Summary:
Anthony Giordano enrolled in Experian's CreditWorks credit-monitoring service in June 2024, agreeing to Terms of Use containing a broad arbitration provision.
In December 2025, Giordano sued Experian and other defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and defamation. Experian moved to compel arbitration, relying on an agreement expressly covering FCRA claims, including those arising before enrollment or after termination.
Giordano did not oppose the motion.
Judge Kenneth Bell granted arbitration and stayed the entire lawsuit, including claims against other defendants, because the proceedings would involve overlapping factual issues.
Commentary:
The Credit Monitoring Trap
There is considerable irony in consumers enrolling in credit-monitoring services to protect themselves from inaccurate reporting, only to discover that doing so may restrict their ability to pursue those very claims in court.
This is particularly concerning for bankruptcy debtors seeking to ensure that discharged debts are accurately reported. Consumers can instead obtain free credit reports through AnnualCreditReport.com, without necessarily agreeing to commercial monitoring terms.
One Arbitration Agreement Can Halt the Entire Case
Perhaps more troubling, Experian's arbitration provision resulted in a stay against all defendants, including those who had not sought arbitration.
Since FCRA litigation frequently involves reporting agencies, creditors, and debt collectors, an arbitration agreement benefiting one defendant may substantially delay claims against everyone.
Could Bankruptcy Rejection Eliminate These Arbitration Agreements?
Giordano also suggests a possible bankruptcy strategy: Should debtors list Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion as counterparties to executory contracts when they have agreed to credit-monitoring services containing arbitration provisions?
Under 11 U.S.C. § 365, executory contracts not assumed in Chapter 7 are generally deemed rejected, while Chapter 13 plans can expressly provide for rejection under § 1322(b)(7).
And would a bankruptcy judge even approve assumption of an agreement that potentially limits the debtor's future statutory remedies?
Rejection might provide an argument against subsequent enforcement of arbitration provisions. However, under Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology, 587 U.S. 370 (2019), rejection constitutes a breach, not rescission, so arbitration provisions might survive. Whether these agreements are executory contracts and whether their arbitration provisions survive rejection remain open questions worth exploring.
Bankruptcy Implications
Importantly, arbitration of FCRA claims is distinct from enforcement of the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524, where bankruptcy courts retain authority to enforce their own orders.
And because Giordano did not oppose arbitration, the Court never considered potential challenges to contract formation, scope, or enforceability.
The broader concern is that consumers seeking to protect their financial fresh start may unknowingly surrender important procedural rights simply by enrolling in a service intended to help protect that fresh start.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments