Culp v. Upgrade, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-03642

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF) — Culp v. Upgrade, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-03642

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following facts are taken directly from the complaint filed by Lamonte Culp against Upgrade, Inc. and CBW Bank in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on August 24, 2026. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.

1. This is an action brought by an individual consumer for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
4. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
6. Defendant Upgrade, Inc. is a furnisher of consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies.
7. Upgrade, Inc. is a “person” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) and a furnisher of information subject to the duties imposed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2.
8. Defendant CBW Bank is a furnisher of consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies.
9. CBW Bank is a “person” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) and a furnisher of information subject to the duties imposed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2.
10. Plaintiff has one account with Upgrade, Inc., account ending 8181. Plaintiff’s TransUnion credit report shows this same account reported twice — once by Upgrade, Inc. (Account ending 8181) and once by CBW Bank (Account ending 8083) — inflating Plaintiff’s reported liability.
11. CBW Bank is the originating bank for Upgrade, Inc. loans. Both entities report the same underlying account: an installment loan opened on or about June 28, 2022, with a 6-month term, a last payment date of July 28, 2022, and a charged-off balance of $1,080.
12. The Upgrade, Inc. tradeline (Account ending 8181) and the CBW Bank tradeline (Account ending 8083) share the same open date, the same last payment date, the same term length, the same balance, and the same account type. They are the same account.
13. Both tradelines report as derogatory with a charged-off balance of $1,080, causing Plaintiff’s TransUnion credit report to reflect $2,160 in delinquent debt from a single $1,080 obligation.
14. In or around February 2026, Plaintiff checked his credit reports and noticed that both Upgrade, Inc. and CBW Bank were reporting the same account as separate tradelines on his TransUnion credit report.
15. The duplicate reporting of the same account inflates Plaintiff’s total delinquent debt, distorts his debt-to-income ratio, and depresses his credit scores. Plaintiff’s TransUnion credit score was 474 on February 6, 2026, and 545 on April 13, 2026.
16. TransUnion published the false information regarding the account to third parties, including creditors who obtained Plaintiff’s consumer report.
17. Plaintiff has lost time and incurred expense working to resolve the adverse information associated with the account to prevent further harm.

Written Dispute

18. On or about February 16, 2026, Plaintiff sent a written letter to TransUnion disputing the inaccurate information regarding the duplicate account reporting on Plaintiff’s consumer report, and requesting a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information Plaintiff was disputing.
19. Plaintiff’s dispute identified both the Upgrade, Inc. account (ending 8181) and the CBW Bank account (ending 8083) and explained that they were duplicate entries for the same debt.
20. TransUnion forwarded Plaintiff’s dispute to Upgrade, Inc. and CBW Bank for reinvestigation.
21. Upgrade, Inc. received notification of Plaintiff’s dispute from TransUnion.
22. CBW Bank received notification of Plaintiff’s dispute from TransUnion.
23. Upgrade, Inc. failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, failed to contact Plaintiff or any third parties, and failed to review underlying account information with respect to the disputed information and the accuracy of the disputed information.
24. CBW Bank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, failed to contact Plaintiff or any third parties, and failed to review underlying account information with respect to the disputed information and the accuracy of the disputed information.
25. Upgrade, Inc. failed to instruct TransUnion to correct the false information reporting on Plaintiff’s consumer report.
26. CBW Bank failed to instruct TransUnion to correct the false information reporting on Plaintiff’s consumer report.
27. TransUnion’s reinvestigation result for the CBW Bank tradeline stated: “Dispute resolved; customer disagrees.”
28. At no point after receiving the disputes did any Defendant communicate with Plaintiff to determine the veracity and extent of Plaintiff’s dispute.
29. As of April 13, 2026, both the Upgrade, Inc. tradeline and the CBW Bank tradeline continue to appear on Plaintiff’s TransUnion credit report with identical $1,080 charged-off balances.

