FCRA

Subscribe to FCRA via RSS

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.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month of August. However, year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.

On September 5, President Trump signed into law the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (HPPA) (H.R. 2808). This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Representatives John Rose (R-TN) and Ritchie Torres (D-NY), aims to safeguard homebuyers’ personal financial information.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of July. Year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.

On July 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) secured a court order aimed at halting allegedly deceptive practices against seven companies and three individuals operating the “Accelerated Debt” program. The defendants allegedly contacted consumers through telemarketing calls or in response to calls resulting from their mail and online ads and made false claims about their ability to substantially reduce consumer debts and misleading consumers about fees. The FTC alleged these actions violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Impersonation Rule, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false statements to get consumers’ financial account numbers. The court’s order includes a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee the defendants’ business operations.

On July 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a status report announcing its decision not to reissue its Medical Debt Collection Advisory Opinion, which had been issued in 2024 to “remind debt collectors of their obligations to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [FDCPA] and Regulation F’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any medical debt and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any medical debt.” The Advisory Opinion had been challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by ACA International and Collection Bureau Services, Inc.

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

WebRecon reports the overall statistics for…

This article was republished in insideARM on June 17, 2025.

On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.