FCRA -- 15 U.S.C. § 1681

In Boggio v. USAA Federal Sav. Bank, 2011 WL 3876525 (S.D.Ohio 2011), Judge Weber found a credit union’s re-investigation reasonable under FCRA where the Plaintiff claimed that the vehicle purchase contract on which he was a co-buyer was procured without his consent, explaining:   “[D]istrict courts that have considered the issue have consistently recognized that the creditor's investigation must be… Read More

In Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 2011 WL 3880411 (N.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Wilken addressed Plaintiff’s summary judgment on her claim alleging a negligent violation of FCRA.  The procedural history is as follows:   In its original motion for summary judgment, PCA asserted that, by obtaining Plaintiff's credit report to collect on the deficiency, it did so in connection with the… Read More

In Gauci v. Citi Mortg., 2011 WL 3652589 (C.D. Cal. 2011), Judge Wright held that FCRA does not allow for injunctive relief:   TransUnion argues that Plaintiff's third claim should be dismissed because equitable relief is not a remedy available to private parties under the FCRA. (Mot. at 4–5.) The Court agrees with TransUnion. District courts in the Ninth Circuit… Read More

In SimmsParris v. Countrywide Financial Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3196079 (3d Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed FCRA’s statutory framework that a consumer must first dispute a report with the CRA in order to maintain a cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b).   In the present case, SimmsParris did not comply… Read More

The FTC issued a staff report, that compiles and updates the agency’s guidance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the 1970 law designed to protect the privacy of credit report information and ensure that the information supplied by credit reporting agencies is as accurate as possible. A credit report contains information about a consumer’s personal and credit characteristics, character,… Read More

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.… Read More

In Brown v. Mortensen, 2011 WL 2409912 (2011), the California Supreme Court held that FCRA only preempted claims against furnishers based on duties to provide accurate information and to take action upon being notified of a dispute and that FCRA did not preempt CMIA claims based on disclosure of medical information to CRAs. Read More

In Wells v. Craig & Landreth Cars, Inc., 2011 WL 1542121 (W.D.Ky. 2011), Judge Simpson held that an auto finance company accessing a consumer’s credit for the potential extension of credit did not violate the “permissible purpose” requirement of FCRA when the buyer’s purchase transaction turned out to be a cash-sale and the buyer claimed that he did not authorize… Read More

In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., here, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a short opinion affirming the district court's summary judgement motion, holding that a furnisher of information need investigate only what is contained in the CRA’s dispute notice as to the nature of the dispute. We previously had reported on the district Court's opinion in October… Read More

The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board are seeking public comment on proposed amendments to the Risk-Based Pricing Rule that would require creditors, as of July 21, 2011, to disclose credit score information to consumers when a credit score is used in setting or adjusting credit terms.  The Notice is set forth here and is summarized as follows: On… Read More

In Anderson v. EMC Mortg. Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 409095 (8th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a furnisher did not violate FCRA by failing to re-investigate a purported inaccuracy as to which month an account was past due on.  The Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff had failed to notify… Read More

The Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 narrows the definition of the term “creditor” to include only entities that that use consumer reports, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, or to others who extend credit.  More specifically, it amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with respect to federal agency (red flag) guidelines regarding identity theft and the users of consumer… Read More

In Bankston v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., 2011 WL 89730 (N.D. Cal. 2011), Judge Armstrong rejected a UCL claim based on an allegedly faulty post-repossession NOI letter on the basis that Plaintiff had not met the injury-in-fact prong of the UCL.  With respect to the injury-in-fact requirement, Plaintiff argued that she suffered an injury in two ways: (1) “[h]er payment… Read More

One could say that "Bank Error in Your Favor" did not entitle the FCRA Plaintiff to $200.  In Ross v. F.D.I.., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 4261819 (4th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals found no malice when a Bank acted merely negligently under FCRA.  The facts were a bit complicated:    James Williams executed a mortgage on a home… Read More

The United States Supreme Court decided not to take a better look at the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's holding in Gorman that FCRA did not pre-empt any remedy available under the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.  The cite is FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Gorman -- S.Ct. --, 2010 WL 1047883 (2010) Read More

In Watts v. Enhanced Recovery Corp., 2010 WL 4117452 (N.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Koh held that the UCL does not provide standing to a plaintiff hinging the UCL claim on credit reporting problems -- in the absence of the plaintiff being deprived money in which the plaintiff held a property interest. Judge Koh explained: In 2004, California voters limited standing under… Read More

In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (D. Minn. 2010) , Judge Schiltz found that a debt collector does not violate the FDCPA by reporting an account to the Credit Reporting Agencies after a debtor demands validation without first validating the debt, explaining The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed debt to a consumer,… Read More

In Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, -- F.3d -- 2010 WL 3239477 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed FCRA pre-emption of California's CCRAA -- except Civil Code 1785.25(a).  The Court of Appeals explained: Because the private right of action to enforce section 1785.25(a) is found in sections 1785.25(g) and 1785.31, which are not… Read More

In Hariton v. Chase Auto Finance Corp., 2d, 2010 WL 3075609 (C.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Matz granted summary judgment for an automobile finance company who was sued under FCRA and for negligence in their reporting of their customer’s account.    Whether damages are or are not an element of a FCRA claim depends on whether the noncompliance was willful or negligent.… Read More

The Federal Trade Commission announced today that it is proposing revisions to the notices that consumer reporting agencies provide to consumers, and to users and furnishers of credit report information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires the FTC to publish model notices for several forms that must be provided by consumer reporting agencies. The proposed changes… Read More