Miller v. Equifax: two years of disputes over someone else's credit
Equifax merged Julie Miller's credit file with the file of a woman with the same name and a similar Social Security number, and did not fix it despite two years of disputes. In July 2013 an Oregon federal jury awarded $180,000 in compensatory damages and $18.4 million in punitive damages. The judge reduced the punitive award to $1.62 million and later awarded her lawyers $302,002.50 in fees.
A public record, not a client of this firm. Everything on this page comes from the court's orders and docket and the news report cited at the end. Usher Law Group did not represent anyone in this matter, we publish no results of our own, and nothing here predicts the outcome of any other case.
There were two Julie Millers. One lived in Oregon. The other lived in a different state, had a similar Social Security number, and had a negative credit record very different from the first Julie Miller's. Equifax put them in the same file.
When the Oregon Julie Miller found out, she did what consumers are told to do. She disputed. Then she disputed again. ABC News reported that she tried about eight times over roughly two years. Each time, according to the court, Equifax reported back that it had investigated her complaint. The file stayed merged.
The judge later described what those years were like, based on her trial testimony: she was frustrated, overwhelmed, angry, depressed and humiliated, afraid her identity would be misused and worried about her reputation. She did not seek medical treatment for any of it.
Equifax did not take steps to correct her file until she sued in 2011. At trial it argued that fixing the file only after a lawsuit was filed complied with its "policy."
What the law says
The Fair Credit Reporting Act puts two separate duties on a credit bureau, and Miller claimed Equifax broke both.
- Accuracy. A consumer reporting agency must follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information in a report (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)). A file that merges two people is inaccurate by definition.
- Reinvestigation. When you dispute an item, the agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days, and must notify the company that supplied the information within five business days, including all relevant information you sent (§ 1681i(a)(1), (2)).
She also claimed Equifax failed to disclose her whole file on request and sent her report to businesses with no permissible purpose to see it. For a willful violation, the FCRA allows actual damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees (§ 1681n(a)). Emotional distress counts as actual damage.
What the court did
The trial began on July 24, 2013 and lasted three days. It was undisputed that Equifax had merged the files. An Equifax technology vice president testified that this kind of merger was a "reasonable combination" that occurs with "regularity." A witness for Miller testified about other mixed-file cases in which juries had found Equifax violated the FCRA. Equifax's own witness put the share of consumer files with inaccurate information from mixed files at one to two percent, which the court noted means about two to four million Americans.
The jury found Equifax violated the FCRA negligently and willfully. It awarded $180,000 in compensatory damages and $18,400,000 in punitive damages.
Equifax asked the court to reduce the punitive award. On May 20, 2014, in an amended opinion, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown did, to $1,620,000, nine times the compensatory award, which she found was the most the Constitution allowed on this record. Three days later she ordered Equifax to pay $302,002.50 in attorney's fees and $380 in costs.
Miller v. Equifax Information Services
The jury's original award was $18.58 million. The court also awarded $302,002.50 in attorney's fees, payable by Equifax, on top of the damages.
Source: Amended opinion and order, D. Or. No. 3:11-cv-01231 (May 20, 2014). A public record of someone else's case, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
Both sides appealed. In 2015 Equifax was dismissed from the case on Miller's unopposed motion, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals on the parties' joint motion. The public docket does not say what, if anything, was agreed between them.
What it means for you now
If your credit report shows accounts you never opened, an address you never lived at, or a Social Security number that is not yours, you may have a mixed file. The signs and the fix are on the mixed files page.
- Dispute in writing and keep copies. Each dispute, each response, each date. In Miller, the number of disputes and the number of "investigated" responses told the story.
- Pull all three reports. A merge at one bureau may not appear at the others.
- Write down how it affected you. Denials, higher rates, lost apartments, and what it did to your sleep and your days. Miller recovered for emotional distress without medical treatment, based on her own testimony.
- Watch the clock. The FCRA allows two years from discovery, but no more than five years from the violation (§ 1681p).
Check what the credit bureau did
The FCRA requires a company found liable to pay the consumer's reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Miller is a public example of what that looks like: the fee award was separate from the damages. See failed disputes and who pays your lawyer.
The pages this story points to
Mixed files
How someone else's record lands in your file, and how to separate it.
Read →A dispute that went nowhere
When the bureau verifies an error, and what that makes possible.
Read →How to dispute
What to send, where, and what to keep.
Read →Sources. Miller v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 3:11-cv-01231-BR (D. Or.): Amended opinion and order reducing punitive damages (May 20, 2014); Opinion and order on attorney's fees (May 23, 2014); docket; ABC News, Jury awards $18.6M for Equifax credit report mix-up (July 2013); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681i, 1681n.
Common questions
What is a mixed file?
A mixed file is a credit file that combines information about two different people, usually because they share a name and have similar Social Security numbers or addresses. In Miller, the other woman had the same name, a similar Social Security number, a different state and a much worse credit history.
Why did the judge cut the jury's punitive award?
Punitive damages are limited by the Due Process Clause. The judge found Equifax's conduct reprehensible but held that, on this record, the constitutional limit was nine times the $180,000 compensatory award, so she reduced the punitive damages from $18.4 million to $1.62 million.
Who paid Julie Miller's lawyers?
The court ordered Equifax to pay $302,002.50 in attorney's fees and $380 in costs, under the FCRA's fee-shifting provision. That award was separate from, and in addition to, the damages.
Tell us what they did.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which laws the collector or the credit bureau broke, which deadline runs first, and what to save this week. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510The FDCPA and the FCRA require a company found liable to pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Our fee arrangement is confirmed in a written retainer before we begin. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language.