Claims for Relief

Count I — Upgrade, Inc. (Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation — 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b))

30. Plaintiff re-alleges and reaffirms the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
31. After receiving Plaintiff’s dispute, Upgrade, Inc. failed to correct the false information regarding the account reporting on Plaintiff’s consumer reports.
32. Upgrade, Inc. violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by failing to fully and properly investigate Plaintiff’s dispute; by failing to review all relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s dispute; by failing to accurately respond to credit reporting agencies; by verifying false information; and by failing to permanently and lawfully correct its own internal records to prevent the re-reporting of false representations to the consumer credit reporting agencies, among other unlawful conduct.
33. As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of Upgrade, Inc., Plaintiff suffered damages, and continues to suffer actual damages, including economic loss, damage to reputation, emotional distress, and interference with Plaintiff’s normal and usual activities for which Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
34. Upgrade, Inc.’s conduct, action, and inaction was willful, entitling Plaintiff to recover punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.
35. In the alternative, Upgrade, Inc. was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
36. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs and attorneys’ fees from Upgrade, Inc. pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

Count II — CBW Bank (Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation — 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b))

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and reaffirms the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
38. After receiving Plaintiff’s dispute, CBW Bank failed to correct the false information regarding the account reporting on Plaintiff’s consumer reports.
39. CBW Bank violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by failing to fully and properly investigate Plaintiff’s dispute; by failing to review all relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s dispute; by failing to accurately respond to credit reporting agencies; by verifying false information; and by failing to permanently and lawfully correct its own internal records to prevent the re-reporting of false representations to the consumer credit reporting agencies, among other unlawful conduct.
40. As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of CBW Bank, Plaintiff suffered damages, and continues to suffer actual damages, including economic loss, damage to reputation, emotional distress, and interference with Plaintiff’s normal and usual activities for which Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
41. CBW Bank’s conduct, action, and inaction was willful, entitling Plaintiff to recover punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.
42. In the alternative, CBW Bank was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
43. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs and attorneys’ fees from CBW Bank pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

Remedies Sought

From the Prayer for Relief: “WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a reasonable and fair judgment against Defendants for willful noncompliance of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and seeks remedies as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681 and demands:”

• Trial by jury.
• Actual damages to be proven at trial, or statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A), of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation;
• Punitive damages, pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2), for each Defendant’s willful violation;
• The costs of instituting this action together with reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3); and
• Any further legal and equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper in the circumstances.

Plaintiff demanded trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is represented by J. Tyler Burns of Burns and Burns Law Firm, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) require a furnisher to do?

Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act sets out what a furnisher — a company that reports account information to the credit bureaus — must do once a consumer reporting agency notifies it of a dispute. The furnisher must conduct an investigation of the disputed information, review all relevant information the agency provided, report the results back to the agency, and, if the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete, report those results to every nationwide agency it supplied the data to. Importantly, these duties are triggered by notice from the credit bureau, not by a letter the consumer sends directly to the furnisher.

Why would the same loan appear twice on a credit report?

Consumer lending often involves two entities: a bank that originates the loan and a company that markets and services it. When both report the account to a credit bureau under their own name, the same debt can appear as two separate tradelines. Whether that constitutes inaccurate reporting is a question for the court in any individual case — but the practical effect a complaint of this type describes is that one obligation is counted twice in the totals a scoring model and a lender see.

What is the difference between a willful and a negligent violation of the FCRA?

The FCRA provides two separate paths. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, a willful violation allows a consumer to recover actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, a negligent violation allows recovery of actual damages and attorney’s fees, but no statutory or punitive damages. Complaints commonly plead willfulness first and negligence in the alternative, which is what this filing does.

What does a reinvestigation response of “Dispute resolved; customer disagrees” mean?

That phrasing indicates the credit bureau treated its reinvestigation as complete and left the disputed item on the report, while noting the consumer does not accept the outcome. It is not a finding by any court or regulator that the underlying information is accurate. A consumer who receives that result and still believes the information is wrong retains the right to add a statement of dispute to the file and, as here, to bring an action under the FCRA.

Where can someone check whether the same debt is listed twice on their own report?

Credit reports from all three nationwide bureaus are available at no cost through AnnualCreditReport.com, the site established under federal law. Duplicate tradelines are identified by comparing open dates, original balances, term lengths, last payment dates and account types across entries — the same fields this complaint compares. Matching values across two entries do not by themselves prove an error, but they are the fields that would need to be examined.

Source: CourtListener — Culp v. Upgrade, Inc., Docket 74703873. Information on this page is taken from the court complaint. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.