Gutti Rao v. Sleep Number Bed Inc

── Gutti Rao v. Sleep Number Bed Inc ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 24-3317 DR. GUTTI RAO, APPELLANT V. SLEEP NUMBER BED, INC; SYNCHRONY BANK _____________________________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV No. 2:23-cv-02150 Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, AND FISHER, Circuit Judges Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 20, 2026 Decided May 18, 2026 _____________________________ NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION* RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Appellant Dr. Gutti Rao appeals the District Court’s order granting appellees’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, we will affirm the order. I. BACKGROUND In December 2021, Rao set out to purchase a bed from Appellee Sleep Number Bed, Inc. (“Sleep Number”). At the point of sale, he was advised that the bed could be returned * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. within a ninety-day trial period if it did not suit him. A credit line in Rao’s name was then opened with Appellee Synchrony Bank (“Synchrony”), through which Sleep Number financed the transaction—without, Rao alleges, his knowledge or authorization. Rao sampled the bed, determined it was defective, and returned it within ninety days. In March 2022, Rao received a Notice of Default on the credit account with Synchrony. He alleges the credit card account was opened without his consent and that he never executed any documents, signed any forms, or requested any credit line from Synchrony nor Sleep Number. In July 2022, Rao’s counsel sent correspondence to Synchrony requesting termination of the credit card; Synchrony responded in August 2022, maintaining that the account had been properly issued. Shortly thereafter, counsel submitted notifications of dispute to all three major credit reporting agencies. Separately, Rao also filed a dispute with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It was not until October 2023—over a year after Rao’s notices to Synchrony and the credit reporting agencies—that Synchrony removed the credit information from Rao’s report and requested that the major credit bureaus delete the tradeline from his credit file. Rao sued Sleep Number and Synchrony in the District Court in February 2023. In response to his complaint, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Rao subsequently withdrew and brought another action in December 2023. After the appellees again moved to dismiss, Rao filed his operative complaint on March 26, 2024. The amended complaint pleaded six counts against Synchrony and Sleep Number. Against Synchrony, Rao alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 2 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Count I), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) (Count II). Against Sleep Number, he alleged a violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201–1 et seq. (Count V). Against both, he alleged common law credit slander, fraud, and civil conspiracy (Counts III, IV, and VI). In May 2024, the appellees filed another motion to dismiss once more under Rule 12(b)(6). On November 18, 2024, the District Court granted the appellees’ motions, dismissed all six cou