The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued two decisions regarding requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for employers who wish to run background checks on potential or current employees. These decisions should prompt employers to take a look at their current background check disclosure and authorization forms to assess

COVID-19 has forced us to ask novel questions generally and look for stay-at-home order workarounds. Compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is no different. One of the many questions that has arisen relates to the reinvestigation of disputed court records. How can this be done with limited access to court records? What should

We are pleased to announce that Troutman Sanders attorney, David Anthony, will be presenting during the CDIA Law & Industry Conference in Washington, DC on June 17, 2020. David will be a presenting on the panel, “The Changing Dynamics of Litigation & Enforcement.”

This panel will explore leading FCRA developments, including key litigation and

On February 27, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, a class-action case watched closely by consumer reporting agencies and other persons regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In Ramirez, the Court held for the first time that all

Plaintiff Amanda Groettum may be alive and well, but in Groettum v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota laid to rest her claims under Minnesota’s credit defamation laws and any contention that the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s two preemption provisions are in conflict.

In her complaint,

On May 30, 2019, the Second Circuit issued its decision in Kidd v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, affirming the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters and defining what is required to qualify as a “consumer reporting agency” (“CRA”) covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Agency, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et

In a 2-1 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held the seven-year period for reporting adverse items under § 1681c(a)(5) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) runs from the “date of entry” of an item and not the “date of disposition.” This case offers a detailed analysis of how

Requiring an employee or consumer to submit any dispute to binding arbitration as a condition of employment or purchase of a product or service is commonly referred to as “forced arbitration.”  Many times, the employee or consumer is required to waive their right to sue or to participate in a class action lawsuit.  Critics argue