JOHN PINSON

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

MARTIN, Circuit Judge:

After years spent trying to correct what he views as a false entry on his credit report, John Pinson sued the entity he believed provided the false information: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A (“JPMorgan Chase"). His pro se complaint asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. On JPMorgan Chase's motion, the District Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. Having reviewed Mr. Pinson's complaint, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude he has stated three plausible claims for relief under the FCRA. We therefore reverse in part and remand to the District Court to give Mr. Pinson the chance to prove his FCRA claims. However, we cannot say Mr. Pinson plausibly stated a claim under the FDCPA. We therefore affirm the District Court's dismissal of his FDCPA claim.

I.

John Pinson got a copy of his credit report from TransUnion, a consumer credit reporting agency, in May 2012.[fn¹] His report showed a past due account with an entity called Chase Home Finance LLC. But Mr. Pinson says he does not have an account with Chase Home Finance LLC. Mr. Pinson's explanation is that

JPMorgan Chase, with whom Pinson has a past-due mortgage,[fn²] used the false name Chase Home Finance when it reported the debt to TransUnion.

In July 2012, Mr. Pinson disputed the entry with both JPMorgan Chase and TransUnion. TransUnion responded a couple of weeks later with a letter saying Chase Home Finance would continue to appear on his credit report. There is no allegation JPMorgan Chase responded.

Mr. Pinson sent another letter to JPMorgan Chase in September 2012, again disputing the Chase Home Finance entry on his report. JPMorgan Chase did not respond. Undaunted, Mr. Pinson sent at least four more such letters to JPMorgan Chase in 2013. So far as the complaint shows, JPMorgan Chase never responded to any of those letters, either.

In April 2014, Mr. Pinson disputed the entry with TransUnion once again. TransUnion responded with another letter saying Chase Home Finance would continue to appear on the report. Mr. Pinson repeated his dispute in yet another letter to TransUnion in June 2014. TransUnion once again replied that the Chase Home Finance entry would continue to appear.

All told, Mr. Pinson wrote TransUnion three times and JPMorgan Chase at least six. Yet the Chase Home Finance entry still appeared on Mr. Pinson's credit report as of May 2015.

Throughout this back-and-forth, Mr. Pinson says JPMorgan Chase failed to investigate the accuracy of the information on his credit report. He also says JPMorgan Chase requested his credit report from Experian, another credit reporting agency, some twenty times without a proper purpose.

Mr. Pinson sued JPMorgan Chase in April 2016, asserting violations of the FDCPA and the FCRA.[fn 3] He asserts JPMorgan Chase violated the FDCPA's prohibition on using a name other than a business's true name in connection with the collection of a debt when JPMorgan Chase gave TransUnion the name Chase Home Finance. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14). He also claims JPMorgan Chase violated the FCRA by failing to investigate the accuracy of information it provided to TransUnion and by requesting his credit report without a permissible purpose. See id. §§ 1681b(f), 1681s-2(b), 1681o.

On JPMorgan Chase's motion, the District Court dismissed Mr. Pinson's complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mr. Pinson timely appealed. The Court appointed Ashwin

Phatak to represent Mr. Pinson on appeal, and he ably discharged his responsibilities.

II.

We review de novo our subject matter jurisdiction, and we have an independent obligation to ensure jurisdiction exists. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 408, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). We also review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hunt v. Aimco Props., L.P., 814 F. 3d 1213, 1221 (11th Cir. 2016). To state a claim, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). A complaint is facially plausible where there is enough factual content to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F. 3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

III.

We initially consider whether Mr. Pinson has standing to bring his claims. We conclude he does.

Standing, a limitation on federal subject matter jurisdiction derived from Article III, requires plaintiffs to show they suffered an injury in fact traceable to the defendant's conduct and redressable by a favorable decision. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1546–47 (2016). “To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'" Id. at 1548 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992)).

