On December 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule for public comment aimed at amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The proposed rule seeks to redefine (and, in some cases, rewrite) key terms and provisions within the FCRA, particularly focusing on the activities of purported “data brokers.”
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up for the month. Year-to-date everything is up compared to 2023.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were down for the month of July, but filings the under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up for the month. Year-to-date everything is up compared to 2023, particularly CFPB complaints which have increased over 90% year-to-date!
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 of June. Still, year-to-date everything is up compared to 2023.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of April. Only court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were slightly down. Still, year-to-date everything is up by double digits compared to 2023.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision holding that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preempted the plaintiff’s state law defamation claim based on information furnished to a consumer reporting agency (CRA).
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a complaint against SoLo Funds, Inc., a fintech company operating a small-dollar, short-term lending platform. The CFPB alleges that SoLo Funds engaged in deceptive practices related to the total cost of loans, servicing, and collection of void and uncollectible loans in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and engaged in providing consumer reports governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) but failed to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of those consumer reports.
In Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a consolidated district court ruling granting summary judgment for the defendant furnisher in two Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) actions centering on whether the consumers’ disputes with the furnisher were actionable. While the Eleventh Circuit declined to impose a bright-line rule that only FCRA claims based on factual disputes are actionable, it affirmed the district courts’ summary judgment ruling, finding that for consumer disputes to be actionable against furnishers, the alleged inaccuracy must be “objectively and readily verifiable.”
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) were down for the month of March while court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up. Year-to-date everything is
In an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the decision of a California district court finding that the furnisher conducted a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it updated its credit reporting to more accurately reflect the plaintiffs’ payment history.