Verizon Denies FCRA Violations, Hints It Will Seek 'Contractual Arbitration'

Verizon “specifically denies” violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and further denies plaintiff Israel Mertz “sustained any damages whatsoever as a result of its alleged conduct,” said Verizon’s answer Thursday (docket 7:22-cv-10938) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains to Mertz’s Dec. 28 complaint (see 2212300022).

Mertz alleges he had a Verizon account set up on autopay when the company failed to process his payment in October 2021, then sent his account to a debt collector. Though Mertz asserts he ultimately satisfied the outstanding debt with Verizon, the company still began reporting a collections account on his credit report. Mertz’s complaint names Equifax and TransUnion as co-defendants, and TransUnion answered the FCRA allegations last month by asserting Mertz has himself to blame for his flawed credit history (see 2302140008).

Verizon reserves the right to compel Mertz’s dispute to “contractual arbitration,” said its answer. It “specifically denies” it acted “with any willfulness, oppression, or malice” toward the plaintiff, it said. If Mertz suffered or sustained “any loss, injury, damage or detriment,” it was “directly and proximately caused and contributed to” by the “misconduct of others,” and not by Verizon. TransUnion similarly blamed its co-defendants for any harm asserted by Mertz.

Mertz didn’t suffer “concrete harm,” and so he lacks Article III standing, said Verizon. Any alleged “acts or omissions” of Verizon giving rise to Mertz’s “were the result of an innocent mistake and/or bona fide error notwithstanding reasonable procedures implemented” to avoid such acts or omissions, it said. Verizon “at all times acted in a reasonable manner in connection with the transactions at issue in this action,” it said.

Verizon denies liability for any punitive damages in the case, and asserts Mertz’s claims for punitive damages “cannot be sustained,” said the company. Laws on the standards for determining liability for punitive damages failed to give Verizon “prior notice of the conduct for which punitive damages may be imposed,” it said. Mertz’s claims for punitive damages “are void for vagueness,” in violation of Verizon’s due process rights under the Fifth and 14th amendments and similar provisions of the New York State Constitution, it said.