Facts

Wayne Skiles visited a Tesla dealership in Newport Beach. An employee asked Skiles if he would like to test drive a Tesla and Skiles agreed. He handed the employee his driver's license and later sued Tesla for how the information from his license was used. Skiles later filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) naming Tesla and Experian Marketing Services, Inc. as defendants based on the same facts. Tesla and Experian later moved to dismiss the SAC with prejudice.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant used the information on his driver's license to pull plaintiff's Experian credit score. Plaintiff did not consent to the credit check nor was he informed that his driver's license would be used for that purpose. As a result, plaintiff contended that defendants' conduct violated the Fair Credit Reporting act (FCRA).

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff failed to state a FCRA claim. First, the mosaic score that defendants pulled with plaintiff's information was not a consumer report under the FCRA. Instead, it qualified as a marketing offer because it was an invitation to apply for a line of credit and not a determination of credit eligibility. Moreover, defendants were not a consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA. Not only did plaintiff fail to allege facts supporting the contention that defendants engaged in the practice of assembling and evaluating credit reports, but since he failed to show the mosaic score was a consumer report then the agency that produced was not a consumer reporting agency. Ultimately, defendants contended that the SAC should be dismissed with prejudice.

Result

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice for plaintiff's failure to state a claim under the FCRA.