amounts, ultimately reporting an unpaid balance of approximately $5,332.
McDaniel disputed the account with Experian and TransUnion. Both credit reporting agencies investigated and confirmed the reporting. She then brought claims under the FCRA, along with negligence and breach-of-contract claims.
The FCRA Claims
The federal court first disposed of any claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a), reiterating that there is no private right of action for violations of that subsection governing the initial furnishing of information. The court cited, among other authority, Lovegrove v. Ocwen Home Loans Servicing and the Eastern District of North Carolina’s decision in Weber v. Specialized Loan Servicing.
The more important discussion concerns claims under § 1681s-2(b) against furnishers and § 1681i against credit reporting agencies.
Relying particularly on the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Roberts v. Carter-Young, Inc., 131 F.4th 241 (4th Cir. 2025), the court held that an FCRA plaintiff must first identify information that is inaccurate or incomplete, and that the alleged inaccuracy must be “objectively and readily verifiable” by the furnisher. The court similarly noted that a reinvestigation claim under § 1681i necessarily requires an inaccuracy in the consumer report.
That threshold requirement doomed McDaniel’s claims.
She did not contend that she had never entered into the Verizon contract, had not received the devices, had returned the devices, had paid the balance, or that Verizon had forgiven or compromised the debt. Instead, her position was essentially that Verizon had breached the underlying agreement by failing to provide satisfactory service and therefore she should not have to pay the resulting charges.
As Judge Kenneth Bell put it:
“McDaniel’s belief that she should not have to pay the balance does not render the balance inaccurate.”
Indeed, the documents McDaniel herself attached confirmed the contract, the devices, the outstanding balance, and Verizon's reporting of the account as charged off. Without a plausibly alleged factual inaccuracy, the FCRA claims failed.
The derivative negligence claim likewise failed.
The Contract Claim Goes Back to Small Claims Court
That did not necessarily mean Verizon was right about the underlying contract dispute.
After dismissing the federal claims, the district court expressly declined to decide the merits of McDaniel’s breach-of-contract claim. With the FCRA claims gone, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remanded the remaining contract claim to Mecklenburg County Small Claims Court.
That procedural distinction matters.
The district court did not hold that Verizon necessarily had a valid contractual right to the money. It held that, based on McDaniel’s allegations and exhibits, the existence of that contractual dispute did not make the reported balance factually inaccurate for purposes of the FCRA.
Commentary
For consumer attorneys, McDaniel is another warning against trying to turn every dispute about the legal enforceability of a debt into an FCRA dispute about the accuracy of credit reporting.
Those are not always the same thing.
A consumer might have defenses to payment because of breach of contract, statute of limitations, arbitration, recoupment, discharge, settlement, or some other legal doctrine. But if the underlying facts being reported—existence of the account, original balance, payment history, charge-off, or similar information—are themselves accurate, an FCRA claim may stumble at the starting gate.
Conversely, McDaniel should not be read too broadly. There remains an important difference between a genuinely collateral legal dispute and information that is itself objectively wrong or misleading. Here, however, the plaintiff’s own exhibits apparently established virtually every factual component of the tradeline. Her disagreement was with the legal consequence of Verizon’s alleged breach.
That distinction also makes McDaniel particularly relevant to bankruptcy practitioners.
Post-bankruptcy credit reporting disputes often involve precisely the question McDaniel highlights: What exactly is inaccurate? Saying “this debt was included in bankruptcy,” “I don't owe this anymore,” or “the creditor violated the discharge” is not enough by itself. Counsel should identify the particular field or representation that is factually false or materially misleading—balance due, past-due amount, payment status, account status, date of delinquency, collection activity, or some combination thereof.
The stronger FCRA case therefore begins not merely with a legal theory about why the creditor cannot collect, but with a careful side-by-side comparison of:
what actually happened, what the bankruptcy or other governing law requires, and what the furnisher and CRA are telling third parties happened.
Where those diverge in an objectively verifiable way, the FCRA may provide a remedy. Where the dispute is simply over who should prevail in the underlying contract case, McDaniel indicates that the proper courthouse may be somewhere else.
The court ultimately permitted amendment, dismissed the FCRA and negligence claims, granted Experian’s motion to dismiss, and remanded the remaining contract dispute to state small claims court.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments