What standard should courts use to determine whether information contained in a consumer’s credit report is inaccurate or misleading? According to the Third Circuit in a recent precedential decision, the standard should be that of the “reasonable reader,” not a “reasonable creditor,” i.e., not an individual or entity sophisticated in the art of reading
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) ordered Hyundai Capital America (Hyundai) to pay $19.2 million for allegedly providing inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies, including, the CFPB alleged, wrongly reporting that consumers were delinquent on loans and leases, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
In its press release, the CFPB
On February 25, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a purported public records vendor (Credit Lenders Service Agency or CLSA) is a consumer reporting agency (CRA) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). A copy of the decision in McGrath v. Credit Lenders Service Agency, Inc. can be found
On June 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an interpretive rule, encouraging states to enact more laws regulating consumer reporting, arguing that states’ powers are only constrained in limited ways by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The CFPB believes that states have the ability to enact state-level laws that are stricter
On May 26, preliminary approval was sought to resolve a proposed class action, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, against background screening company Inflection Risk Solutions LLC (Inflection). The proposed settlement seeks to resolve claims that Inflection violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by allegedly reporting misdemeanor convictions as felonies
In Fowler v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., No. 8:21-cv-1038-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2022), the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgement as to claims asserted against it under Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In doing so, the court weighed in
On May 26, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced that federal anti-discrimination law requires companies to explain to applicants the specific reasons for denying an application for credit or taking other adverse actions, even if the creditor is relying on credit models using complex algorithms.
In a corresponding Consumer Financial Protection Circular
To resolve a discovery dispute in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case, a judge in the Western District of Kentucky recently compelled the production of the plaintiff’s settlement agreements with several former co-defendants. Under the “one-satisfaction rule,” the agreements reduced the remaining defendant’s potential liability, making them relevant to the case and thus discoverable.
On May 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) together filed an amicus brief in an appeal pending before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sessa v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 22-87 (2d Cir. 2022). The agencies argue that the Fair Credit Reporting Act
On April 7, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed an amicus brief in an appeal, pending before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in which the Bureau argued that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not exempt furnishers from investigating disputes based on legal questions as opposed to factual
