For three weeks in the spring of 2022, a hidden flaw quietly rewired the credit scores of millions of Americans — like a single misplaced digit in a massive equation, throwing off the final answer without anyone noticing at first. Now, nearly four years later, that glitch has produced a settlement so large that lawyers involved say it stands alone in the history of consumer credit litigation.

The Deal on the Table

Equifax has agreed to pay $100 million to resolve a class action filed in Georgia federal court, closing the book on claims that a coding error caused the company to report inaccurate credit scores to lenders. Consumers behind the case filed a motion Wednesday asking the court to sign off on the agreement — the product of nearly four years of legal wrangling and two separate rounds of mediation with Equifax Information Services LLC and its parent, Equifax Inc.

A Record-Setting Figure

Class counsel didn't mince words about what this deal represents. According to the motion, the $100 million settlement is, to their knowledge, the largest resolution of a Fair Credit Reporting Act case on record — a benchmark that instantly sets this case apart from the sea of consumer data disputes that came before it.

What Went Wrong — and When

At the center of the case sits a narrow but consequential window: March 17 to April 8, 2022. During those three weeks, a coding error inside Equifax's systems caused certain credit scores and related data points shared with third parties to drift from what accurate calculations would have produced. It's the kind of error that sounds small in isolation — three weeks, a handful of lines of code — but rippled outward to touch roughly 4 million people whose credit information reached third parties during that stretch.

How the Payout Will Work

The settlement fund carries a built-in safeguard for consumers: it's nonreversionary, meaning any money left unclaimed stays out of Equifax's hands rather than flowing back to the company. Class members who file a valid claim within 90 days of a court-approved notice date will receive a proportional cut of what's left in the fund once attorney fees, litigation costs, and administrative expenses are subtracted.

A High-Stakes Legal Gamble for Both Sides

This wasn't a case either side could afford to treat casually. Proving liability under the FCRA required clearing a steep bar — showing Equifax's conduct rose to the level of willful, meaning reckless, rather than simple oversight, according to the motion.

Equifax, for its part, fought the case on multiple fronts. The company disputed whether the affected data even qualified as a "consumer report" under the law, and argued that standing to sue should be limited only to individuals whose data was actually accessed and relied upon by a third party — not the broader pool of everyone technically affected. Equifax also warned that statutory per-violation damages, if awarded across millions of consumers, could balloon into a figure so large it would run afoul of constitutional limits on excessive penalties.

The Paper Trail Behind the Case

Getting to this point required a genuine excavation. Class counsel combed through more than 3 million pages of documents and conducted 16 depositions, and had already drafted their motion for class certification along with a supporting expert report before both sides ultimately agreed to settle instead of pressing forward to trial.

The Ruling That Kept the Case Alive

The litigation cleared a critical hurdle in September 2023, when a Georgia federal judge ruled that the willful-violation claim under the FCRA could move forward. The judge found that Equifax's reliance on outdated legacy systems, paired with what were described as insufficient testing procedures, was enough to support allegations of recklessness — though a separate negligence claim in the same suit was dismissed.

Equifax Pushes Back on Wrongdoing

Despite agreeing to the payout, Equifax isn't conceding fault. A company spokesperson told Law360 on Thursday that Equifax denies violating the law and characterized the settlement as a compromise of disputed claims rather than an admission. The spokesperson added that most credit scores affected during the three-week coding issue didn't actually change, and that a substantial number of those that did move actually shifted upward.

Attorneys representing the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Who's Behind the Case

The consumers are represented by Michael Caplan, Ashley Brown and Katherine Gamsey of Caplan Cobb LLC; Amy Keller and Justin Hawal of DiCello Levitt LLP; Eric Gibbs and David Berger of Gibbs Mura LLP; and Dena Sharp, Adam Polk and Jordan Elias of Girard Sharp LLP.

Equifax's defense team includes Robert Griest, Zachary McEntyre and John Toro of King & Spalding LLP, along with Jason Carter, Mark Bailey and Joshua Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP.