Court Dismisses FCRA and TILA Claims Over Loan Extensions

A Pennsylvania court dismissed a borrower’s FCRA and TILA claims, ruling that contractually permitted payment extensions are accurate.

Ruth Louise Friend Jones, Plaintiff, v. Regional Acceptance Corporation, et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Truist Bank, No. 25-CV-2226, 2026 WL 1760280 (M.D. Pa. June 18, 2026)

By Christina Baker — Compliance Analyst

Note: ACA provides Daily Decisions as an educational benefit for members. The information presented in the Daily Decision does not reflect ACA’s views about the validity of the allegations or the conclusions reached by the courts.

Background:

In November 2025, a pro se plaintiff filed an action against Regional Acceptance Corporation and Truist Bank regarding a 72-month retail installment contract executed in 2016 to finance a personal vehicle. This contract, assigned to Regional, explicitly permitted the creditor to extend payment deadlines for customer delinquencies without waiving any underlying contractual rights.

After the plaintiff fell behind on car payments, Regional granted eight separate payment extensions over approximately 100 months. By the fall of 2025, the plaintiff still maintained an outstanding balance of $3,721.75. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), erroneously believing her payment obligations and the creditor’s rights automatically expired after the initial 72-month period.

Decision:

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire consumer action with prejudice. Addressing the FCRA claim, the court held that a data furnisher’s statutory duties under Section 1681s-2(b) are triggered only when reported credit information is demonstrably incomplete or inaccurate. Because the clear terms of the retail installment sales contract authorized Regional to amend the agreement and extend payment deadlines for delinquent accounts, there was nothing inaccurate about reporting the outstanding balance and payment history.

The court emphasized that a consumer’s subjective opinion regarding whether a credit report is misleading carries no weight in an analytical assessment of an accurate reporting claim. The plaintiff attempted to argue that the deadline extensions violated Maryland law, which governed the contract. However, in a footnote, the court noted that Maryland Code Annotated, Commercial Law Section 12-1006 explicitly permits practices — such as deadline extensions — which directly benefit consumer borrowers.

Turning to the TILA claim, the court affirmed that the statute and its regulatory framework govern initial credit offerings and specific material modifications. However, the disclosure requirements are entirely inapplicable to post-consummation payment due-date extensions. Because these temporary deferrals do not constitute a refinancing or a material alteration of the original loan amount or interest rates, they do not trigger any new disclosure obligations as a matter of law.

Furthermore, the court dismissed all claims against Truist Bank. The plaintiff’s specific objections and allegations against Truist relied solely on a generalized theory of vicarious liability and respondeat superior grounded in routine corporate oversight. The court clarified that liability under both the FCRA and the TILA requires specific factual allegations of direct involvement and cannot be sustained through vicarious responsibility alone. Finally, because all federal questions were resolved on the merits, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, rejecting the defendants’ counterargument for diversity jurisdiction because the complaint asserted only federal question jurisdiction.

ACA’s Take:

This ruling clarifies the power of a well-written contract. As in this case, when an agreement permits payment extensions, reporting the resulting deferred balances satisfies accuracy standards under consumer protection laws.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Ruth Louise Friend Jones, York, PA, Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendants:

Andrew M Carobus, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Philadelphia, PA
Jenny N. Perkins, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Philadelphia, PA