elDiario.es
· 27 August 2026 · EFE
“El Supremo condena a Cofidis por incluir en el fichero de morosos a una mujer que impugnó por usura un crédito”
About
A Supreme Court ruling against the consumer credit company Cofidis, reported by elDiario.es from EFE. The right-hand column is open for Cofidis to reply, sentence by sentence.
How it ended, sentence by sentence
The outlet
5
5 unanswered
The accused
0
- 5 still standing: unanswered, or the outlet was right
Article score: 10.0/10
Every sentence starts counting for the article, because unanswered is how it was published. Answering it takes the point off the outlet and gives it to the person named. Green means answered, not proven: what an editor has checked against a document is written in each sentence's own label.
What the outlet published
What the other side says
What the outlet published · Sentence 1
“El Tribunal Supremo ha estimado un recurso contra la entidad de créditos al consumo Cofidis por haber incluido en el fichero de morosos a una mujer que había impugnado por usura el crédito que la empresa le concedió y la ha condenado a indemnizarla con 2.000 euros.”
Translation · ES
The Supreme Court has upheld an appeal against the consumer credit company Cofidis for having placed on the defaulters' register a woman who had challenged as usurious the loan the company granted her, and has ordered it to pay her 2,000 euros.
What this claims, in our words
THE RULING AND THE SUM: a court found against Cofidis and set damages at 2,000 euros. Source: the Supreme Court judgment, reported by EFE.
What the outlet published · Sentence 2
“La cliente había interpuesto en su día una demanda contra Cofidis por intromisión ilegítima en su derecho al honor como consecuencia de la inclusión de sus datos el 6 de octubre de 2022 en el fichero de morosos.”
Translation · ES
The customer had filed a claim against Cofidis for unlawful interference with her right to honour as a result of her data being entered on the defaulters' register on 6 October 2022.
What this claims, in our words
THE DATE OF THE LISTING: 6 October 2022. This is the act the whole case turns on, and it is checkable against the register.
What the outlet published · Sentence 3
“[A]ntes de que Cofidis comunicara los datos de la mujer al fichero de solvencia patrimonial, ésta ya había formulado una reclamación extrajudicial en la que impugnaba la validez del contrato del que se derivaba la deuda por su carácter usurario.”
Translation · ES
[B]efore Cofidis passed the woman's data to the credit register, she had already made an out-of-court claim challenging the validity of the contract behind the debt as usurious.
What this claims, in our words
THE ORDER OF EVENTS ALLEGED: the customer disputed the debt before Cofidis reported her. If that sequence is wrong, the reasoning of the ruling falls with it.
What the outlet published · Sentence 4
“También indica que, cuando la empresa comunicó los datos al fichero de morosos, ya conocía, por la reclamación extrajudicial formulada meses antes, que la mujer impugnaba la validez del contrato por su carácter usurario.”
Translation · ES
It also states that, when the company passed the data to the defaulters' register, it already knew, from the out-of-court claim made months earlier, that the woman was challenging the validity of the contract as usurious.
What this claims, in our words
KNOWLEDGE ALLEGED: that Cofidis knew the debt was disputed at the moment it reported her. This is what turns a routine administrative step into a finding against the company.
What the outlet published · Sentence 5
“[N]o consta que Cofidis diera respuesta a la reclamación ni que promoviera actuación alguna para verificar si la controversia había llegado a judicializarse, limitándose a mantener la validez del contrato y a requerir el pago de las cantidades que consideraba debidas.”
Translation · ES
[T]here is no record that Cofidis answered the claim or took any step to check whether the dispute had reached the courts, confining itself to maintaining that the contract was valid and demanding payment of the sums it considered owed.
What this claims, in our words
THE OMISSION ALLEGED: no answer to the customer's claim and no check on whether the dispute was already before a court. Cofidis can rebut this with its own correspondence file.
How we asked Cofidis to reply
No contact attempt is recorded for this case yet. Until one is, a missing reply says nothing about Cofidis.
Addresses are shown masked. The full record is kept and can be produced on request.
What happened, in order
Every date on this page, in one list. Nothing here is new; it is the same record, in sequence.
elDiario.es publishes the article.
Case opened here with 5 sentences quoted. Cofidis can reply to each one.
Published unedited and sealed with a timestamp. A reply can be corrected later; every earlier version stays public.
Share this case
Sharing sends the sentence, not our opinion of it: whoever opens it reads both columns.