WestlawNext - List of 128 Notes of Decisions For 1681e Compliance Procedures

List of 128 Notes of Decisions for § 1681e.
Compliance procedures
Notes Of Decisions (128)
Accuracy of report
Accuracy of report - Generally
Credit report indicating that money judgment had been entered in state court was “inaccurate,” for purposes of
consumer’s suit for damages under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), given that no money judgment could have
been officially entered against consumer under state law. Henson v. CSC Credit Services, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1994, 29
F.3d 280 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reports containing factually correct information that nonetheless mislead their readers are neither
maximally accurate within meaning of this subchapter nor fair to consumers who are subjects of reports.
Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.D.C.1984, 734 F.2d 37, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 136 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 1
In determining whether a credit reporting agency has violated this section requiring the agency, whenever it
prepares a consumer report, to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information concerning the individual about whom the report relates,” the essential task of the Federal Trade
Commission is to ascertain whether the procedures followed by the agency pose an unreasonable risk of
producing error. Equifax Inc. v. F.T.C., C.A.11 1982, 678 F.2d 1047 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Credit bureau did not intentionally act in conscious disregard of consumer’s rights when it sold credit reports with
apparent contradiction to automobile dealership, its customer, where reasonable action to take under the
circumstances was not statutorily plain, or was at least debatable, and no judicial authority had ruled what credit
reporting agencies like bureau had to do under those circumstances. Perez v. Trans Union, LLC, E.D.Pa.2007,
526 F.Supp.2d 504 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer reporting agency did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by accurately reporting that
consumer’s car loan was delinquent; consumer admitted that he entered into a loan agreement, failed to pay the
loan, and that the loan was reported to the agency as delinquent, and argued only that he should not have to pay
the loan because his car was defective. Wadley v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, E.D.Va.2005, 396
F.Supp.2d 677 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer reporting agency did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by accurately reporting that
consumer’s revolving credit account was delinquent; consumer conceded that she entered the credit agreement
and that her account was delinquent because she stopped making payments, and claimed only that she had
refused to pay for sofa she had purchased on credit because it was defective. Dauster v. Household Credit
Services, Inc., E.D.Va.2005, 396 F.Supp.2d 663 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
The duty of credit reporting agencies (CRA), under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), to maintain reasonable
procedures calculated to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit reports is not limited to
CRAs that own and maintain credit files; instead, it covers all CRAs that prepare credit reports. Gohman v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, D.Minn.2005, 395 F.Supp.2d 822 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require a consumer reporting agency to develop systems that would catch
infrequent and irregular mistakes that furnishers might make; its goal is to have consumer reports that are fair and
accurate. Anderson v. Trans Union LLC, W.D.Wis.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 1225 . Credit Reporting Agencies
3
To establish under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that a credit reporting agency was negligent for not
assuring the maximum possible accuracy of information it possessed and distributed on a consumer, a plaintiff
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

List of 128 Notes of Decisions for § 1681e. Compliance procedures
must show that: (1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer’s credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was
due to defendant’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) the
consumer suffered injury; and (4) the consumer’s injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry.
Lawrence v. Trans Union LLC, E.D.Pa.2003, 296 F.Supp.2d 582 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Section of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requiring consumer credit reporting agencies to follow
reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information included in credit reports
imposes higher standard on reporting agencies than separate section of the FCRA requiring that disclosures be
made only for a proper purpose. Andrews v. Trans Union Corp. Inc., C.D.Cal.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1056 , affirmed
in part , reversed in part 225 F.3d 1063 , as amended , certiorari granted 121 S.Ct. 1223, 532 U.S. 902, 149
L.Ed.2d 134 , reversed and remanded 122 S.Ct. 441, 534 U.S. 19, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 , on remand 289 F.3d 600 .
Credit Reporting Agencies 1 Credit Reporting Agencies 3
To succeed on claim under section of Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act concerning accuracy of credit reports,
plaintiff must establish that (1) consumer reporting agency was negligent in that it failed to follow reasonable
procedures to assure accuracy, (2) consumer reporting agency reported inaccurate information about plaintiff, (3)
plaintiff was injured, (4) consumer reporting agency’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, and (5)
plaintiff must show that agency failed to follow reasonable procedures in generating the inaccurate report. King
v. MTA Bridges and Tunnels, E.D.N.Y.1996, 933 F.Supp. 220 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
To state claim against consumer credit reporting agency, for failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure
maximum possible accuracy of information contained in consumer report, plaintiff must establish that agency was
negligent in failing to follow reasonable procedures, that agency reported inaccurate information about plaintiff,
that plaintiff was injured, and that agency’s negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s injury. Whelan v. Trans
Union Credit Reporting Agency, E.D.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 824 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit report reflecting filing of bankruptcy petition was true and accurate within meaning of this subchapter and
inquiry into reasonableness of procedures used to compile the report was foreclosed, notwithstanding subsequent
withdrawal of the petition, absent allegation that agency willfully or negligently omitted information available in a
verification procedure carried out when information was received that a petition in bankruptcy had been filed.
McPhee v. Chilton Corp., D.C.Conn.1978, 468 F.Supp. 494 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Consumer reporting agency did not violate this subchapter by showing in its report that, nearly three years
earlier, credit buyers owed department store stated sum, where the facts reported were accurate. Todd v.
Associated Credit Bureau Services, Inc., E.D.Pa.1977, 451 F.Supp. 447 , affirmed 578 F.2d 1376 , certiorari
denied 99 S.Ct. 834, 439 U.S. 1068, 59 L.Ed.2d 33 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
In order to pursue cause of action predicated upon willful or negligent violations of provision requiring consumer
reporting agency, when preparing consumer report, to follow reasonable procedure to insure maximum possible
accuracy of information concerning individual about whom report relates, report sought to be attacked must be
inaccurate. Lowry v. Credit Bureau, Inc. of Georgia, N.D.Ga.1978, 444 F.Supp. 541 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 1
Where consumer reporting agency’s credit report accurately stated information contained in records of insurance
agent’s former employer with respect to agent’s resignation, such credit reports did not violate this subchapter.
Roseman v. Retail Credit Co., Inc., E.D.Pa.1977, 428 F.Supp. 643 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Where credit card applicant was named as defendant in lawsuit as reported in consumer credit report, consumer
credit-reporting agency did not violate this subchapter, and agency was not required to distinguish whether
applicant was named as defendant individually or in his official capacity. Austin v. BankAmerica Service Corp.,
N.D.Ga.1974, 419 F.Supp. 730 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Consumer credit-reporting agency is liable for civil damages only if it has not followed reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy of information upon which credit report is based. Austin v. BankAmerica
Service Corp., N.D.Ga.1974, 419 F.Supp. 730 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Where consumers never contested accuracy of credit report made by consumer credit-reporting agency,
consumers were not entitled to recover from agency on basis of willful or negligent violation of this section.
Middlebrooks v. Retail Credit Co., N.D.Ga.1976, 416 F.Supp. 1013 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Under statute providing that whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information concerning individual about whom
report relates, Consumer Credit Protection Act [§ 607(b), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681e(b) ] liability attaches
only if inaccuracy in report is result of failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of information contained therein; however, there is no need to inquire into reasonableness of credit
reporting agency’s procedures if it is demonstrated at outset that report in question is in fact true. Tracy v. Credit
Bureau, Inc., of Georgia, Ga.App.1985, 330 S.E.2d 921, 174 Ga.App. 668 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Accuracy of report - Causation
Inaccurate credit reports supplied to automobile dealership, as customer of credit bureau, did not cause
consumer to suffer economic damages, for purpose of consumer’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims
against bureau alleging negligent noncompliance, denial of credit, and damage to credit reputation, where
customer did not provide inaccurate reports to any potential lender that denied credit to consumer and potential
lenders did not rely on inaccurate reports in denying or extending credit. Perez v. Trans Union, LLC,
E.D.Pa.2007, 526 F.Supp.2d 504 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer failed to establish claim under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) where he did not demonstrate that
the information in his credit reports was actually inaccurate or that such inaccurate information was the proximate
cause of any harm to himself. Collins v. Experian Credit Reporting Service, D.Conn.2007, 494 F.Supp.2d 127 .
Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer who sued credit reporting agency failed to establish that he sustained any actual damages from
failure timely to remove collection account from credit report, as required to maintain claim under Fair Credit
Reporting Act, alleging failure to follow reasonable procedures for assuring accuracy; consumer was able to
obtain mortgage for home purchase notwithstanding agency’s lack of timeliness, and consumer was not otherwise
denied credit. Lamar v. Experian Information Systems, N.D.Ill.2006, 408 F.Supp.2d 591 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 3
Consumer’s inability to obtain lower-interest-rate vehicle loan was not shown to be caused by credit reporting
agency’s alleged failure to timely correct erroneous listings of unsatisfied civil judgments against him, precluding
recovery in his Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) suit against agency alleging failure to follow reasonable
procedures; high-interest loan offer was made after consumer had provided correct information about judgments
to dealer, and before expiration of FCRA deadline for agency to correct information, and there was no showing
that consumer attempted to get lower interest rate after expiration of deadline, or allegation that he would have
been able to secure lower rate absent errors. Anderson v. Trans Union, W.D.Wis.2005, 405 F.Supp.2d 977 .
Inaccurate entry in credit report, showing that civil judgment had been entered against consumer, was not
substantial factor in bringing about injuries allegedly suffered by consumer when he was either denied credit or
forced to accept higher interest rates, and thus did not support consumer’s claim against credit reporting agency
under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); even assuming lenders utilized the inaccurate report, inaccurate entry
was immaterial in light of prior mortgage foreclosure, bankruptcy, and garnishment proceedings involving
consumer, and accurate entry would have shown judgment in greater amount. Enwonwu v. Trans Union, LLC,
N.D.Ga.2005, 364 F.Supp.2d 1361 , motion to set aside judgment denied 2005 WL 1420857 , affirmed 164
Fed.Appx. 914, 2006 WL 227585 , rehearing and rehearing en banc denied 179 Fed.Appx. 686, 2006 WL
1173159 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer whose credit report falsely stated that he was deceased failed to show causation, that is, that he

could support his assertion that his mortgage terms were less favorable than those he would have been able to
obtain had it not been for the “deceased” notations in his report, and so he would not be allowed to seek damages
on that basis for credit reporting agencies’ alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); although
consumer asserted that, due to agencies’ misreporting, he was forced to accept a five-year adjustable-rate loan
rather than a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, consumer pointed to no evidence showing the interest rate he might
have obtained had it not been for the erroneous notation, affidavit of consumer’s mortgage broker stated only that
terms of adjustable-rate loans were “quite different” from those of traditional 30-year loans, and so it was only
speculation that market rates would be less favorable in five years. McKeown v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
W.D.Wis.2004, 335 F.Supp.2d 917 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency’s (CRA) incorrect notation on consumer credit report that consumer had filed for
bankruptcy was not substantial factor in lender’s decision not to extend credit to consumer, and thus CRA did not
cause actual damages necessary to establish violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), where lender
disregarded bankruptcy notation and denied consumer’s application for other reasons. Reed v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., D.Minn.2004, 321 F.Supp.2d 1109 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Denial of credit by two creditors was not result of any unreasonable conduct on part of credit reporting agency in
including or refusing to delete judgment from credit report, where creditor’s inquiries occurred at time that
information contained in report was accurate. Elliott v. TRW Inc., N.D.Tex.1995, 889 F.Supp. 960 . Credit
Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer who has been denied credit and who seeks to recover from credit reporting agency under this
subchapter must show that denial was caused by inaccurate entries, which in turn were caused by agency’s
failure to use reasonable procedures, rather than by correct adverse entries or other factors. Pendleton v. Trans
Union Systems Corp., E.D.Pa.1977, 76 F.R.D. 192 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Accuracy of report - Notice from consumer
Credit reporting agency did not, as a matter of law, violate duty of reasonable care with respect to reporting $52
debt on consumer’s credit report when consumer neither paid bill nor informed credit reporting agency that bill
was being disputed. Spence v. TRW, Inc., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1996, 92 F.3d 380 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency is not, as a matter of law, liable under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for reporting
inaccurate information obtained from a court’s judgment docket, absent prior notice from consumer that
information may be inaccurate. Henson v. CSC Credit Services, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1994, 29 F.3d 280 . Credit
Credit reporting agency, which had received complaint from prospective mortgagor about derogatory information
on tentative consumer report furnished mortgage company, and which could have with little added effort
immediately advised creditors of mortgagor’s complaints and requested investigation and reevaluation based on
most recent data, was required to do more under this subchapter than make two telephone calls to creditors
which simply reconfirmed inaccurate information. Bryant v. TRW, Inc., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1982, 689 F.2d 72 . Credit
Credit reporting agency’s failure to promptly reinvestigate upon receiving notice from consumer’s attorney
disputing several items in consumer’s credit report did not constitute failure to “follow reasonable procedures” to
assure accuracy, and thus did not violate Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), where notice contained incorrect
Social Security number; although agency had capability to access credit report using information other than SS
number, it was reasonable to request verification of number before reinvestigating, given that agency, in order to
resolve several of the disputed items, would have had to transmit confidential information to third-party furnishers,
implicating agency’s duty to protect consumer’s confidentiality. Anderson v. Trans Union, W.D.Wis.2005, 405
Credit reporting agencies’ (CRA) failure to delete erroneous information after receipt of notice by consumer did

not establish knowing and intentional disregard for consumer’s rights necessary to support consumer’s claims for
statutory and punitive damages under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), where CRAs did not intentionally
mislead consumer or conceal information from him. Reed v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., D.Minn.2004,
Consumer failed to show that credit bureau or investigators negligently failed to assure accuracy of his credit
report where consumer made no claim that he ever notified credit bureau or anyone else that there were
inaccuracies in report, and he failed to show any specific consequences from errors in credit history. King v.
MTA Bridges and Tunnels, E.D.N.Y.1996, 933 F.Supp. 220 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency did not act unreasonably in deleting outstanding judgment from credit report within
approximately 24 days from receiving adequate notice from consumer that judgment had been released. Elliott
v. TRW Inc., N.D.Tex.1995, 889 F.Supp. 960 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Allegations by consumer that he notified consumer reporting agency of circumstances surrounding money
judgment against him and that agency, after advising consumer that it would delete challenged notation from his
report, neither effected deletion nor recorded the information which consumer had provided stated claim for
violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and for violation of Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Act. Grant v.
TRW, Inc., D.Md.1992, 789 F.Supp. 690 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Accuracy of report - Reasonable procedures
Award of $50,000 in compensatory damages to consumer for credit reporting agency’s violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA’s) reporting and disclosure requirements was not excessive; agency erroneously
associated consumer with an individual on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC’s) Specially Designated
Nationals (SDNs) list, which included people identified as terrorists, and there was evidence that consumer
suffered considerable anxiety, emotional distress, humiliation, weight loss, and sleeplessness as a result of being
associated with the list. Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2010, 617 F.3d 688 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 4
Evidence was sufficient to support finding that credit reporting agency negligently failed to comply with the
section of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requiring consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in credit reports, where agency informed
creditor that consumer’s name matched someone listed on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC’s)
Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) list, and there was a large discrepancy within the agency’s own records
between consumer’s last name, middle name, date of birth, and citizenship and the information for the individual
on the SDN list. Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2010, 617 F.3d 688 . Credit Reporting Agencies
3
Credit reporting agency was not required under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to examine each
computer-generated credit report for anomalous information, in order for its procedures to be considered
reasonable, without notice of prevalent unreliable information from reporting lender, since volume of information
processed daily by agency was enormous, and increased cost to agency to examine each of those entries
individually would have been enormous. Sarver v. Experian Information Solutions, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2004, 390 F.3d
Reasonableness of credit reporting agency’s cloaking procedure, which cloaked erroneous information received
on magnetic tape from businesses for only 12 months after initial correction in agency’s records, was for jury on
claim for negligent violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., C.A.5 (Miss.)
2001, 246 F.3d 359 , rehearing and rehearing en banc denied 254 F.3d 72 , certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 346, 534
U.S. 951, 151 L.Ed.2d 261 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Credit reporting agency followed reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of consumer’s credit file
and did not breach its duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by relying on erroneous updates of

consumer’s indebtedness provided by creditors, despite having received prior information indicating that reports
of consumer’s indebtedness were in error. Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1997, 112 F.3d 98 .
Credit reporting agency’s failure, following reinvestigation of disputed items in credit report, to note that lien was
against consumer as a business entity, rather than as an individual, and that consumer contested lien, did not
render report fundamentally incomplete, so as to serve as basis for consumer’s claim that reinvestigation
procedures were inadequate to reasonably assure accurate correction of disputed items and thus violated
subsec. (b) of this section. Stewart v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.D.C.1984, 734 F.2d 47, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 146 .
Circumstances indicating that agent for consumer reporting agency devoted at most 30 minutes in preparing his
report respecting consumer, that report was rife with innuendo, misstatement, and slander, that a recheck of
investigation showed that agent depended solely on one biased informant, that agent made no verification despite
a requirement to contrary, that it took three days to recheck original investigation, and that every allegation therein
was found untrue were such as to establish violations of accuracy and disclosure provisions of this subchapter.
Millstone v. O’Hanlon Reports, Inc., C.A.8 (Mo.) 1976, 528 F.2d 829 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Credit reporting agency’s accuracy-assuring procedures were not rendered unreasonable under Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by fact that agency’s credit report continued to list outstanding balance for particular debt
after balance had been satisfied by compromise payment to debt collector; debt collector affirmatively and
erroneously maintained that debt remained outstanding, and thus agency’s inaccurate report was not attributable
to its procedures. Saenz v. Trans Union, LLC, D.Or.2007, 621 F.Supp.2d 1074 . Credit Reporting Agencies
3
Allegations by debtors, who received discharge of their debts in bankruptcy pursuant to chapter 7 of the
bankruptcy code, that credit reports issued by credit reporting agency falsely declared their discharged debts to
be due and owing, that agency’s rate of error in its reports was 64 percent for debtors who filed chapter 7
bankruptcy proceedings, that the agency obtained bankruptcy discharge orders from an electronic court reporting
service, and that agency could have accessed that information by computer to accurately update credit reports
stated claim against agency for violations of the accurate reporting and reasonable investigation requirements of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act (CCRAA).
White v. Trans Union, LLC, C.D.Cal.2006, 462 F.Supp.2d 1079 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agencies followed reasonable procedures under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to assure
accuracy of information in credit card holder’s history report by contacting issuing bank to verify information in
report after holder reported that information was not accurate, absent special circumstances demonstrating that
further investigation was required; holder told agencies that bank told him it would report account in different way,
agencies then contacted bank to verify information, bank verified account, and agencies updated reports
accordingly. Schaffhausen v. Bank of America, N.A., D.Minn.2005, 393 F.Supp.2d 853 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency was not liable under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for reporting living consumers as
deceased; no reasonable jury could find that agency’s procedures were unreasonable solely because they failed
to catch erroneous data entry that one of its customers inserted into the system, and before consumers initiated a
complaint about the information, agency had no obligation to check the accuracy of that information or to take
note of the discrepancy between a tradeline showing deceased and other tradelines showing activity. Anderson
v. Trans Union, LLC, W.D.Wis.2004, 345 F.Supp.2d 963 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
For purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), credit reporting agencies did not act unreasonably by
reporting information simply because it came from particular creditor; although this creditor apparently had
engaged in misreporting in the past, the five cases cited by consumer were merely isolated incidents, consumer
made no showing that the incidents were related, and the five incidents appeared marginal when contrasted with
the millions of pieces of credit information that creditor provided to credit reporting agencies. McKeown v. Sears
Roebuck & Co., W.D.Wis.2004, 335 F.Supp.2d 917 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Evidence was sufficient to support jury’s finding that credit reporting agency did not follow reasonable
procedures to ensure accuracy of consumer’s credit report, demonstrating agency’s negligent noncompliance with
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); agency included incorrect information about consumer’s prior insurance
claims on claims report, consumer complained to agency about false information, after original mistakes were
corrected, more incorrect claims data reappeared on report and remained on report well after FCRA lawsuit was
filed, and agency failed to explain the alleged computer glitches that caused the incorrect information to appear
on report. Boris v. Choicepoint Services, Inc., W.D.Ky.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 851 , amended 2003 WL 23009851
. Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Borrower failed to establish that credit reporting company violated Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information concerning borrower in preparing
report, absent showing that information reported regarding borrower’s bankruptcy petition and outstanding
balance on education loan was inaccurate; borrower’s bankruptcy petition and bankruptcy court order dismissing
petition without granting borrower relief presented conclusive proof of borrower’s bankruptcy filing, and
information provided by lender regarding education loan established accuracy of reported outstanding balance,
absent any evidence disputing substance of records. Boothe v. TRW Credit Data, S.D.N.Y.1991, 768 F.Supp.
Credit reporting agency was not liable to plaintiff for accurately reporting that creditor’s judgment against plaintiff
had been vacated and the case dismissed with “no record”; vacating court had failed to comply with statutory
procedures which would have removed judgment from public records, and agency’s report was not rendered
inadequate by its failure to specify that it had been creditor who requested vacation of judgment. Grays v. Trans
Union Credit Information Co., N.D.Ohio 1990, 759 F.Supp. 390 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Credit bureau which reported that automobile credit company had repossessed two vehicles from consumer did
not violate provision of Consumer Credit Reporting Act creating duty to maintain reasonable procedures to
achieve maximum possible accuracy in preparation of consumer credit reports, even though consumer in fact had
been guarantor rather than direct obligor with respect to the vehicles, where credit bureau initially directly
contacted creditor and where there was no evidence of inconsistencies or discrepancies that readily appeared on
face of credit file. Swoager v. Credit Bureau of Greater St. Petersburg, Fla., M.D.Fla.1985, 608 F.Supp. 972 .
Credit bureau was negligent in failing to reconcile inaccurate file on consumer with file which had been corrected
at consumer’s instance and by not following procedures that would have prevented re-reporting of the inaccurate
information even after the two files were combined; therefore, credit bureau was liable to consumer in the amount
of $10,000 for injuries he suffered resulting from such negligence, including injury to his reputation, his family, his
work, and his sense of well-being. Morris v. Credit Bureau of Cincinnati, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1983, 563 F.Supp. 962 .
No judicial inquiry into a credit reporting agency’s procedures for gathering and evaluating information is required
if the report in question is in fact true; in other words, accuracy of the final product forecloses inquiry into
reasonableness of the procedures used to produce the report. McPhee v. Chilton Corp., D.C.Conn.1978, 468
F.Supp. 494 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Confusion of computer credit reports so as to attribute to plaintiff credit history of person with similar name who
had previously been adjudicated bankrupt did not provide basis for federal claim under provision requiring
consumer reporting agency, when preparing consumer report, to follow reasonable procedures to insure
maximum possible accuracy of information concerning individual about whom report relates. Lowry v. Credit
Bureau, Inc. of Georgia, N.D.Ga.1978, 444 F.Supp. 541 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Accuracy of report - Technical accuracy
Consumer credit reporting agency was not liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for its technically

accurate disclosure that money judgment had been docketed against consumer, notwithstanding agency’s failure
to reveal that judgment docket did not accurately reflect judgment that was entered; agency was entitled to rely
on accuracy of court records. Henson v. CSC Credit Services, S.D.Ind.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1204 , affirmed in part
, reversed in part 29 F.3d 280 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Even if consumer reporting agency received notice of money judgment entered against consumer prior to
vacatur of that judgment, thereby rendering information technically accurate, it was still required to follow
reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy of that information at later date when it prepared its credit report.
Houston v. TRW Information Services, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1989, 707 F.Supp. 689 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
This section requiring that consumer reporting agency follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of information concerning consumer applies to consumer reports even though they may be
technically accurate, if it is shown that such reports are not accurate to maximum possible extent. Alexander v.
Moore & Associates, Inc., D.C.Hawai’i 1982, 553 F.Supp. 948 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Addition of information
Alert on credit report indicating that consumer’s name matched name on Office of Foreign Assets Control’s
(OFAC’s) Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) list was subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA’s)
reporting requirements, though credit reporting agency’s agreements with creditors provided that the creditor was
solely responsible for taking any action as a result of a match to the OFAC file and that the alert was to be used
for compliance with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act), which generally prohibited businesses from dealing with anyone
on the SDN list, as information going to legality of a credit transaction was a factor in establishing a consumer’s
eligibility for credit. Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2010, 617 F.3d 688 .
Unless information that bankruptcy petition had been withdrawn was available at time consumer credit agency
first learned that the petition had been filed, so that agency could find the information in the reasonable process of
verifying adverse material as received, the agency could not be charged under this subchapter with a violation of
the compliance procedures for the omission of later developments; to require an agency independently to update
information after receipt and verification would burden commercial dealings beyond any currently required
legislative mandate. McPhee v. Chilton Corp., D.C.Conn.1978, 468 F.Supp. 494 . Credit Reporting Agencies
1
Preparation of consumer credit report may be viewed as a continuing process and obligation to insure accuracy
arises with every addition of information. Lowry v. Credit Bureau, Inc. of Georgia, N.D.Ga.1978, 444 F.Supp.
