The report included misdemeanor charges that had been filed ten years earlier but dismissed after six years, prior to the report. Moran argued that this violated the FCRA's prohibition on reporting nonconviction adverse information older than seven years, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(5). The district court dismissed the claim, holding that because the charges had only been dismissed six years prior, the dismissal fell within the seven-year period prior to issuance of the report.

“Economic abuse” was defined to mean “causing or attempting to cause an individual to be financially dependent by maintaining control over the individual’s financial resources” and included “unauthorized or coerced use of credit or property” and “stealing from or defrauding of money or assets.”The district court concluded that the Maine amendments were preempted under the FCRA’s express preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)(E)) which preempts state law “with respect to any subject matter regulated under…[15 U.S.C. 1681c], relating to information contained in consumer reports.” 15 U.S.C. 1681c, which is titled “Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports,” includes a list of information that must be excluded from consumer reports (i.e. obsolete information) and also requires certain information to be included in consumer reports.

As described in Muranski, FACTA “‘is aimed at protecting consumers from identity theft.’”[i]Among other things, FACTA added to the FCRA a provision entitled “Truncation of credit card and debit card numbers.”See 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). This provision states as follows: “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.”See id.

”[i] Among other things, FACTA added to the FCRA a provision entitled “Truncation of credit card and debit card numbers.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). This provision states as follows: “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.”

[25] Although the majority of courts currently require a plaintiff to plead actual harm to establish FACTA standing, a contrary decision in any one of the pending appeals could lead to a circuit split and eventually to Supreme Court review. [1] Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). [2] No. 16-35933 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018).

Businesses that generate printed cardholder receipts—like our hypothetical grocery store—should remain alert to developments in this area of the law.Notes: [1] 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). [2] Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952. [3] 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). [4] 15 U.S.C. § 1681n-1681o.

The court observed that this raised an issue under FACTA as to whether the statute prohibits vendors from providing “non-truncated” credit card receipts to their customers who do not actually own the credit card accounts. In considering this question, the court turned to the specific provision in FACTA, 15 USC § 1681c(g)(1), which prohibits “print[ing] more than the last five digits of the [credit] card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder . . . .” The relevant portion of the statute does not define the term “cardholder,” and the court rejected any efforts to look to other sections of FACTA to define the term. Because the issue was not clear, and one of first impression, the court ultimately elected to remand the question to the lower court for further proceedings, noting that: … we do not conclude that whether § 1681c(g)(1) prohibits vendors from providing non-conforming receipts of credit-card account owners to persons other than the account owners is clear “beyond any doubt.”

a letter sent before June 6 but that that may be received on or after that date, debt collectors should modify their collection letters to accommodate recent changes to the law in West Virginia.The statutory penalty for each violation of the WVCCPA can be nearly $5,000, plus attorney fees and costs. We expect the consumer bar in West Virginia will be actively monitoring whether initial letters are in compliance as of June 6, 2014.This bill, introduced January 28, 2014, amends subparagraph (f) of section 46A-2-128 of the WVCCPA, which prohibits the use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, to read:(f) When the debt is beyond the statute of limitations for filing a legal action for collection, failing to provide the following disclosure informing the consumer in its initial written communication with such consumer that:When collecting on a debt that is not past the date for obsolescence provided for in Section 605(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U. S. C. 1681c: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, (INSERT OWNER NAME) cannot sue you for it.

No debt collector may use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any claim. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is deemed to violate this section:* * *(f) When the debt is beyond the statute of limitations for filing a legal action for collection, failing to provide the following disclosure informing the consumer in its initial written communication with such consumer that:(1) When collecting on a debt that is not past the date for obsolescence provided for in Section 605(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681c: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, (INSERT OWNER NAME) cannot sue you for it.

No debt collector may use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any claim. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is deemed to violate this section: * * * (f) When the debt is beyond the statute of limitations for filing a legal action for collection, failing to provide the following disclosure informing the consumer in its initial written communication with such consumer that: (1) When collecting on a debt that is not past the date for obsolescence provided for in Section 605(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681c: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, (INSERT OWNER NAME) cannot sue you for it.