[hannah]

In March in the Wadley v. Experian case in the 4th District Court, the District Court erroneously accepted Experian's "accuracy only" argument and improperly dismissed the claim regarding its reinventigation duties. Because the District Court was misled by Experian regarding both the statutory scheme and this Court's case law, the court erred by not discussing the difference in the duties that Congress has required. The District Court's omission is shown by the absence of any citation to § 1681i and the lack of any discussion regarding the law and facts of this reinvestigation claim.

Today Wadley's Appeal was heard. The Appeals Court reversed and remanded, however it is unpublished. Attached is the Appeals Court decision and the NACA Amicus Brief filed in the original case.