Admissibility of evidence
Evidence that credit reporting agency’s reinvestigation procedures were unreasonable under Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) was not material to claim that agency’s accuracy-assuring procedures were unreasonable
under FCRA. Saenz v. Trans Union, LLC, D.Or.2007, 621 F.Supp.2d 1074 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Burden of proof
To prove a violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) provision governing the accuracy of consumer reports,
unsuccessful job applicant was not required to present expert testimony on issue of whether consumer reporting
agency’s procedures in conducting background check for potential employer were reasonable. Wilson v.
CARCO Group, Inc., C.A.D.C.2008, 518 F.3d 40, 380 U.S.App.D.C. 164 , on remand 603 F.Supp.2d 163 .
Consumer had burden of proving what, at a minimum, would have been reasonable reporting procedures, under
the circumstances, including business costs of any suggested alternative, on claim that credit bureau violated Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in its reporting procedures. Perez v. Trans Union, LLC, E.D.Pa.2007, 526
Assuming that this subchapter was applicable and assuming that credit applicant produced evidence that credit
reporting agency negligently failed to comply with requirement that such agency follow reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy in its reports where applicant did not establish any inconvenience or loss of
any benefit or any other damage by reason of his failure to obtain a credit card due to defendant agency’s
negligence and where there was no evidence of injury to applicant’s reputation or feelings or any other injury
warranting award of compensatory damages, applicant failed to sustain his burden of proving actual damages as
to transaction and claim for relief was properly dismissed. Krumholz v. TRW, Inc., N.J.Super.A.D.1976, 360
A.2d 413, 142 N.J.Super. 80 , certification denied 366 A.2d 687, 71 N.J. 532 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Causation, accuracy of report
Inaccurate credit reports supplied to automobile dealership, as customer of credit bureau, did not cause
consumer to suffer economic damages, for purpose of consumer’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims
against bureau alleging negligent noncompliance, denial of credit, and damage to credit reputation, where
customer did not provide inaccurate reports to any potential lender that denied credit to consumer and potential
lenders did not rely on inaccurate reports in denying or extending credit. Perez v. Trans Union, LLC,
E.D.Pa.2007, 526 F.Supp.2d 504 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer failed to establish claim under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) where he did not demonstrate that
the information in his credit reports was actually inaccurate or that such inaccurate information was the proximate
cause of any harm to himself. Collins v. Experian Credit Reporting Service, D.Conn.2007, 494 F.Supp.2d 127 .
Consumer who sued credit reporting agency failed to establish that he sustained any actual damages from
failure timely to remove collection account from credit report, as required to maintain claim under Fair Credit
Reporting Act, alleging failure to follow reasonable procedures for assuring accuracy; consumer was able to
obtain mortgage for home purchase notwithstanding agency’s lack of timeliness, and consumer was not otherwise
denied credit. Lamar v. Experian Information Systems, N.D.Ill.2006, 408 F.Supp.2d 591 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 3
Consumer’s inability to obtain lower-interest-rate vehicle loan was not shown to be caused by credit reporting
agency’s alleged failure to timely correct erroneous listings of unsatisfied civil judgments against him, precluding
recovery in his Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) suit against agency alleging failure to follow reasonable
procedures; high-interest loan offer was made after consumer had provided correct information about judgments
to dealer, and before expiration of FCRA deadline for agency to correct information, and there was no showing
that consumer attempted to get lower interest rate after expiration of deadline, or allegation that he would have
been able to secure lower rate absent errors. Anderson v. Trans Union, W.D.Wis.2005, 405 F.Supp.2d 977 .
Inaccurate entry in credit report, showing that civil judgment had been entered against consumer, was not
substantial factor in bringing about injuries allegedly suffered by consumer when he was either denied credit or
forced to accept higher interest rates, and thus did not support consumer’s claim against credit reporting agency
under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); even assuming lenders utilized the inaccurate report, inaccurate entry
was immaterial in light of prior mortgage foreclosure, bankruptcy, and garnishment proceedings involving
consumer, and accurate entry would have shown judgment in greater amount. Enwonwu v. Trans Union, LLC,
N.D.Ga.2005, 364 F.Supp.2d 1361 , motion to set aside judgment denied 2005 WL 1420857 , affirmed 164
Fed.Appx. 914, 2006 WL 227585 , rehearing and rehearing en banc denied 179 Fed.Appx. 686, 2006 WL
Consumer whose credit report falsely stated that he was deceased failed to show causation, that is, that he
could support his assertion that his mortgage terms were less favorable than those he would have been able to

obtain had it not been for the “deceased” notations in his report, and so he would not be allowed to seek damages
on that basis for credit reporting agencies’ alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); although
consumer asserted that, due to agencies’ misreporting, he was forced to accept a five-year adjustable-rate loan
rather than a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, consumer pointed to no evidence showing the interest rate he might
have obtained had it not been for the erroneous notation, affidavit of consumer’s mortgage broker stated only that
terms of adjustable-rate loans were “quite different” from those of traditional 30-year loans, and so it was only
speculation that market rates would be less favorable in five years. McKeown v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
W.D.Wis.2004, 335 F.Supp.2d 917 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency’s (CRA) incorrect notation on consumer credit report that consumer had filed for
bankruptcy was not substantial factor in lender’s decision not to extend credit to consumer, and thus CRA did not
cause actual damages necessary to establish violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), where lender
disregarded bankruptcy notation and denied consumer’s application for other reasons. Reed v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., D.Minn.2004, 321 F.Supp.2d 1109 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Denial of credit by two creditors was not result of any unreasonable conduct on part of credit reporting agency in
including or refusing to delete judgment from credit report, where creditor’s inquiries occurred at time that
information contained in report was accurate. Elliott v. TRW Inc., N.D.Tex.1995, 889 F.Supp. 960 . Credit
Consumer who has been denied credit and who seeks to recover from credit reporting agency under this
subchapter must show that denial was caused by inaccurate entries, which in turn were caused by agency’s
failure to use reasonable procedures, rather than by correct adverse entries or other factors. Pendleton v. Trans
Union Systems Corp., E.D.Pa.1977, 76 F.R.D. 192 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Consumer reporting agency
Companies that report information based on their own experience with customers are not “ consumer reporting
agencies ” under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Jolly v. Academy Collection Service, Inc., M.D.N.C.2005,
Bank that allegedly furnished inaccurate credit information to credit reporting agencies was not “ consumer
reporting agency ” within meaning of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and thus could not be held liable by
debtor as result of its purported actions. Caltabiano v. BSB Bank & Trust Co., E.D.N.Y.2005, 387 F.Supp.2d
Even if Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was a “consumer reporting agency” under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it contracted with individual lenders to provide them with a mortgage loan
evaluation service, it was exempt from Act’s requirements for such agencies as a “ joint user ”; Freddie Mac
merely acted as lenders’ agent by presenting lenders’ requests for consumers’ credit reports to credit reporting
agencies in order to assist lenders in deciding whether to offer credit. Weidman v. Federal Home Loan Mortg.
