Credit Sweep Dispute Letter Tactic on Proving Harm: Spokeo Inc v Robins

Today we're talking about another dispute letter method for dispute letters to the bureaus and how to prepare yourself if deciding to sue the credit bureaus. Video Notes: If you're at the point where you disputed inaccuracies on your credit report, and it came back verified as accurate from the credit bureaus, then this is a video that you want to watch, because we're going to go over another dispute tactic that you should be aware of, especially right now, after a sort of recent lawsuit Spokeo, Inc, versus Robins and how this has changed your ability to sue the Bureau's based on those inaccuracies. So the first thing that you need to be aware of is that you need to be logging all the harm, "harm" and injury that these inaccuracies they're reporting, causing you. First of all, we're all in this one proving harm, but so you sent out a dispute and it came back verified as accurate. Now what? Well, you're going to request an investigation was going to be a reinvestigation, and you're going to choose a new dispute reason. And that's going to be based off of their biggest ammo, right, get last active date, less paid notices for you charges, monthly payments, etc. The way that you want to write this is and it doesn't have to be verbatim, but I'm requesting a reinvestigation of this inaccurate information because you did not correct or remove the FCRA regulations. Your second one is going to be independent investigation and next dispute reason and again, you're choosing your dispute reason based off your biggest ammo. Okay, so you could say something like, I don't believe you've done an independent investigation, and are only forwarding me the quote unquote, results, the furniture provided to you without going beyond the original source of info after a request for reinvestigation. Because of this, I'm requesting removal of this inaccurate information immediately, and I've logged this as negligence. Now, here, here's why this is important. If we go over to the Supreme Court decision, I've highlighted a couple of things. But if spokeo sounds familiar, it's because I'm referring to the website spokeo. Well, Robin's sued spokeo and the whole thing was is that before spokeo spoke, you Inc versus Robins, most courts held that an individual whose rights under the FCRA had been violated has suffered an injury in fact, and had article three standing to sue in federal court regardless of whether the plaintiff sought actual damages. However, here's the important part post spokeo, where the plaintiff doesn't seek actual damages, but instead statutory damages for willful violations. Practitioners shouldn't be ready to address the issue of article three standing which is injury, okay, article three standing has three elements, the plaintiff must have one suffered an injury and that's the part that they're talking about to that it's fairly traceable to the challenge conduct of the defendant and three likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Okay. So, in other words, you need to be able to prove that these inaccuracies harmed you. They harmed you now, in spokeo versus Robbins, though, the thing was, is that on spokeo, it was basically putting the defendant in a more positive light, it said that they were older, Married with Children employed relatively affluent, so on and so forth. Right. So that's something that is like, Okay, well, yeah, go ahead. And, you know, say that about me instead of being single and unemployed, obviously, right. So he lost he or she, whatever, they lost. Okay. So, obviously, there's no injury there. But because of this, now, this is being used to prove that, you know, hey, yeah, this stuff is inaccurate. But here's the thing. It doesn't matter that it's inaccurate, it didn't do anything to you. So when you're going in, you're writing your disputes, one of the things that you're going to want to do is list the actual harm or injury that these inaccuracies have caused you. Did you lose your job because they pulled your credit? Are you not able to get a better job because of your credit? What you want to do is when you're writing your disputes, not only are you asking for an actual reinvestigation and you know, using your next dispute reasons, but you're going to start putting in the way that their negligence or their failure to do this, that and the third like you know, actually delete because of said inaccuracy is is causing you to have injury or harm. If you haven't seen the inverted dispute, reason pyramid This is actually from one of my most recent videos as well as a couple of different ones on the inverted pyramid method and the pyramid method. *I may receive compensation for external links, such as IdentityIQ