Jury awards $2.865 million in FCRA case against Horizon Bank

A federal jury in Arizona awarded $2,865,000 against Horizon Bank after finding willful Fair Credit Reporting Act violations tied to inaccurate debt reporting. The verdict underscores the financial exposure lenders face when they keep reporting debts that courts have already invalidated.

Why it matters: - The verdict signals that willful credit-reporting violations can trigger major punitive and compensatory damages. - The case centers on harm to a consumer’s creditworthiness after a bank kept reporting a debt a state court had already found invalid. - The outcome may sharpen scrutiny of banks’ internal reporting and dispute-handling practices.

What happened: - A federal jury awarded $2,865,000 against Horizon Bank. - The jury found Horizon Bank acted with willful disregard for the Fair Credit Reporting Act. - The case involved Fabian Huizar, who was harmed by continued reporting of a debt tied to an improper vehicle repossession in 2018. - A state court had already declared that Huizar owed nothing. - Horizon Bank continued to verify and report the debt to credit bureaus after that ruling.

The details: - The verdict reflects both punitive and compensatory measures tied to the bank’s reporting conduct. - The reporting issue centered on a debt that did not exist after the state court ruling. - Consumer Justice Law Firm said the case shows financial institutions cannot ignore legal obligations or the impact of reporting errors on consumers. - Duran Keller, who represented Huizar, called the verdict “a warning” and said, “This $2.86 million verdict is a starting point.” - Keller is a partner at Consumer Justice Law Firm, but he handled Huizar’s case as a personal client before joining the firm. - Consumer Justice Law Firm was founded by attorneys David Chami and Daniel Cohen. - The firm describes itself as a nationwide consumer protection practice focused on fair treatment and corporate accountability. - More information is available in the firm's announcement.

Between the lines: - The verdict suggests juries may treat repeated credit reporting after a court ruling as a serious compliance failure, not a paperwork error. - The case also shows how credit reporting disputes can turn into high-stakes litigation when inaccurate information affects a consumer’s financial future.

What's next: - Horizon Bank could face further legal or compliance fallout from the verdict. - The ruling may encourage consumers and attorneys to pursue stronger claims when inaccurate credit reporting continues after a court decision. - Banks and servicers may need to recheck how they verify debts before sending information to credit bureaus.

The bottom line: - A federal jury put a multi-million-dollar price tag on ignoring a court ruling and keeping an invalid debt on a consumer’s credit record.