Corp., E.D.Pa.2004, 338 F.Supp.2d 571 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Credit card company which terminated card holder’s credit but did not make any credit report to anyone else was
not “credit reporting agency” within this section. Wood v. Holiday Inns, Inc., M.D.Ala.1974, 369 F.Supp. 82 ,
affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds 508 F.2d 167 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Damages

Agencies 4
Exhaustion of remedies
If a consumer can prove a violation of this section he can sue directly on that basis without first exhausting
alternative remedies; however, if gravamen of a complaint is that a report is “incomplete” rather than “inaccurate,”
alternative procedures provided by this subchapter must be followed. McPhee v. Chilton Corp., D.C.Conn.1978,
468 F.Supp. 494 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Limit the furnishing of reports, reasonable procedures
Allegation that consumer reporting agency complied with former creditor’s requests to buy consumer’s credit
report, for “account review” purposes, stated claim for violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); two requests
for reports within span of few months, even though account had been closed for years with undisputed zero
balance, could have given agency reasonable grounds to believe that creditor wanted report for impermissible
purpose. Levine v. World Financial Network Nat. Bank, C.A.11 (Ga.) 2006, 437 F.3d 1118 , rehearing and
rehearing en banc denied 179 Fed.Appx. 685, 2006 WL 1114982 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Debtor who sued consumer reporting agencies failed to allege that agencies did not maintain reasonable
procedures to limit furnishing of credit reports to intended purposes, as required to state claim under Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA); complaint averred only generalized “incorrect and incomplete” reporting practices.
Hinton v. Trans Union, LLC, E.D.Va.2009, 654 F.Supp.2d 440 , affirmed 382 Fed.Appx. 256, 2010 WL 2294589 .
Tenants alleging that check guarantee service violated this subchapter failed to make sufficient factual showing
that provision of this section to the effect that every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable
procedures designed to limit furnishing of consumer reports to purposes listed under this subchapter had been
violated. Alexander v. Moore & Associates, Inc., D.C.Hawai’i 1982, 553 F.Supp. 948 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 4
Notice from consumer, accuracy of report
Credit reporting agency did not, as a matter of law, violate duty of reasonable care with respect to reporting $52
debt on consumer’s credit report when consumer neither paid bill nor informed credit reporting agency that bill
was being disputed. Spence v. TRW, Inc., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1996, 92 F.3d 380 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency is not, as a matter of law, liable under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for reporting
inaccurate information obtained from a court’s judgment docket, absent prior notice from consumer that
information may be inaccurate. Henson v. CSC Credit Services, C.A.7 (Ind.) 1994, 29 F.3d 280 . Credit
Credit reporting agency, which had received complaint from prospective mortgagor about derogatory information
on tentative consumer report furnished mortgage company, and which could have with little added effort
immediately advised creditors of mortgagor’s complaints and requested investigation and reevaluation based on
most recent data, was required to do more under this subchapter than make two telephone calls to creditors
which simply reconfirmed inaccurate information. Bryant v. TRW, Inc., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1982, 689 F.2d 72 . Credit
Credit reporting agency’s failure to promptly reinvestigate upon receiving notice from consumer’s attorney
disputing several items in consumer’s credit report did not constitute failure to “follow reasonable procedures” to
assure accuracy, and thus did not violate Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), where notice contained incorrect
Social Security number; although agency had capability to access credit report using information other than SS
number, it was reasonable to request verification of number before reinvestigating, given that agency, in order to

resolve several of the disputed items, would have had to transmit confidential information to third-party furnishers,
implicating agency’s duty to protect consumer’s confidentiality. Anderson v. Trans Union, W.D.Wis.2005, 405
Credit reporting agencies’ (CRA) failure to delete erroneous information after receipt of notice by consumer did
not establish knowing and intentional disregard for consumer’s rights necessary to support consumer’s claims for
statutory and punitive damages under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), where CRAs did not intentionally
mislead consumer or conceal information from him. Reed v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., D.Minn.2004,
Consumer failed to show that credit bureau or investigators negligently failed to assure accuracy of his credit
report where consumer made no claim that he ever notified credit bureau or anyone else that there were
inaccuracies in report, and he failed to show any specific consequences from errors in credit history. King v.
