Photo of David M. Gettings

David M. Gettings

Subscribe to David M. Gettings's Posts

Dave is a partner of the firm who focuses on defending clients in consumer class actions and complex commercial litigation nationwide, particularly cases involving a variety of federal and state laws and regulations, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and associated FCC regulations, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and many similar state consumer protection statutes.

Follow:Read more about David M. GettingsDavid M.'s Linkedin Profile

On July 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a $500,000 jury verdict against a debt collection furnisher, holding that a consumer cannot prevail on a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) unreasonable investigation claim without first demonstrating that the disputed information was “objectively and readily verifiable” as inaccurate. In Ward v. National Credit Systems, Inc., the court joined the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits in adopting this standard, resolving a previously open question in the Tenth Circuit and delivering an important victory for furnishers facing FCRA claims rooted in identity theft allegations.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Dave Gettings is joined by Elizabeth Holt Andrews to break down a significant new development in California standing law — a recent split between the Fifth Appellate District’s Limon decision and the First Appellate District’s Askins ruling — and what that split means for defendants facing FCRA claims in California state court. Dave and Elizabeth discuss strategic considerations around removal, demurrers, and a critical procedural tool for attacking nationwide class action claims at the pleading stage.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, hosts Kim Phan and Dave Gettings are joined by colleague Tim St. George to unpack major legislative developments impacting employment background screening. They discuss New York’s new statewide ban on the use of consumer credit history in most hiring and employment decisions, Virginia’s upcoming requirements for background screening businesses, and emerging federal proposals that could reshape FCRA liability, reseller obligations, and the reporting of criminal and credit information. The conversation highlights notable litigation trends, preemption and First Amendment issues, and practical steps for employers, CRAs, and resellers navigating rapidly evolving state and federal requirements.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Dave Gettings is joined by Troutman colleagues Cindy Hanson and Noah DiPasquale for a deep dive into reseller litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The trio breaks down what a “reseller” is under 15 U.S.C. 1681a(u), how resellers function as intermediaries between originating consumer reporting agencies and end users, and why that limited role matters when evaluating claims under 1681e(b) and 1681i. They discuss recent case law on reasonable procedures, the impact of 1681i(f)’s limited dispute obligations, and practical litigation strategies, including leveraging industry standards, expert testimony, and arguments against double recovery under the one-satisfaction rule and setoff.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, co-hosts Dave Gettings and Kim Phan are joined by partner Stefanie Jackman to unpack the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) evolving interpretation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preemption. They trace the timeline from the CFPB’s July 2022 interpretive rule, through its withdrawal in May 2025, to the October 2025 confirmation and new guidance embracing a broader view of preemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1). The team discusses how the CFPB’s latest stance could impact state laws regulating consumer reports beyond “credit” — including medical debt, rental information, and criminal background checks — and why interpretive rules, despite being helpful and persuasive, are not binding on courts. They also explore practical implications for litigation and compliance, the current judicial environment for agency deference, and the ongoing tension between the need for nationwide uniformity and the growing patchwork of state-by-state mini-FCRA laws.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Dave Gettings is joined by Brooke Conkle and Mandi Blackmon to explore the intricacies of a furnisher’s reasonable investigation under Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The discussion centers around the Second Circuit’s recent decision in the Suluki case, which addresses the standards for conducting a reasonable investigation in the context of identity theft allegations. The hosts delve into the background of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court’s rationale in affirming summary judgment for the defendant. They also examine how this decision aligns with prior Second Circuit precedent and its implications for compliance and litigation strategies. Tune in for a detailed analysis of how the Suluki decision reinforces the principle that investigations must be reasonable, not perfect, and what this means for furnishers navigating similar claims.

In this special crossover episode between FCRA Focus and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Kim Phan, Dave Gettings, Chris Willis, and Cindy Hanson explore the recent withdrawal of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) guidance affecting the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of how these changes impact key areas such as preemption, background screening, permissible purpose, artificial intelligence, and state attorneys general enforcement actions. The discussion highlights the implications for consumer reporting agencies, furnishers, end-users, and the broader regulatory landscape, offering valuable insights for professionals navigating these evolving challenges. Tune in to understand the potential shifts in compliance and enforcement.

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question presented (and left unanswered by the majority) in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) v. Davis was whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured class members. The dismissal has sparked considerable debate, particularly highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which provides a compelling argument against the court’s dismissal.

In this special crossover episode between FCRA Focus and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Kim Phan, Dave Gettings, Chris Willis, and Cindy Hanson explore the recent withdrawal of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) guidance affecting the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of how these changes impact key areas such as preemption, background screening, permissible purpose, artificial intelligence, and state attorneys general enforcement actions. The discussion highlights the implications for consumer reporting agencies, furnishers, end-users, and the broader regulatory landscape, offering valuable insights for professionals navigating these evolving challenges. Tune in to understand the potential shifts in compliance and enforcement.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the expectations for furnishers when investigating consumer disputes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Suluki v. Credit One Bank, No. 23-721 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025), the Second Circuit emphasized that the FCRA requires furnishers to conduct reasonable, not perfect, investigations into disputed accounts. The opinion also cements the fact that summary judgment is possible — and appropriate — when a furnisher conducts a reasonable investigation of a credit dispute.