Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “FCRA”

Seeing Medical Debt in a New Light, Credit Reporting Agencies Announce Major Change in How They Will Treat, Report Medical Debt

In a year that is still quite young, medical debt continues to find its way into the headlines of the receivables management industry. Continuing the trend, this past Friday, March 18, saw the three major credit reporting agencies Equifax, Experian and TransUnion issue a joint statement regarding how medical debt will be treated and reported on consumer credit reports.

7th Cir. Holds No Violation of FDCPA or FCRA in ‘Identity Theft’ Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of two debt collectors for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and federal Fair Credit Reporting Act relating to their attempts to collect a debt resulting from identify theft.

9th Cir. Holds Defendant’s Interpretation of FCRA Not ‘Negligent’ or ‘Willful’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a credit reporting agency, holding that the plaintiff consumer failed to present sufficient evidence that the agency violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act willfully or negligently, as required for liability. 

7th Cir. Finds Standing on FCRA Privacy Claim, Tosses Case for Lack of Willful Violation or Damages

Federal courts have recently dismissed a number of cases brought by consumers alleging violations of consumer protection law because they lack “standing.” The trend has been hastened by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, a case involving the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Supreme Court Substantially Restricts Ability to Sue in Federal Court for FCRA, FDCPA, TCPA and Other Statutory Violations – Same Class Actions Now Difficult to Certify

On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury resulting from a defendant’s statutory violation to have Article III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted and for each form of relief sought.

2020 In Review: Federal and State Activity in Consumer Debt Collection Regulation

During what was an extraordinary and difficult year, there was an abundance of activity at the state and federal levels and a good deal of it was driven by the present COVID-19 pandemic. Here is my take on some of the most significant regulatory activities from the past year in consumer debt collection that will continue to impact both consumers and creditors in the years to come.

11th Cir. Rejects FCRA Claim, Adopts ‘Maximum Possible Accuracy’ Standard

The U.S. Court of Appels for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a consumer report that was factually accurate with clear instructions on how to further confirm the report's accuracy, was not misleading and complied with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act’s “maximum possible accuracy” standard.

9th Cir. Holds Servicer’s Post-Discharge Credit Pulls Did Not Violate FCRA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed entry of summary judgment in favor of a mortgage servicer against claims brought by plaintiff homeowners that obtaining their credit reports after their mortgage loans had been discharged in bankruptcy willfully violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

9th Cir. Holds Single Website Visit Not Enough To Activate Change in Terms

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order compelling arbitration, holding that a single website visit by a consumer long after she entered into a contract with a credit reporting agency (CRA) that contained a change-of-terms provision did not bind the parties to changed terms in the updated contract, including exempting some claims from binding arbitration, because the consumer did not allege that she was aware of the changed terms as required to assent to the new terms.