In Picon v. Bank of America, N.A., 2011 WL 2470118 (M.D.Fla. 2011), Judge Steele confirmed that injunctive relief is not a remedy afforded by FCRA. 



In general “[a] bsent the clearest command to the contrary from Congress, federal courts retain their equitable power to issue injunctions in suits over which they have jurisdiction.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 705 (1979). The sections of the FCRA that grant individuals a private right of action contain a list of available remedies, and that “list does not include equitable relief.” Hamilton v. DirecTV, Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 1304, 1305 (M.D.Ala.2009); Jones v. Sonic Auto., Inc., 391 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1065 (M.D.Ala.2005). Importantly, § 1681s (a) expressly empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to obtain injunctions for violations of the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a).    Although the Eleventh Circuit has yet to consider this issue FN1, courts in this district have consistently found that by excluding equitable relief from the list of remedies available to private individuals, Congress intended to vest injunctive relief solely with the FTC. See Hamilton 642 F.Supp.2d at 1306; Lee v. Sec. Check, LLC, No. 3:09cv421, 2009 WL 3790455 at *4 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 9, 2009); Gonzalez v. Macy’s/DSNB, No. 06–61571, 2006 WL 5849317 at *1 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 12, 2006). Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has held that “the affirmative grant of power to the FTC to pursue injunctive relief, coupled with the absence of a similar grant to private litigants when they are expressly granted the right to obtain damages and other relief, persuasively demonstrates that Congress vested the power to obtain injunctive relief solely with the FTC.” Washington v. CSC Credit Servs. Inc ., 199 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir.2000). This Court agrees, and finds that the FCRA does not support a private plaintiff’s request for equitable relief.