In a case of first impression for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Court joined the Sixth Circuit in holding that obtaining a consumer report to verify a consumer’s identity and eligibility for a service is a “legitimate business need” and therefore a “permissible purpose” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Posts published in “FCRA”
Fair Credit Reporting Act
The FTC will soon propose changes it says are designed to align several existing rules under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act with the Dodd-Frank Act. The impacted rules cover only “motor vehicle dealers” being persons “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that two plaintiff consumers failed to state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because the plaintiffs did not allege that they reported the alleged errors to a consumer credit reporting agency or that any such agency notified them of the alleged errors; and there is no private right of action arising from a direct dispute of credit reporting with only the furnisher.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that it is generally not legal error for a trial court to hold that a settlement class satisfies class action predominance requirements, particularly for a class asserting a unifying federal claim, without first performing a choice-of-law analysis.
Agreeing with similar rulings in the First, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require consumer reporting agencies to determine the legal validity of disputed debts.
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act prohibits merchants from including, among other information, credit- and debit-card expiration dates on printed receipts. After this provision originally became effective in 2004, plaintiff class-action firms flooded courts with expiration date lawsuits, which courts and others “met with varying degrees of contempt.”
On April 1, the CFPB issued a policy statement addressing the responsibility of furnishers under the CARES Act and describing the flexible approach the Bureau intends to take with respect to supervision and enforcement of the FCRA and Regulation V during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a significant enforcement action on Jan. 9 against several companies and individuals marketing student loan debt-relief services for credit reporting violations, charging advance fees and deceptive conduct.
It has been an extraordinary 365 days for consumer financial services law. I cannot recall a year where so many states introduced legislation or proposed regulations or rules impacting the credit industry. At the federal level, proposed rules for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act were (finally) released and California also proposed regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a pro se consumer’s claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), holding that he stated a plausible claim for relief with his allegations that the defendant creditor obtained his credit report without his consent, and failed to reasonably investigate his credit reporting disputes. However, the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the consumer’s claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) that the creditor defendant used a “false name” in attempting to collect the debt owed to it.
In a case of first impression in that circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a consumer’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, holding that the plaintiff had Article III standing. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the consumer suffered a concrete injury in fact when a bank obtained her credit report for a purpose not authorized by the statute, and it was irrelevant whether the report was published or used by the party requesting it. The Court…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a judgment in favor of the furnisher of credit information in an action filed under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and other claims under state common law. In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit held that the FCRA’s preemption provisions apply to state common law claims concerning a furnisher’s reporting obligations, joining similar rulings by the Seventh and Second Circuits. A copy of the opinion in Scott v. First Southern National Bank is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs owned several investment properties and obtained a $300,000 commercial…