Quick Answer: ET Cummings filed a Complaint for Money Owed against Affirm, Inc. in the District Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, alleging that Affirm reported inaccurate delinquency and failure-to-pay information to TransUnion and Experian despite his multiple emails and phone calls to resolve the matter, adversely impacting his credit score. Affirm removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). These are allegations only; no finding of liability has been made.
Case Update — August 4, 2026
2026-03-11: Doc 2 — Corporate Disclosure Statement — Link
2026-03-13: Case Assigned/Reassigned — Link
2026-03-13: Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence — Link
2026-03-13: Doc 3 — Extension of Time — Link
2026-03-16: Order on Motion for Extension of Time — Link
2026-03-25: Doc 4 — Remand — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 6 — Order on Motion for Extension of Time — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 5 — Extension of Time — Link
2026-04-08: Doc 7 — Response in Opposition to Motion — Link
2026-04-08: Doc 8 — Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim — Link
2026-04-08: Doc 9 — Memorandum in Support of Motion — Link
2026-04-13: Doc 10 — Reply to Response to Motion — Link
2026-04-13: Doc 11 — Response in Opposition to Motion — Link
2026-04-13: Doc 12 — Response in Opposition to Motion — Link
2026-04-14: Doc 13 — Extension of Time — Link
2026-04-16: Doc 15 — Order on Motion for Extension of Time — Link
2026-04-16: Doc 14 — Reply to Response to Motion — Link
2026-04-21: Doc 16 — Leave to File Document — Link
2026-04-21: Doc 17 — Amended Complaint — Link
Primary Source: View Notice of Removal with Complaint (PDF) — Cummings v. Affirm, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00190
Facts as Alleged in the Complaint
The following facts are taken from the Complaint for Money Owed filed by ET Cummings against Affirm, Inc. (c/o CT Corporation System) in the District Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on January 30, 2026, Case No. 26CV005764-590, as described in Affirm’s Notice of Removal filed March 11, 2026. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.
The Parties
- Plaintiff ET Cummings is a resident of Mooresville, North Carolina.
- Defendant Affirm, Inc. was named and served through its registered agent, CT Corporation (Affirm, Inc.), at 330 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203.
Factual Allegations
- On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Money Owed in the District Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Small Claims Division, Case Number 26CV005764-590, captioned ET Cummings v. CT Corporation System (Affirm, Inc.).
- On February 9, 2026, Plaintiff served Affirm with a Magistrate Summons and a copy of the Complaint.
- Plaintiff sent multiple emails to Affirm regarding the matter at issue.
- Plaintiff made three phone calls to Affirm regarding the matter at issue.
- Despite Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to communicate and resolve the dispute, Affirm reported negatively to TransUnion and Experian that Plaintiff was delinquent and had failed to pay.
- Affirm’s negative reporting had an adverse impact on Plaintiff’s credit score.
- Plaintiff’s Complaint makes allegations regarding his credit report and essentially asserts violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
Claims for Relief
Claim: Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts that Affirm violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting inaccurate delinquency and failure-to-pay information to the credit reporting agencies TransUnion and Experian, despite Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to resolve the dispute through emails and phone calls. The FCRA requires furnishers of credit information to investigate disputes and correct or delete inaccurate information.
Remedies Sought
Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Money Owed in Small Claims Court seeking monetary damages. The specific amount sought is characteristic of small claims filings in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The Daily Money Brief — Free, at 10 AM
Money you may be owed, scams to dodge, and the fine print decoded — the consumer money news that affects your wallet, every weekday.
- Monetary damages for harm caused by inaccurate credit reporting
- Correction of inaccurate information reported to TransUnion and Experian
Procedural History
- January 30, 2026 — Plaintiff ET Cummings filed a Complaint for Money Owed in the District Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Small Claims Division (Case No. 26CV005764-590).
- February 9, 2026 — Plaintiff served Affirm with a Magistrate Summons and a copy of the Complaint.
- March 11, 2026 — Affirm filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (Case No. 3:26-cv-00190), asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the FCRA claims.
About This Coverage
I monitor federal court cases involving debt relief companies as an educational resource for consumers, other companies in the industry, and regulators. This project began on February 27, 2026, and covers cases filed on or after February 20, 2026. Cases filed before that date are not included. I am currently monitoring 334 companies in the debt relief space.
I report on all cases I am able to monitor — no company is singled out or targeted. The goal is comprehensive, fair coverage that helps consumers understand the legal landscape.
Important: The information on this page comes directly from court documents. I present the allegations exactly as stated in those filings — I do not interpret, summarize, or paraphrase complaint language, as doing so could introduce unintended bias. These are allegations, not findings of fact. Every defendant is presumed innocent and has the right to contest the claims in court. A lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing.
You can view the full docket at CourtListener.
Are you a party to this case? I welcome statements, corrections, and updates from any party — plaintiff, defendant, or their counsel. If you'd like to add context or a statement for readers, please contact me directly. I will publish it here.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Notice of Removal?
A Notice of Removal is a legal filing by a defendant that transfers a case from state court to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove a case when the federal court has original jurisdiction over the claims. In this case, Affirm argued that the Plaintiff’s credit reporting allegations arise under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law, giving the federal court jurisdiction.
What is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)?
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., is a federal law that regulates how consumer credit information is collected, used, and shared. The FCRA requires furnishers of information — companies that report data to credit bureaus — to provide accurate information and to investigate consumer disputes about inaccurate reporting.
What does it mean when a company “furnishes” information to credit bureaus?
A furnisher is any entity that provides information about a consumer to a consumer reporting agency such as TransUnion or Experian. Under the FCRA, furnishers have a duty to provide accurate information (15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)) and to investigate disputes forwarded by credit bureaus (15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)). If a furnisher reports inaccurate information or fails to investigate a dispute, consumers may have a cause of action.
What is FCRA preemption?
FCRA preemption, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F), means that state law claims related to the responsibilities of furnishers of information may be preempted — or overridden — by the federal FCRA. This is one reason Affirm cited for removing this case to federal court: that the Plaintiff’s claims, even if characterized as state law claims, are governed by the FCRA and therefore arise under federal law.
What happens after a case is removed to federal court?
After removal, the case proceeds in federal court under federal procedural rules. The plaintiff may file a motion to remand the case back to state court if they believe removal was improper. If the case remains in federal court, it will follow the standard federal litigation process, including discovery, motions, and potentially trial.
Source: This post is based on the Notice of Removal filed in Cummings v. Affirm, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00190 (W.D.N.C.), Document 1, filed March 11, 2026, which includes a description of the original Complaint for Money Owed filed in the District Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Case No. 26CV005764-590). Court records via CourtListener / RECAP Archive.
Dealing With Debt? Understanding your options is the first step. See how all your debt relief options compare — including ones most sites won’t tell you about. The Find Your Path quiz gives a recommendation based on your actual numbers, and the Scam-O-Meter checks any company’s complaint history before you sign. Federal Reserve research shows bankruptcy filers recover faster than those who don’t file.
Part of the Federal Lawsuits Database
This case is one of 353 federal court cases involving debt relief companies tracked at Federal Lawsuits Against Debt Relief Companies. Browse by company type, legal claim, or alleged conduct to identify industry-wide patterns.
Are you dealing with a debt relief company? If you're considering working with a debt relief company or have already signed a contract, use my free Find Your Path tool to get personalized guidance on your situation.
