Financial institutions, credit furnishers, debt collectors, and other businesses reporting consumer information to credit reporting agencies should take note that the Eleventh Circuit.
Eleventh Circuit Rules on Timeshare FCRA Claims natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
In the years following the Supreme Court s decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) which held that bare procedural violation[s],
divorced from any concrete harm, [do not] satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement of Article III district
courts have had to grapple with the question of standing under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681,
et
seq., and in particular, what injuries resulting from an
alleged violation of FCRA are sufficiently concrete to invoke
Article III standing.
This blog post discusses claims arising under Section
1681b(b)(1)(A) of the FCRA. Under that section, a consumer
reporting agency (CRA) may furnish a consumer report to an employer
In the years following the Supreme Court’s decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) which held that “bare procedural violation[s], divorced from any concrete harm, [do not] satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III” district courts have had to grapple with the question of standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681,
et seq., and in particular, what injuries resulting from an alleged violation of FCRA are sufficiently concrete to invoke Article III standing.
This blog post discusses claims arising under Section 1681b(b)(1)(A) of the FCRA. Under that section, a consumer reporting agency (CRA) may furnish a consumer report to an employer “only if” the employer first certifies that it: (1) “has complied” with the disclosure-to-consumer requirement under Section 1681b(b)(2); and (2) “will comply” with the notice-to-consumer requirement before taking adverse action as required by Section 1681b(b)(3).
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On January 27, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment by the plaintiff and the defendant in
Andres Romero (“Plaintiff”) v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC (“Monterey”), et al., a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving allegations of identity theft.
Romero v. Monterey Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 19CV1781 JM (KSC), 2021 WL 268635 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021). The Court denied summary judgment as to whether Monterey conducted a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff s dispute under the FCRA but granted judgment in favor of Monterey finding that its investigation was not a willful violation under the statute.