Finally, the article address some tips for litigating claims under the Act, from the perspective of the defendant furnisher.FCRA BasicsThe Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), enacted in 1970, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681, provides a mechanism for consumers to ensure that credit reports, produced and maintained by credit reporting agencies (“CRA”) such as Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian, are accurate. Incorrect information contained within the credit reports could adversely impact a consumer’s ability to obtain a loan, enter into employment, sign a lease, or be considered for credit.

What is the Role of Credit Reporting Agencies? Basically, Credit Reporting Agencies (“CRAs”), such as Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian, are in the business of providing creditors with accurate information about consumers, which is a service to creditors. 15 U.S.C. §1681’s statement of purpose states that CRAs existed before the law regulating them was enacted in 1970. Specifically, the CRAs are private entities, not governmental bodies, and therefore they are simply regulated by statute 15 U.S.C. §1681, they were not created by or given any authority under statute.

What is the Role of Credit Reporting Agencies? Basically, Credit Reporting Agencies (“CRAs”), such as Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian, are in the business of providing creditors with accurate information about consumers, which is a service to creditors. 15 U.S.C. §1681’s statement of purpose states that CRAs existed before the law regulating them was enacted in 1970. Specifically, the CRAs are private entities, not governmental bodies, and therefore they are simply regulated by statute 15 U.S.C. §1681, they were not created by or given any authority under statute.

Withinone month of the theft, Horizon notified the potentially affected members of the theft and offered free credit monitoring and identity theft protection for those members whose Social Security numbers were on the stolen laptops. Four named plaintiffs filed a putative class action on their own behalf and on behalf of other members whose information was on the stolen laptops asserting allegations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), as well as New Jersey state law causes of action. Horizon filed a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiffs’ lack of Article III constitutional standing.Similar to other recent rulings, In ruling that all four named Plaintiffs failed to establish standing to assert their claim under the FCRA, the Court found that three out of the four named Plaintiffs did not allege that they suffered any specific harm as a result of the data breach.

May 11, 2011), superceded by No. CV10-05306 ODW AGRX, 2011 WL 11562151 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2011), rev’d and remanded, 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (declining to reach the issue). Some courts have also addressed whether Section 230 immunity applies to online background report retailers in other contexts. See, e.g., Kellman v. Spokeo, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-08976-WHO, 2022 WL 1157500, at *2, *12–13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022) (concluding that Section 230 does not shield online background report retailers from liability against state tort law causes of action); Knapke v. PeopleConnect Inc., 553 F. Supp. 3d 865, 872, 874–75 (W.D. Wash. 2021), vacated on other grounds, 38 F.4th 824 (9th Cir. 2022) (same); Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 561 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (D. Nev. 2021) (denying motion to dismiss state tort law claim on Section 230 grounds because there existed a material issue of fact as to whether Section 230 shielded liability). No. 21-1678, 2022 WL 16643916 (4th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022). 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681(a)(1), (4).See § 1681(b). § 1681n. § 1681g. § 1681b(b)(1). § 1681k(a). § 1681e(b). 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).Henderson, 2022 WL 16643916, at *1.Henderson v. Source for Public Data, 540 F. Supp. 3d 539, 549 (E.D. Va. 2021), rev’d, No. 21-1678, 2022 WL 16643916 (4th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022).Henderson, 2022 WL 16643916, at *4. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g.Henderson, 2022 WL 16643916, at *8.Id. at *10 (emphasis added).Id. at *11.Id.[View source.]

Rather than shying away from AI due to these imperfections, businesses should embrace the FTC’s guidance as an opportunity to reflect on their own technology and find ways to make it better: for the business’s efficient operation, reputation, and consumers above all.1 Elisa Jillson, Aiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your company’s use of AI, FTC.GOV (Apr. 19, 2021, 9:43 AM), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2021/04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai.2 Id.3 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).4 Fed. Trade Comm’n, A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission’s Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority, FTC.GOV (Oct. 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authority.5 Facebook, Inc., HUD ALJ No. 01-18-0323-8 (Mar. 28, 2019).6 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.7Id. § 1681(a) (emphasis added).8Id. §§ 1691 et seq.9 Andrew Smith, Using Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms, FTC.GOV (Apr. 8, 2020, 9:58 AM), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2020/04/using-artificial-intelligence-algorithms.10 NOAH A. WAISBERG & DR. ALEXANDER HUDEK, AI FOR LAWYERS: HOW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS ADDING VALUE, AMPLIFYING EXPERTISE, AND TRANSFORMING CAREERS 88–91 (2021).

com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-paul-manaforts-trial-is-going-so-fast/567137/; Jerry Markon, A Double Dose of Molasses in the Rocket Docket, WASH. POST Oct. 3, 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3007-2004Oct2.html; Carl Tobias, The ‘Rocket Docket’ Is Down a Judge. It’s Time to Fill the Vacancy, WASH. POST Oct. 6, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/wp/2017/10/06/the-rocket-docket-is-down-a-judge-its-time-to-fill-the-vacancy/.5. 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.6. Whether other members of the class must also satisfy standing is currently subject to a circuit split and will be discussed infra Part II.B.7. 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).8. See id. at 1548 (citing various dictionaries) (‘‘When we have used the adjective ‘concrete,’ we have meant to convey the usual meaning of the term – ‘real,’ and not ‘abstract.’’’).9.

On May 9, 2019, five new decisions were published, and all five contain substantial modifications to the notifications of purpose that were contained in the petitioners’ CIDs.Consistent with the new policy announcement, each modified notification of purpose contains much more detail than the original version. For example, one of the original notifications of purpose implicated potential violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by saying:The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether student loan debt-relief providers, mortgage lenders, or other persons . . . have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.The original notification of purpose does not specify any actual conduct that may violate the FCRA, and it also cites to the entirety of the FCRA as potentially being violated. In contrast, under the CFPB’s new CID policy, the portion of the modified version of the notification of purpose related to potential FCRA violations now says:The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether student loan debt-relief providers, mortgage originators, or associated persons . . . have obtained or used consumer reports without a permissible purpose in a manner that violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., principally § 1681b.

This month’s ruling in Ratliff v. LTI Trucking Services, Inc. proved to be exactly the kind of holding defendants worried about after Spokeo. Plaintiff Jerome Ratliff, Jr. brought a Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681) suit in an Illinois federal court. The suit involved a putative class action alleging that LTI Trucking Services violated procedural requirements of the FCRA by failing to provide notices required under § 1681(b)(3)(B) considering negative information disclosed on Ratliff’s background check.

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act prohibits the disclosure of drivers' personal information in a motor vehicle record by state departments of motor vehicles except for the uses listed in such Act. [25]15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. The Fair Credit Reporting Act enacted procedures to ensure “accuracy and fairness of credit reporting” and thereby ensure “a respect for [a] consumer’s right to privacy.”