Fair Credit Reporting Act

The Ninth Circuit recognized that plaintiff’s argument was novel but was thwarted by the statute itself.  Plaintiff below, argued on behalf of a class, that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by presenting the FCRA disclosure at the same time the company presented other separate documents.  The District Court granted summary judgment

The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Dutta v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company highlights the importance of evaluating and potentially challenging a plaintiff’s standing in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) action.

Dutta alleged that, in violation of § 1681b of the FCRA, State Farm failed to provide him with notice of his FCRA

The California Supreme Court will decide if the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) is unconstitutionally vague. In Connor v. First Student Inc., the Court of Appeal rejected an employer’s argument that the ICRAA was unconstitutional because the employer could not ascertain whether it was required to comply with it or the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The former governs background checks obtained from third party agencies concerning information pertaining to a consumer’s character, personal characteristics, general reputation or mode of living.  The second applies to reports containing information regarding a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit capacity or credit standing. Both Acts, however, refer to identical categories of information (for example, criminal histories, civil judgments and bankruptcies) when imposing limits on information that can be disclosed. 
Continue Reading California Supreme Court to Decide if California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is “Unconstitutionally Vague”