this failure does not render the information that was reported “false” so as to support a libel claim meeting the § 1681h(e) malice standard. The obligation to report a disputed debt is a protective regulatory requirement imposed by the FCRA. § 1681s-2(a)(3); see also 12 C.F.R. § 226.13. Any failure by MBNA to meet this requirement may render its reporting deficient under the statute, but it does not render the information MBNA did furnish maliciously or wilfully false. So long as the creditor has a good faith reason for believing that the debt is in fact owed, reporting the debt without reporting the dispute does not convey “false” information “with malice or willful intent to injure the consumer.” See Francis v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 535, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 361, 364 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Gorman has offered no evidence that MBNA
holding that due process was violated where a death sentence was imposed based on information in a presentence report and the defendant was not given an opportunity to deny or explain the information holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause holding that defendant failed to counter the ftcs substantial showing that he made statements and created an overall net impression of a misleading representation regarding the ability to remove negative information from consumers credit report even if the information was accurate complete and not obsolete holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false holding that a defamation claim cannot be sustained for truthful information in a credit report even if the information reported supports misleading inferences