ORDER and OPINION Plaintiff Jules Ngambo (“Plaintiff”) brings this pro se action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., incorrectly sued as “Chase” (hereinafter “Defendant”). (ECF No. 5. (“Am. Comp.”)). Presently before the Court is Chase’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 20.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The allegations in the amended complaint are deemed true for the purpose of resolving this motion. Plaintiff is an individual consumer who requested and obtained a copy of his credit report online from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion on January 16, 2020. (Am. Comp. 5.) Later that same day, Plaintiff contacted Defendant via U.S. certified mail regarding an “erroneous and inaccurate reporting” of a debt in his credit report. (Id. 1.) Plaintiff also disputed the information with Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion via U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail letters, sent on January 22, 2020, and those credit agencies confirmed that they are reporting the information correctly as advised by Defendant. (Id. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that he waited thirty (30) days and did not receive a response from Defendant regarding his claims of the lack of a debt. (Id. 12.) Thereafter, Plaintiff sent a Notice of Pending Lawsuit letter to Defendant stating that the latter failed to validate or verify the information at issue. (Id. 14.) Plaintiff did not receive an answer from Defendant. (Id. 16.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has continued to report the erroneous and inaccurate information, which shows up on Plaintiff’s credit report. (Id. 17.) Plaintiff claims that because of the erroneous and inaccurate information on his credit report, Plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged, his lines of credit have been reduced, and his right to increase credit has been denied multiple times. (Id. 18.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint asserts claims sounding in failure to report accurate information, failing to correct inaccurate information, and failing to investigate a dispute filed directly with a furnisher of information. Plaintiff seeks a judgment in the amount of $1,350,00.00, plus punitive damages in the amount of $150,000. (Am. Compl. at 9-10.) II. Procedural Background Plaintiff commenced this action on March 10, 2020 (ECF No. 2) and was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status on March 12, 2020. (ECF No. 3.) On April 22, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Amend (ECF No. 4.), which dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 2) after finding that: (i) Plaintiff’s claim under FCRA §1681s-2(a) against Defendant for allegedly reporting inaccurate information to the credit agencies failed because individuals do not have a private right of action under that provision; and (ii) Plaintiff’s claim under FCRA §1681s-2(b) for Defendant’s alleged violation of its duty to investigate the disputed information was inadequately pled, because Plaintiff failed to plead facts as to what information Defendant is erroneously reporting and how Defendant’s investigation was deficient. See Ngambo v. Chase, No. 20-CV-2224 (NSR), 2020 WL 1940553, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020). Plaintiff amended his complaint on June 18, 2020. (ECF No. 5.) On May 16, 2022, the Court granted Defendant leave to file the instant motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF No. 18), which was fully briefed as of August 1, 2022. LEGAL STANDARD A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint and requires a court to determine whether the facts alleged are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009). To survive such a motion, however, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, a district court must consider the context and “draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. In assessing whether this standard has been met, courts take “all factual allegations contained in the complaint” as true, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 572, and “draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party [],” In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). A plaintiff must show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” id., and cannot rely on mere “labels and conclusions” to support a claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If the plaintiff’s pleadings “have not nudged [his or her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be dismissed.” Id. at 570. Notably, however, the “submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted ‘to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006).1 DISCUSSION In his amended complaint, Plaintiff brings claims under 15 U.S.C. §§1681s-2(a) and (b), 1681n, and 1681o against Defendant for (i) reporting inaccurate and erroneous information to the credit agencies (Am. Compl.
19-20); (ii) failing to update the credit agencies that the information on the accounts were in dispute (Am. Compl.