Mr. Pinson alleged actual, concrete, and particularized injuries: that he lost time communicating with JPMorgan Chase and TransUnion; that he incurred outof-pocket expenses trying to correct misinformation on his credit report; and that he was denied access to credit and paid higher car insurance premiums as a result of JPMorgan Chase's conduct. We have held that the time spent by a person attempting to correct a false credit report constitutes a concrete injury for purposes of an FCRA claim. See Pedro v. Equifax, Inc., 868 F. 3d 1275, 1280 (11th Cir. 2017) ("Pedro also alleged a concrete injury because she alleged that she lost time attempting to resolve the credit inaccuracies."").

In addition, economic harm is a quintessential injury in fact. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 1365 (1972) (“[P]alpable economic injuries have long been recognized as sufficient to lay the basis for standing . . . .").

Beyond the out-of-pocket expenses, such as postal expenses, incurred by Mr. Pinson in his repeated communications concerning the information in his credit report, he also alleges economic harm in the form of lost credit opportunities and higher car insurance premiums. Mr. Pinson says JPMorgan Chase's alleged violations of the FDCPA and FCRA caused this economic harm. At this stage in Mr. Pinson's case, we accept his allegations as true, and we find them specific enough for us to conclude Mr. Pinson plausibly suffered an injury traceable to JPMorgan Chase's conduct. See id. at 1336 (“Each element of standing ... must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." (quotation marks omitted)). This is particularly true given our liberal construction of Mr. Pinson's pro se complaint.

On top of lost time and money, the harm Mr. Pinson alleges "the reporting of inaccurate information about [his] credit"—has “a close relationship to the harm caused by the publication of defamatory information, which has long provided the basis for a lawsuit in English and American courts." Pedro, 868 F. 3d at 1279–80. That in itself constitutes a concrete injury. See id. at 1279; see also Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549 (noting that, in assessing whether an injury is concrete, “it is instructive to consider whether an alleged intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts").

These injuries flowed directly from JPMorgan Chase purportedly providing false information concerning Mr. Pinson's debt to TransUnion and from its repeated requests for Mr. Pinson's credit report. A court could redress Mr. Pinson's harms by giving him relief on his statutory claims. This suffices for standing.

IV.

JPMorgan Chase urges us to dismiss Mr. Pinson's complaint as a shotgun pleading. We decline to do so. A shotgun pleading is “a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F. 3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). The worst examples of shotgun pleadings contain "innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies,” Magluta v. Samples, 256 F. 3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam), “waste scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine the public's respect for the courts,” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F. 3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted). JPMorgan Chase summons these specters and asks us to dismiss Mr. Pinson's complaint. But our review of the complaint reveals this argument is more hyperbole than substance.

It is true that each count of Mr. Pinson's pro se complaint adopts the allegations of all preceding counts. It is also true that the complaint is perhaps longer than it needs to be. But it does not contain endless irrelevancies. And it does what complaints must do: it "give[s] the defendant[] adequate notice of the claims against [it] and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland, 792 F. 3d at 1323. We have no trouble understanding Mr. Pinson's allegations that JPMorgan Chase violated federal law by providing a false name to TransUnion, failing to investigate the accuracy of the information it provided, and obtaining Mr. Pinson's credit report for an improper purpose. We've seen no indication that JPMorgan Chase had trouble understanding them either. This would "explain why [JPMorgan Chase] did not move for a more definite statement” in the District Court. Id. at 1324. What's more, both JPMorgan Chase and the District Court understood the claims well enough to address their merits—JPMorgan Chase in a motion to dismiss, and the District Court in an order granting that motion. And while this circuit's shotgun-pleading rule applies to everyone, we ordinarily give pro se litigants more leeway when it comes to drafting. See, e.g., Dean v. Barber, 951 F. 2d 1210, 1213 (11th Cir. 1992) (explaining this Court would look at the pro se plaintiff's pleadings “with special care” because "[t]his circuit and the Supreme Court have stated that pro se complaints are given more leeway than complaints submitted by litigants represented by lawyers"). We will therefore consider Mr. Pinson's complaint on its merits.

V.

