Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

FCRA -- 15 U.S.C. § 1681

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Buckley v. AFNI, Inc., 2016 WL 70847, at *2-3 (S.D.Ind., 2016), Judge Baker found that a debt collector violated the FCRA and the FDCPA when it initiated collection activities against a bankrupt debtor.  First, the District Court found that the debt collector's pulling of a credit report violated the FCRA because no debt existed post-bankruptcy. Both parties have moved for summary judgment… Read More

In Banks v. ACS Educ., 2016 WL 25464, at *2 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2016), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed the panoply of claims filed by a student loan borrower, including stating that FCRA did not provide the predicate act under RICO.  Applicable here, the Court of Appeals also said that the Plaintiff failed to state a FCRA claim because… Read More

In Brill v. TransUnion, 2015 WL 9095103, at *1-2 (W.D.Wis. 2015), Judge Crocker dismissed a FCRA claim against TransUnion arising out of a vehicle co-lessee’s claims that the primary lessee forged his signature on a lease extension and then defaulted on it. The facts, apparently, arising out of a failed relationship, are not all that uncommon. On or about May… Read More

Dao v. Cello Partnership,  2015 WL 7572304, at *3-5 (D.Minn., 2015), Judge Tunheim granted summary judgment to a FCRA defendant because the Plaintiff -- from an evidentiary standpoint -- could no establish compensable loss. Dao first argues that he was denied mortgage refinancing with PrimeLending because of Verizon's failure to investigate and report the fraudulent accounts. Specifically, Dao contends that PrimeLending relied… Read More

In Snyder v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2015 WL 7075622, at *7-8 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Magistrate Judge Corley allowed a FCRA/Rosenthal Act claim past the pleadings stage.  As to the FCRA claim, the Court found that the question of FCRA accuracy is determined past the pleadings stage. To state a claim under the FCRA against...a furnisher of credit information, the [p]laintiff must allege that… Read More

In Vasquez v. Bank of America, N.A., 2015 WL 7075628, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Seeborg found a FCRA Plaintiff's claims within the applicable statute of limitations. Federal courts are split on the question of whether each separate notice of dispute triggers a duty to investigate even if the information has been disputed previously. The majority of courts have concluded that “each… Read More

In Wright v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 6941273, at *4-6 (C.A.10 (Colo.),2015), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit said that the CRAs employed proper procedures to determine the accuracy of public liens. As noted above, the CRAs relied on LexisNexis to collect information from the Recorder's office. LexisNexis employs a collector to retrieve information from the Recorder's… Read More

In Martin Valenzuela, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, 2015 WL 6811585, at *2-3 (D.Ariz., 2015), Judge Rayes disqualified Plaintiff's expert Evan Hendricks from testifying about much of Plaintiff's FCRA case, except whether Experian had reasonableness policies and procedures. Hendricks is qualified to testify about Equifax's “inner workings” and opine on the reasonableness of its credit reporting policies and procedures. For… Read More

In Seungtae Kim v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, 2015 WL 6680911, at *2 (C.D.Cal., 2015), Judge O'Connell denied a new trial to an automobile finance company, against whom a $430,000 jury verdict was assessed.  The facts were as follows: On August 28, 2015, the jury rendered its unanimous verdict, finding in Plaintiff's favor on two of his three claims. (Judgment… Read More

In Slavkov v. Fast Water Heater Partners I, LP, et. al. 2015 WL 6674575, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Tygar found that efforts made by a FCRA class action defendant were misleading, and ordered curative efforts to be undertaken. [Plaintiffs] challenge two letters sent by the Defendants to the putative class members, offering a settlement payment in exchange for the putative class… Read More

In Vasquez-Estrada v. Collecto, Inc., 2015 WL 6163971, at *2 (D.Or., 2015), Judge Stewart addressed some FCRA rules for furnishers in the context of identity theft. Defendant also argues that plaintiff has been compensated for these same damages through his settlement with the CRAs in separate litigation. However, the settlement with the CRAs resolved only claims under the FCRA, not… Read More

In Heaton v. Social Finance,  2015 WL 6003119, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Henderson found that defendant's online credit application might be mere comparison shopping such that there was no permissible purpose under FCRA to pull the consumer's credit report. Plaintiffs Shawn Heaton (“Heaton”) and Anna Ahlborn (“Ahlborn”) each visited Defendants' website and had slightly different experiences. Both Plaintiffs registered for the… Read More

In Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 5711882, at *5-8 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2015), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York's ID Theft Laws were not preempted by FCRA with respect to furnisher misconduct that was not regulated by 15 USC 1681(s)-2 of FCRA. Here, the language of the provision expresses Congress's intent to preempt… Read More

In Prosser v. Navient Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 5168635 (N.D. Cal. 2015), Judge Conti found that a student loan lender conducted a reasonable re-investigation under FCRA after the Plaintiff claimed to be a victim of identity theft. Parties agree that there is only a private right of action to pursue claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b), under §§ 1681n &… Read More

In Littleton v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 4638308, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Davila dismissed a FCRA claim, with leave to amend, because the Plaintiff failed to allege the inaccuracy. SunTrust argues the FCRA claim is insufficient because Plaintiff failed to describe what information SunTrust allegedly communicated to the consumer reporting agencies, as well as why this information… Read More

In Gustafson v. Experian Info. Solutions Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01453-ODW EX, 2015 WL 3477071, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2015), Judge Wright granted summary judgment to a debt collector on a Plaintiff's FCRA claim, alleging that the debt was "double-reported". “[S]ummary judgment is not precluded altogether on questions of reasonableness,” but “[i]t is only appropriate ‘when only one conclusion about the… Read More

In Sterling v. Ourisman Chevrolet of Bowie Inc., 2015 WL 2213708 (D. Md. 2015), Judge Grimm found that the defendants did not violate the FCRA by failing to provide an adverse action letter under the FCRA following declining a car buyer’s credit application.  Plaintiff Monica Sterling went to Defendant Ourisman Chevrolet of Bowie, Inc. where Ourisman employees Henry Hylton, William… Read More

I know it's a real property case, but the argument is something that we've seen a bit of in California on the personal property side.  In Groff v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2015 WL 2169811 (E.D. Mich. 2015), Judge Lawson found that the defendant did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it reported that the plaintiff’s bankruptcy-discharged… Read More

In Spokeo v. Robins,742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that FCRA itself provided Article III standing, even if the Plaintiff could prove no actual damage.  Spokeo contends, however, that Robins cannot sue under the FCRA without showing actual harm. But the statutory cause of action does not require a showing of… Read More

In Horsch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 2015 WL 1344836 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Yohn found that furnishers had properly reported accounts post-bankruptcy where the debtors had made post-bankruptcy payments.  Judge Yohn explained the standards for a furnishers’ re-investigation even where it was conceded that the furnishers’ re-investigation was reasonable. The court cautioned that this issue “is normally a question for… Read More

1 8 9 10 11 12 17