Disapproving Ortiz v. Lyon Management Group, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 604, this decision holds that the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is not unconstitutionally vague merely because some types of consumer reports fall within its scope as well as within the scope of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Nothing in either act prevents both from applying to reports relating to both character and creditworthiness of a consumer. An employer seeking any information about a consumer other than creditworthiness will need to comply with both acts, but it can easily do so by complying with the stricter requirements of the ICRAA. Any partial overlap between the statutes does not render one superfluous or unconstitutionally vague. They can coexist because both acts are sufficiently clear, and each act regulates information that the other does not.
California Supreme Court (Chin, J.); August 20, 2018; 5 Cal. 5th 1026