In Bibbs, the Third Circuit ruled that in determining whether a credit report is inaccurate or misleading under the FCRA’s “maximum possible accuracy” requirement, a district court should apply a “reasonable reader” standard.  After reviewing the background of Bibbs, we discuss the analysis that Bibbs requires a district court to perform in determining

Earlier this year, the CFPB and the FTC filed an amicus brief in an appeal to the Second Circuit, arguing that the Court should reject the District Court’s “unduly narrow” interpretation of the FCRA requirement that consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy of information included in consumer reports. The CFPB and

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that in determining whether a credit report is inaccurate or misleading under the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s “maximum possible accuracy” requirement, a district court should apply a “reasonable reader” standard.  Ballard Spahr attorneys are currently representing clients in cases involving this legal issue.

Bibbs

The CFPB announced last week that it has entered into a settlement with Hyundai Capital America (Hyundai) to resolve alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V arising from Hyundai’s reporting of information on vehicle retail installment contracts and leases to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from 2016 to 2020.  The settlement requires

In a new advisory opinion, the CFPB addresses the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s permissible purpose requirement as it applies to both consumer reporting agencies and users of consumer reports.

Consumer reporting agencies. FCRA Section 604(a) enumerates the circumstances under which a consumer reporting agency (CRA) may provide a consumer report to a user.

The CFPB has issued an interpretive rule on the scope of the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s preemption provisions.  The rule’s narrow reading of those provisions appears intended to encourage and support state legislative efforts to enact laws targeting credit reporting issues of concern to the CFPB, such as the reporting of medical debt.

The FCRA’s

The CFPB and the FTC recently filed an amicus brief in an appeal to the Second Circuit, arguing that the Court should reject the District Court’s “unduly narrow” interpretation of the FCRA requirement that consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy of information included in consumer reports.

In Sessa v. Trans Union

The Eighth Circuit reiterated in a decision last month that trial courts must distinguish between FCRA plaintiffs who have suffered concrete harm and plaintiffs who merely seek to collect statutorily allowed damages as a way to ensure compliance with the law.  Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, the former have Article III standing

The Fourth Circuit heard argument earlier this week on whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields on-line data aggregator, PublicData.com, from FCRA liability in a putative class action dismissed last year by a federal judge in Virginia.  We previously blogged about the amicus brief filed in the appeal by the CFPB, FTC, and

In a rare development, a California state court of appeals has opined on the requirements for obtaining authorization for background checks pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In Hebert v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., the plaintiff filed a putative class action against retailer Barnes & Noble, contending it willfully violated the FCRA by