Verizon Denies Culpability for FCRA Violations Alleged in Mo. Complaint

Verizon denies “any express or implied allegation of violation of law or of any wrongdoing,” said the carrier in its answer Tuesday (docket 4:22-cv-00637) in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, to an Oct. 7 complaint that it and Experian breached the Fair Credit Reporting Act (see 2210070053).

O’Fallon, Missouri, consumer Helen Pollak alleges Experian refuses to remove a fraudulent Verizon account from her credit profile and has provided no avenue to correct the record. Pollak's complaint said she finds it “profoundly unfair” Verizon can allegedly verify false information, and Experian “continues to let them do it.” Either Verizon “conducted no real investigation” of Pollak’s disputes, or the probes “were so lacking as to allow fraudulent information known to be false and highly damaging” to remain in Pollak’s credit file, it said.

Verizon answered the allegations by saying it reserves the right to compel Pollak’s dispute to “contractual arbitration.” It also asserted Pollak “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The carrier also asserted multiple defenses, all denying FCRA culpability. If Pollak suffered or sustained any injury, it said, “it was directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the intervening acts of others,” and not by Verizon.

Pollak’s claims also are barred “because restricting the conduct complained of constitutes an unconstitutional limitation on commercial speech under the First Amendment,” said Verizon. Any of Verizon’s acts giving rise to Pollak’s claims “were the result of an innocent mistake and/or bona fide error notwithstanding reasonable procedures implemented” to prevent such acts, it said. Verizon “at all times acted in a reasonable manner in connection with the transactions at issue in this action,” it said. That runs counter to one of the key allegations in Pollak’s complaint, that Verizon’s failures “are exacerbated by the sheer number of times it was contacted about this particular account.”

Pollak’s claims for punitive damages “are barred and invalid on their face,” or “reduced by applicable law or statute,” said Verizon. Her damages claims “are improper to the extent they violate the due process protections” of the Fifth and 14th amendments, plus the “equivalent provisions” of the Missouri constitution, it said.