Assured of our jurisdiction and the sufficiency of Mr. Pinson's complaint, we now examine Mr. Pinson's FDCPA and FCRA claims. We conclude he has stated a plausible claim for relief only as to his FCRA claims.[fn 4]

A.

The FDCPA makes it unlawful for a "debt collector" to "use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. A debt collector violates this provision when it uses "any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization" in connection with the collection of a debt. Id. § 1692e(14).

Mr. Pinson alleges that JPMorgan Chase's use of the name Chase Home Finance on Mr. Pinson's credit report violated the FDCPA. We hold that Mr. Pinson did not plausibly allege that JPMorgan Chase qualifies as a “debt collector" under § 1692e.[fn 5]

1.

The FDCPA regulates “debt collector[s]," defined as persons who “regularly collect[] or attempt[] to collect" someone else's debts. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). The FDCPA ordinarily does not apply to creditors trying to collect their own debt. Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F. 3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2015). However, there are instances in which creditors collecting their own debt are deemed debt collectors under the statute. The FDCPA applies to “any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). We will refer to this as the false-name exception.

The false-name exception has three components: a creditor must (1) use a name other than its own (2) in a way that would indicate a third person is attempting to collect its debt (3) in the process of collecting its own debt. JPMorgan Chase quite plainly used a name other than its own on Mr. Pinson's credit report. However, we conclude Mr. Pinson's FDCPA claim flounders at the second component of the false-name exception, because JPMorgan Chase's use of the name Chase Home Finance did not indicate that a third person was collecting Mr. Pinson's mortgage.

This circuit has not set a standard for assessing when a name would indicate that a third party was involved in collecting the debt—or, put differently, from whose perspective we should assess whether a name would indicate a third party's involvement. We now join the Second and Seventh Circuits and hold that the false-name exception applies when the “least sophisticated consumer" would believe a third party was involved in collecting a debt. See Catencamp v. Cendant Timeshare Resort Grp.-Consumer Fin., Inc., 471 F. 3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 2006); Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Servs., Inc., 147 F. 3d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 1998). This standard has a long legacy in consumer protection law. Cf. FTC v. Standard Educ. Soc'y, 302 U.S. 112, 116, 58 S. Ct. 113, 115 (1937) (“The fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does not change its character, nor take away its power to deceive others less experienced."). We already use the least sophisticated consumer standard to interpret other substantive provisions of the FDCPA. See Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F. 2d 1168, 1173–75 (11th Cir. 1985) (addressing allegations of harassment and abuse under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d and false or misleading representations under §§ 1692e(5) and (10)). We see no need to adopt a different standard for analyzing the threshold issue of whether the FDCPA applies. This standard also promotes the FDCPA's purpose of protecting all consumers, “the gullible as well as the shrewd,” Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F. 2d 1314, 1318 (2d Cir. 1993), from “abusive debt collection practices,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e).

The objective, least sophisticated consumer standard protects “naive consumers” with a minimal understanding of personal finance and debt collection. LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F. 3d 1185, 1194 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). At the same time, it “prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices by preserving a quotient of reasonableness." Id. (quotation marks omitted). We presume the least sophisticated consumer “possess[es] a rudimentary amount of information about the world and a willingness to read a collection notice with some care." Id. (quotation marks omitted). We should not hold the least sophisticated consumer to the same standard as a reasonably prudent consumer. See Jeter, 760 F. 2d at 1172– 75 (reversing a district court's use of a "reasonable consumer” standard in an FDCPA case). The least sophisticated consumer, though not unreasonable, is "ignorant” and “unthinking,” id. at 1172–73, "gullible," and of "below-average sophistication or intelligence,” Clomon, 988 F. 2d at 1318–19. Whether the least sophisticated consumer would think a name indicates a third party's involvement in collecting a debt will ordinarily present a jury question, though of course whether a plaintiff pleads enough facts to state a claim is a question of law for the court. Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin, P.A., 791 F. 3d 1291, 1307 n.11 (11th Cir. 2015).

