On June 2, 2014, U.S. Federal Trade Commission member Julie Brill, speaking at the European Data Protection Supervisor’s workshop on privacy, consumer protection and competition in Brussels, said that companies’ privacy protection regimes focused on limiting or stopping harmful uses of data overlook the potential damage to consumers’ privacy through the incremental accumulation of small
Spokeo Brings “No Concrete Harm” FCRA Fight to the Supreme Court
On May 1, 2014, Spokeo, Inc. petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to decide a significant question regarding Article III standing applicable to numerous federal consumer protection statutes. Specifically, Spokeo asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether Congress can confer Article III standing to sue upon a plaintiff
California Court Grants Summary Judgment to Consumer Reporting Agency
On May 29, 2014, in the matter of Karrigan v. DataX Ltd. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-02995, a federal judge dismissed on summary judgment a putative class action accusing DataX Ltd. of giving credit reports to scammers who manipulated payday loan customers
Trucking Company Settles FCRA Class Action for $870,500
On Thursday, May 29, 2014, defendant New England Motor Freight (“NEMF”) agreed to a $870,500 settlement of a putative class action claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act pending in New Jersey federal court. The class complaint alleged that NEMF had purchased consumer reports for potential job applicants from various wholesalers without first asking for
FTC Urges Regulation of Data Brokers
On May 27, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission issued a long-awaited report on the data broker industry. The report, titled “Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability,” is the result of an eighteen-month study of certain data brokers that represent a cross-section of the industry.
The report encouraged Congress to step in to enact
CFPB Announces Spring 2014 Rulemaking Agenda and More…
CFPB Announces Spring 2014 Rulemaking Agenda, Confirms Development of “Larger Participant” Definition for Auto Finance Market
On May 23, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau posted its updated semi-annual rule-making agenda, which covers several important categories of upcoming regulatory action.
Defining Larger Participants in Auto Lending Market for Regulation
Through use of its rulemaking
CFPB Succumbs to Pressure, Opens Advisory Board and Council Meetings to Public
Beginning in June, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will provide the public with access to the meetings of the Consumer Advisory Board (CAB)and the CFPB’s three Councils. Anyone may attend or watch the full meetings live online the same way most other agencies allow under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
As we previously discussed,
CFPB Issues Supervisory Highlights Focusing on Nonbank Compliance Programs
On May 22, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its spring 2014 supervisory highlights report. The report zeros in on the debt collection and consumer reporting industries, highlighting numerous violations uncovered at payday lenders, debt collection firms, and consumer reporting agencies. Specifically, it appears that the CFPB’s largest concerns with these groups surrounds
Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FCRA Permissible Purpose Claim Even Though Plaintiff Did Not Initiate Transaction
In Bickley v. Dish Network, the Sixth Circuit on May 13, 2014 affirmed the dismissal of a claim for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act for accessing a credit report without a permissible purpose. Dish Network accessed the plaintiff’s credit report to investigate whether the person attempting to order satellite television service using plaintiff’s
Court Finds Uncapped Punitive Damages Available Under the FCRA Precludes Dismissal When Offer of Judgment Not Accepted
On April 7, 2014, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia declined to dismiss a class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as moot because it could not conclude with certainty that an offer of judgment under Rule 68 afforded complete relief.