�鶹ֱ��

The Eighth Circuit’s June 25, 2026, decision in Fraase v. Advantage Credit Bureau, No. 25-1872,[1] reinforces a critical defense for consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) in Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) litigation. Affirming summary judgment for Advantage Credit Bureau (ACB), the three-judge panel — Chief Judge Colloton, and Judges Gruender and Kobes (writing) — held that ACB did not violate Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA when it included Plaintiff’s twin brother’s speeding ticket on Plaintiff’s report after relying on an official state court website that treated the two brothers as if they were a single person.

The decision tracks the Seventh Circuit’s seminal holding in Henson v. CSC Credit Services, 29 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1994), confirming that the FCRA is not a strict liability statute and that CRAs are not required to second-guess official court record systems absent evidence of systemic unreliability.

Background: A Twin Mix-Up in the Court’s Own System

Plaintiff Austin Stuart Fraase applied for a full-time maintenance technician position with the Fargo Park District in May 2023. As part of its standard hiring process, Fargo Parks ordered a background check from ACB. An ACB employee searched the North Dakota Courts’ official public website using Plaintiff’s first name, last name, and full date of birth — precisely the identifying fields required under ACB’s own procedures.

The search returned a single result: a speeding conviction listed under the name “Fraase, Aaron Stuart” — Plaintiff’s identical twin brother. The West Fargo Municipal Court had grouped the brothers together under a single “case jacket” because their names were very similar and their dates of birth identical. The North Dakota Courts’ website listed “Fraase, Austin Stuart” as an “also known as” (AKA) alias for Plaintiff’s twin brother, Aaron Stuart Fraase. An ACB employee reviewed the case docket, saw “Fraase, Austin Stuart” listed as an AKA, and included the speeding conviction in Plaintiff’s background report. A second background check returned the same result by the same process.

Importantly, Fargo Parks hired Plaintiff without any delay attributable to the background check. He began his new full-time role on June 19, 2023. ACB mailed adverse action notices informing Plaintiff of his right under the FCRA to dispute the report; he never did. Plaintiff nevertheless filed suit, alleging ACB failed to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). The District Court (Chief Judge Peter D. Welte) granted summary judgment for ACB on two independent grounds: (1) ACB maintained and followed reasonable procedures as a matter of law; and (2) Plaintiff suffered no actual damages as a result of ACB’s alleged conduct.

The Eighth Circuit’s Holding: Reasonable Reliance on Court Records Defeats Liability

The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the first ground — reasonable procedures — without reaching the issue of damages. The court confirmed that “[t]he FCRA is not a strict liability statute.” Rydholm v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 44 F.4th 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 2022). A CRA is not liable when “information [] received from a source that it reasonably believes is reputable [] turns out to be inaccurate unless the agency receives notice of systemic problems with its procedures.” Id.

The court held that ACB’s reliance on the official North Dakota Courts website was reasonable as a matter of law. Citing Henson, the court noted that holding CRAs responsible for court-system errors “would require credit reporting agencies to go beyond the face of numerous court records to determine whether they correctly report information” — a burden that would “substantially increase the cost of their services.”

The court rejected arguments that ACB should have had written twin-specific procedures, or that discrepancies in the first names should have prompted further investigation. Such minor discrepancies do not constitute the “facial inaccuracies” requiring deeper inquiry, particularly where the court website itself grouped the information within the same case jacket. The court distinguished Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010), where significant discrepancies in name, date of birth, and citizenship supported a negligence finding.

Practical Implications for CRAs and Compliance Professionals

Fraase offers CRAs several important takeaways:

1. Official court record systems remain presumptively reliable. The Eighth Circuit applied Henson to encompass official public-facing court websites. CRAs relying on comparable portals should be well-positioned to defend against § 1681e(b) claims, provided no systemic problems have been brought to their attention, and no obvious inaccuracy appears on the face of the records.
2. Documented procedures and training matter. ACB’s experienced screening staff, cross-training practices, and standard matching policies were central to the court’s analysis. CRAs should train staff consistently and document steps for searching public records.
3. Notice of systemic problems is the pivot point. The holding turned on the absence of evidence that ACB was on notice of systemic reliability problems with the North Dakota Court’s official public website. CRAs should audit their vendors and monitor consumer complaints that could constitute such notice — and act promptly when it arises.
4. Inaccuracy alone is insufficient for liability. The FCRA is not a strict liability statute, and proof of an inaccurate report does not, by itself, establish a § 1681e(b) violation. The plaintiff must also show the CRA failed to follow reasonable procedures in preparing the report.
5. The damages and causation elements are meaningful safeguards. Though not reached on appeal, the district court independently held Plaintiff suffered no actual damages — no lost job, no delayed start, no medical evidence of emotional distress — that were caused by ACB’s allegedly inaccurate reporting. This illustrates that even technically inaccurate reports may not give rise to FCRA liability where no adverse action materializes.

Conclusion

Fraase v. Advantage Credit Bureau is a significant published opinion with which CRAs, background screening companies, and their counsel should familiarize themselves. It reaffirms and extends the Henson framework within the Eighth Circuit, providing concrete guidance on the scope of reasonable reliance on public record information like court websites. While the decision is favorable precedent for CRAs, it also serves as a reminder to audit vendors, reinforce staff training, and document procedures to reduce litigation risk.

[1] �鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP represented Advantage Credit Bureau in the district court proceedings and on appeal.