While the least sophisticated consumer standard is a low bar, Mr. Pinson cannot meet it. The least sophisticated consumer would not believe that Chase Home Finance was an unrelated third party attempting to collect on Mr. Pinson's mortgage with JPMorgan Chase. Applying the least sophisticated consumer standard to Mr. Pinson's circumstances is an objective inquiry. See Jeter, 760 F. 2d at 1174–75 & n.6. Standing in Mr. Pinson's shoes, even the least sophisticated consumer would understand that JPMorgan Chase and Chase Home Finance were related entities collecting his mortgage with JPMorgan Chase Bank.

Mr. Pinson took out a mortgage on his home with JPMorgan Chase Bank in 2005. See Pinson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 646 F. App'x 812, 813–814 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished). In this factual context, each part of the name "Chase Home Finance” suggests its association with Mr. Pinson's creditor, JPMorgan Chase. The word "Chase” in Chase Home Finance echoes the name of JPMorgan Chase, the holder of Mr. Pinson's mortgage. The words "Home Finance" call up the fact that Mr. Pinson had financed his home with the mortgage from JPMorgan Chase. Thus, even the least sophisticated consumer would connect Chase Home Finance with these "rudimentary" facts of his own mortgage with JPMorgan Chase. Because he took out a home mortgage with JPMorgan Chase, Mr. Pinson's perception of Chase Home Finance as a third-party debt collector rises to the level of idiosyncratic.

Other courts have applied the false-name exception similarly. See Thomas v. Commercial Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 8:07-cv-1104-T-23MAP, 2008 WL 11336625, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2008) (holding that the relationship between JPMorgan Chase and Chase Auto Finance is apparent from the names of the entities); Berk v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 11-2715, 2011 WL 4467746, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2011) (“No reasonable person would find that ‘Chase Auto Loans' is a false identification of . . . JPMorgan Chase Bank[.]"); see also Drew v. Rivera, No. 1:12-CV-9-MP-GRJ, 2012 WL 4088943, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2012) (stating that Citibank, South Dakota, N.A.'s use of the name "Citibusiness" in communications about credit card debt did not trigger the falsename exception, because it “could [not] possibly cause the least sophisticated consumer to have the false impression that a third party was collecting the debt");

Simon v. Nat'l City Mortg. Co., No. 2:09-cv-376-FtM-29DNF, 2010 WL 1539970, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2010) (holding that even the least sophisticated consumer would know from the language on collection notices that National City Mortgage Company and National City Bank were affiliated corporations); Burns v. Bank of Am., 655 F. Supp. 2d 240, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Even the least sophisticated consumer would be able to determine from cursory review of the correspondence from Bank of America Mortgage to Plaintiffs that Bank of America Mortgage is related to Bank of America." (alterations adopted and quotation marks omitted)), aff'd, 360 F. App'x 255 (2d Cir. 2010); Young v. Lehigh Corp., No. 80 C 4376, 1989 WL 117960, at *22 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 1989) (concluding that a debtor could not have been "duped into believing that Lehigh Corporation was not affiliated with Lehigh County Club, Inc.").

Mr. Pinson argues the least sophisticated consumer would be confused because the names "Chase Home Finance LLC” and “JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." indicate two different types of legal entities, a limited liability company and a bank. In Mr. Pinson's case, where the name “Chase Home Finance” on his credit report otherwise pointed to JPMorgan Chase Bank and his past-due home mortgage, the small discrepancy between “LLC” and “N.A.” would not reasonably give Pinson the impression of a third-party debt collector.

Mr. Pinson presses us to establish a bright-line rule requiring creditors to use the same exact name throughout their relationships with debtors to avoid FDCPA liability. Likewise, JPMorgan Chase proposes a bright-line rule precluding liability under the false-name exception whenever a creditor uses another name that contains a part of the creditor's name. Both rules sweep too broadly. The perspective of the least sophisticated consumer arises from the totality of circumstances, and we cannot properly adopt a per se rule. For instance, there may well be cases in which a creditor's use of a name that contains part of its own name could cause confusion to the least sophisticated consumer. On this record, however, the unsophisticated consumer could not plausibly have been misled.