[Cite as Watkins v. Equifax Information Servs., L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2802.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
MARY WATKINS, : APPEAL NO. C-250603
TRIAL NO. 25CV26735
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, :
LLC,
:
Defendant-Appellee.
:
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 7/22/2026 per order of the court.
By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as Watkins v. Equifax Information Servs., L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2802.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
MARY WATKINS, : APPEAL NO. C-250603
TRIAL NO. 25CV26735
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. : OPINION
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, :
LLC,
:
Defendant-Appellee.
:
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 22, 2026
Mary Watkins, pro se,
Carpenter Lipps, LLP, David A. Wallace and Tyler K. Ibom, for Defendant-Appellee. [Cite as Watkins v. Equifax Information Servs., L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2802.]
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Mary Watkins appeals from the Hamilton County
Municipal Court’s judgment granting defendant-appellee Equifax Information
Services, LLC’s, motion to dismiss Watkins’s complaint. For the reasons set forth
below, the judgment of the court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} On September 7, 2025, Watkins filed her complaint. She alleged that
while she was applying for a loan to purchase a car, she retrieved her consumer credit
report from Equifax. The report listed that she had 15 outstanding accounts that were
negatively affecting her credit. The report listed specific information about each
account, including the name of the lender, and the last four digits of the account
number.
{¶3} Watkins took issue with Equifax not disclosing the complete account
numbers and with Equifax not including original creditor’s information for each
account. She claimed that this partial disclosure prevented her from being able to
authenticate the information based on her own records, and that this in turn
hampered her ability to dispute the information in the report, causing her to suffer
confusion, frustration, and anxiety. Watkins set forth a claim under 15 U.S.C.
1681g(a)(1), and alleged that Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
{¶4} Equifax filed a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and the court
granted Equifax’s motion. This appeal followed.
II. Analysis
{¶5} Watkins’s two assignments of error take issue with the court’s dismissal
of her complaint. She argues that her complaint “plausibly” alleged violations of 15
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.C. 1681g(a)(1), and therefore, the court’s dismissal was erroneous. We address
these assignments of error together.
A. Civ.R. 16(B)(6)
{¶6} We review a court’s ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion de novo. Fox
Consulting Group, Inc. v. Mailing Servs. of Pittsburgh, Inc., 2022-Ohio-1215, ¶ 7 (1st
Dist.). A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Id. at ¶ 6, citing
Thomas v. Othman, 2017-Ohio-8449, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.). A court deciding a Civ.R.
12(B)(6) motion “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. Dismissal is only
appropriate where it appears, beyond doubt, that the plaintiff cannot prove a set of
facts that would entitle them to recover. Id., citing Thomas at ¶ 19.
{¶7} 15 U.S.C. 1681g provides in relevant part:
(a) Information on file; sources; report recipients.
Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, . . . clearly
and accurately disclose to the consumer:
(1) All information in the consumer’s file at the time of the
request . . .
{¶8} A case like the instant appeal with a similar procedural posture was
decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In
Watkins v. Equifax Information Servs., LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267428 (S.D.
Ohio Dec. 30, 2025), a similar action was filed against Equifax. The plaintiff alleged
that Equifax, as a credit reporting agency, was obligated to disclose all information in
her file, but that the shared report “omitted critical information such as full account
numbers, complete payment histories, and other essential fields” from her credit
report. Id. at *3 The plaintiff also claimed that Equifax shares credit reports with third
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
parties that contain full account numbers. Id. at *14.
{¶9} The court denied Equifax’s motion to dismiss. The court adopted the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ definition for “file” as “information included in a
consumer report.” Id. at *11, citing Gillespie v. Trans Union Corp., 482 F.3d 907, 909-910 (7th Cir., 2007). The court reasoned that for a plaintiff to assert an effective claim
under 15 U.S.C. 1681g(a)(1), she must show the credit reporting agency failed to
include information that the agency had shared in past reports, or that the agency had
failed to include information it intended to include in future reports. Watkins at *11.
This is in accord with 15 U.S.C. 1681g’s purpose, which is “to enable consumers to
obtain information in order to dispute any potential inaccuracies in the file so that
inaccurate information is not sent to third parties.” Id. at *12, quoting Selvam v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 651 F.Appx. 29, 33 (2d Cir. 2016).
{¶10} The Watkins court determined that whether Equifax, as a credit
reporting agency, had shared complete account numbers with third parties, or
whether it intended to do so in the future constituted a question of fact. Because
Watkins’s complaint stated a “plausible” claim under 15 U.S.C. 1681g(a), the court
denied Equifax’s motion to dismiss. Id. at *14.
{¶11} The Southern District’s opinion Watkins is instructive. Both the
plaintiff in that case and in the case sub judice relied on whether Equifax shares
complete account numbers in the credit reports it provides to third parties. See
Watkins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267428, at *14. “If that allegation is not accurate – if
in fact Equifax does not include the complete account numbers in reports it provides
to third parties – this may be a short-lived case. But that is a question for summary
judgment, not dismissal.” Id.
{¶12} We find Watkins to be persuasive. We hold that the trial court erred in
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
granting Equifax’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Watkins’s two assignments of error
are sustained.
III. Conclusion
{¶13} We hold that the court erred in dismissing Watkins’s complaint. The
judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the law.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.
6