FCRA

Subscribe to FCRA via RSS

New York has now enacted a statewide ban that, with limited exceptions, prohibits employers from using consumer credit history in hiring and other employment decisions. Effective April 18, 2026, the law amends the state’s General Business Law to make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for most employers to request or rely on an applicant’s or employee’s credit information when making employment decisions.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were way up for the month. On the other hand, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) filings as well as complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down. Nonetheless, everything is still up YTD.

Troutman Pepper Locke partner David Anthony and associate Noah DiPasquale co‑authored a recent article for the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section, “Reasonable Reinvestigation, Not Legal Adjudication: CRAs and Furnishers under the FCRA,” together with Jennifer Sarvadi of Hudson Cook. The piece examines how courts nationwide are refining what counts as a “reasonable” investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) reasonable procedures and reinvestigation provisions, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681i, and 1681s‑2(b).

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) were all up compared to January 2025. Compared to December 2025, however, the results are mixed. 

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Freedom Mortgage Corporation, rejecting Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims brought by borrowers who insisted they had made their mortgage payments on time. The court held that the servicer accurately reported a 30‑day late payment and conducted a reasonable investigation in response to the borrowers’ disputes forwarded to it by the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The opinion reinforces two important principles: first, a payment can be accurately reported as late when it is not properly identifiable or conforming to the servicer’s payment instructions, and second, a furnisher’s investigative obligations are defined and limited by the information it receives from the CRAs.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Kim Phan is joined by Michael Yaghi, partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + 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.