Cushman v. Trans Union: Why Credit Bureaus Can't Just "Parrot" the Bank
A cornerstone Third Circuit decision on what a credit bureau actually has to do when you dispute a fraudulent account — and why 'we called the bank and they said it's yours' is not an investigation.
The setup
Someone in Nancy Cushman's household fraudulently opened American Express, Citibank, and Chase cards in her name, running up roughly $2,400 in charges. When she disputed the accounts, Trans Union's "reinvestigation" was performed by a clerk paid $7.50 an hour who was expected to complete ten reinvestigations per hour. Her method: call the creditors and confirm that the reported data matched Trans Union's records. That was the entire process.
The holding
Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 1997). The Third Circuit reversed judgment for Trans Union. It held that a § 1681i(a) reinvestigation may require the bureau to go beyond the original furnisher — especially where the consumer has told the bureau the source itself may be unreliable (as in fraud cases) — and that the reasonableness question belongs to a jury.
"The 'grave responsibilit[y]' imposed by § 1681i(a) must consist of something more than merely parroting information received from other sources."
The court also wrote: "In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers."
Why it matters for New Jersey consumers
This is the case that defeats the bureaus' standard playbook in identity-theft disputes — forwarding your dispute to the very creditor that got defrauded, then "verifying." When you've told Equifax, Experian, or TransUnion that the account is fraud and they verify it anyway without independent inquiry, Cushman is why that can be a jury question in the Third Circuit — and why punitive damages stay on the table.
What to do
Dispute in writing. Say explicitly that the account is fraudulent and that the furnisher's records are unreliable because the furnisher is the entity that was defrauded. Attach an FTC Identity Theft Report and a police report if you have one. Keep every response the bureaus send. If you need the mechanics, see our guide on writing a § 1681i dispute letter and our overview of what to do when someone opens a credit card in your name.
If the bureaus have "verified" a fraud account on your report, that verification may itself be the FCRA violation. Start at our FCRA attorney page for a free case review.
FCRA Attorney — Case Law Library
The Third Circuit and Supreme Court decisions that decide FCRA cases in New Jersey.
Learn morePhilbin v. Trans Union: the mixed-file case that defined FCRA accuracy claims
The Third Circuit's roadmap for a §1681e(b) accuracy claim — the exact fact pattern behind Jr./Sr. mix-ups today.
Case Law LibrarySeamans v. Temple: technically accurate reporting can still violate the FCRA
Omitting a bona fide dispute — or key dates — can make technically true reporting materially misleading.
Case Law LibraryThe trap in disputing directly with your bank: SimmsParris v. Countrywide
In the Third Circuit, a furnisher's FCRA duties are triggered only by a dispute routed through the bureau.
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Kane Law Firm, LLC or any of its attorneys. Laws vary by state and change over time, and the application of the law to any specific situation depends on the particular facts. Do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read here without consulting a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Contacting us through this website, by email, or by phone does not create an attorney-client relationship; that relationship is formed only by a signed written engagement agreement. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This material may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of some jurisdictions.
