Bryan Bandes v. TransUnion LLC

── Bryan Bandes v. TransUnion LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-3184 ___________ BRYAN L. BANDES, Appellant v. TRANSUNION LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00493) District Judge: Honorable Christy Criswell Wiegand ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 6, 2026 Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed ) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Bryan Bandes appeals from an order dismissing his Third Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We will affirm. I. Bandes filed this suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) against TransUnion LLC, a credit reporting agency, and Midland Credit Management Inc., a creditor that owns certain of Bandes’s credit-card debt. Bandes claimed that Midland furnished inaccurate information about that debt to Trans Union1 and that Trans Union then reported it. In particular, he claimed that it was inaccurate to report the debt as “active and in collections.” Bandes did not dispute that he incurred the debt and failed to repay it. Instead, he alleged that the debt could not be “in collections” because, although Midland filed suit to collect the debt in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Fayette County, that court dismissed the suit with prejudice for failure to prosecute.2 On the basis of that allegation, Bandes asserted a claim against Trans Union for reporting inaccurate information in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and a claim against Midland for furnishing inaccurate information in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). He also asserted claims against both defendants for willfully or negligently violating these provisions in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o, respectively. Both defendants 1 Trans Union uses this spelling in its brief, and we will do the same. 2 Bandes also alleged that Midland previously filed a suit that was dismissed without prejudice by a Magisterial District Court, but he has not relied on that disposition. 2 filed motions to dismiss Bandes’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and the District Court granted them and dismiss his complaint with prejudice. Bandes appeals.3 II. The District Court dismissed Bandes’s complaint on the ground that he did not allege any actionable inaccuracy in the report of his debt. We agree. A report is inaccurate under the FCRA if a reasonable reader would understand it to convey information that is materially false or misleading. See Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, 43 F.4th 331, 342-43 (3d Cir. 2022); Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 865 (3d Cir. 2014). Bandes did not allege in his complaint how the dismissal of Midland’s Fayette County suit made it inaccurate to describe his debt as “in collections.” But in his briefing in the District Court, he argued that the report is inac