FCRA

Subscribe to FCRA via RSS

In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Kim Phan is joined by Michael Yaghi, partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement practice group, to unpack the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) latest effort to require registration for the credit reporting industry. They discuss DFPI’s second request for comment, how it fits into California’s broader push to regulate nonbank financial services, and which entities may be swept in beyond the “big three” consumer reporting agencies — such as furnishers, data brokers, specialty credit reporting agencies, resellers, and fintechs. Kim and Michael also explore how narrowly (or broadly) the rules might be drawn, potential overlap and tension with existing FCRA requirements, what registration and reporting could mean in practice for covered entities, and what companies should be doing now as the February 26 comment deadline approaches.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) all increased in 2025 compared to 2024. December 2025 filings also rose in every category except TCPA, which declined by only two cases.

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.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month. Everything is up YTD except TCPA filings, and those are only nominally down.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) rose by double digits while litigation under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) trended down. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were also down. Yet, everything is up YTD and looks like it will end that way.

On this episode of FCRA Focus, Kim Phan is joined by Rachel Kelley and Alisha Sears from the Mortgage Bankers Association to discuss the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to address residential mortgage trigger leads with the goal of curbing abusive calls while preserving meaningful competition. This law now requires both a firm offer of credit and documented consumer authorization, with limited exceptions for current originators, servicers, and depository institutions/credit unions holding an account. They discuss how the law places the primary obligations on consumer reporting agencies, what lenders should expect around consent certifications, the Government Accountability Office study on trigger-leads, and the upcoming effective date.

On November 20, the Illinois Supreme Court narrowly construed private rights of action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), creating a de facto “concrete injury” requirement for claims under the FCRA and potentially other federal statutes with similar language authorizing rights of action. Although Article III’s concrete-injury requirement has become familiar in federal courts over the last decade, Illinois courts had not previously imposed such a requirement in cases involving statutory rights of action. The court in Fausett v. Walgreen Co., held that the FCRA does not explicitly authorize consumers to sue for violations, so the law did not authorize consumer lawsuits unless the consumer could show that a violation caused them a concrete injury. This ruling will significantly narrow consumers’ ability to bring no-injury claims under similar statutes in Illinois state courts.

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.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rose by double digits while litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) trended slightly down.  Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) saw a modest increase.