In Rydell v. Servco Auto Windward, 2011 WL 5506088 (D.Hawai’i 2011), Judge Seabright found that a car dealer did not violate FCRA in a spot-delivery situation by making multiple inquiries on a consumer’s credit report or by obtaining a credit report from all-three credit reporting agencies. Judge Seabright explained:
The scope of Servco’s “permissible purpose” extends beyond accessing a single credit report. See Stergiopoulos v. First Midwest Bancorp, 427 F.3d 1043, 1046 (7th Cir.2005) (“[T]he [ FCRA] does not require that consumers expressly approve each request for a report.”); Padin v. Oyster Point Dodge, 397 F.Supp.2d 712, 720 (E.D.Va.2005) (“The FCRA permits a creditor (user) to access a consumer’s credit report for any purpose with the consumer’s written authorization, or for certain purposes specified in the statute in the absence of such express authorization.”).. . . ¶ Applying these principles, the terms of Plaintiff’s credit application, read in context with the FCRA’s provision allowing inquiry if a user has a “permissible purpose,” cannot be read to limit Servco to obtaining a single credit report such that it violated the FCRA when it obtained Plaintiff’s credit report from each major credit agency. Rather, Plaintiff’s credit application contemplates the possibility of multiple credit reports from various financial institutions. Given that Servco had a “permissible purpose” under the FCRA to investigate Plaintiff’s credit history, that Servco obtained a single report from each of the three major agencies fails to state a claim for a violation of the FCRA. See Sterigopoulos, 427 F.3d at 1046–47; see also Baker v. Trans Union LLC, 2009 WL 4042909, at *3 (D.Ariz. Nov. 19, 2009) (“Supplying credit reports to persons who intend to use the information in connection with the application for a mortgage, a credit transaction, is permissible” when a permissible purpose exists). Accordingly, the court GRANTS Servco’s Motion to Dismiss.