Photo of Ethan G. Ostroff

Ethan G. Ostroff

Subscribe to Ethan G. Ostroff's Posts

Ethan’s practice focuses on financial services litigation and compliance counseling, as well as digital assets and blockchain technology. With a long track record of successful litigation results across the U.S., both bank and non-bank clients rely on him for comprehensive advice throughout their business cycle.

Follow:Read more about Ethan G. OstroffEthan G.'s Linkedin Profile

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a district court’s reading of an exception into §1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that would allow a furnisher discretion to refuse to investigate an indirect dispute it deems frivolous or irrelevant. Instead, the Third Circuit held that a furnisher must investigate even frivolous indirect disputes — disputes submitted by a consumer first to a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that are then transmitted by the CRA to the furnisher. A copy of the decision can be found here.

As discussed here, on September 21 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an outline of its plans for rulemaking under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The outline was supplied for initial comment to a panel of small business representatives convened under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (collectively, the agencies) filed an amici curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding a furnisher’s investigation of a consumer’s dispute and subsequent furnishing of the disputed information to be reasonable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

On September 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion holding instead that a bank levy against the plaintiff served as a basis for standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

In Perrong v. Bradford et al, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an elected official, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling his residential phone using a prerecorded message and an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). He further alleged that his telephone number was registered with both the national and Pennsylvania Do Not Call registries.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today outlined a plan for rulemaking under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that could significantly impact the entire consumer data ecosystem. The proposed rulemaking could redefine “data brokers” and “data aggregators” and extend FCRA regulation to businesses that do not currently meet the FCRA’s definition of “consumer reporting agency.” The CFPB’s plan could also impose stricter rules for obtaining consumer consent and increase compliance requirements and risks for both new and existing members of the FCRA-regulated consumer data ecosystem.

Join us for the third episode in a special three-part series covering the CFPB’s intention to propose new rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis, Dave Gettings, Kim Phan, Ethan Ostroff, and Ron Raether discuss the potential implications of regulating data brokers under the FCRA, and how this might affect data brokers as well as other types of entities, including users, consumer reporting agencies, and resellers.