MTA Bridges and Tunnels, E.D.N.Y.1996, 933 F.Supp. 220 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency did not act unreasonably in deleting outstanding judgment from credit report within
approximately 24 days from receiving adequate notice from consumer that judgment had been released. Elliott
v. TRW Inc., N.D.Tex.1995, 889 F.Supp. 960 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Allegations by consumer that he notified consumer reporting agency of circumstances surrounding money
judgment against him and that agency, after advising consumer that it would delete challenged notation from his
report, neither effected deletion nor recorded the information which consumer had provided stated claim for
violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and for violation of Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Act. Grant v.
TRW, Inc., D.Md.1992, 789 F.Supp. 690 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Persons entitled to maintain action
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not provide a cause of action to collaterally attack an accurate credit
report. Dauster v. Household Credit Services, Inc., E.D.Va.2005, 396 F.Supp.2d 663 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 1
Consumers may bring claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) against consumer reporting agencies
for inaccurate reporting. Cisneros v. Trans Union, LLC, D.Hawai’i 2003, 293 F.Supp.2d 1167 . Credit
Wife had standing to sue under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for inaccurate information in credit report
on husband, where information related to existence of tax liens on couple’s jointly-owned property, and
information allegedly impaired wife’s own ability to secure refinancing on property. Williams v. Equifax Credit
Information Services, E.D.Mich.1995, 892 F.Supp. 951 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Both spouses to whom a credit report relates have standing to protest, under this subchapter, the fairness of
reporting procedures used by credit-reporting agencies and to sue for damages under this subchapter when the
report relates and refers to both of them. Conley v. TRW Credit Data, N.D.Ill.1974, 381 F.Supp. 473 . Credit
Credit-reporting agency, sued for alleged violations of this subchapter as regards investigative consumer reports
submitted to insurers in connection with plaintiff’s application for disability insurance, had standing to raise
affirmative defense that plaintiff engaged in a fraudulent plan or scheme to overinsure himself as practicing
dentist; the credit-reporting agency was not a “stranger” to the insurance transaction but, rather, was thrust into
the center of that relationship by this subchapter. Kiblen v. Retail Credit Co., E.D.Wash.1977, 76 F.R.D. 402 .
Power of Congress

It is within the authority of the Congress to legislate that consumer-reporting agencies follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy and clearly and accurately disclose to consumer the
information in its files and, in addition, to fix liability, including punitive damages and attorney fees, for willful
violations of such requirement. Millstone v. O’Hanlon Reports, Inc., C.A.8 (Mo.) 1976, 528 F.2d 829 . Credit
Reasonable procedures
Reasonable procedures - Generally
Consumers failed to establish that credit reporting agencies did not adopt reasonable procedures in violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); consumers’ claims were nothing more than unsupported legal conclusions,
and, while consumers in essence alleged that the agencies acted under the section of the Act setting forth
“permissible purposes” for obtaining credit reports, they did not allege that the agencies violated that section.
Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA, C.A.5 (La.) 2004, 369 F.3d 833 , certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 508,
543 U.S. 995, 160 L.Ed.2d 385 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
To maintain action under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for failure of credit reporting agency to “maintain
reasonable procedures” before providing credit report to insurance companies, plaintiff must first show that
disclosure itself was improper. Washington v. CSC Credit Services Inc., C.A.5 (La.) 2000, 199 F.3d 263 ,
certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2718, 530 U.S. 1261, 147 L.Ed.2d 983 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Once it is shown that information contained in credit report prepared by consumer credit-reporting agency is
relevant to needs of creditor and is requested for permissible purpose as defined by § 1681b of this title, court
need not inquire further into reasonableness of underlying procedures adopted by agency for purpose of assuring
that such information will be furnished for permissible purposes. Middlebrooks v. Retail Credit Co.,
N.D.Ga.1976, 416 F.Supp. 1013 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Reasonable procedures - Accuracy of report
Agencies 4
Evidence was sufficient to support finding that credit reporting agency negligently failed to comply with the
section of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requiring consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in credit reports, where agency informed
creditor that consumer’s name matched someone listed on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC’s)
Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) list, and there was a large discrepancy within the agency’s own records
between consumer’s last name, middle name, date of birth, and citizenship and the information for the individual
on the SDN list. Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2010, 617 F.3d 688 . Credit Reporting Agencies
3
Credit reporting agency was not required under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to examine each
computer-generated credit report for anomalous information, in order for its procedures to be considered
reasonable, without notice of prevalent unreliable information from reporting lender, since volume of information
processed daily by agency was enormous, and increased cost to agency to examine each of those entries
individually would have been enormous. Sarver v. Experian Information Solutions, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2004, 390 F.3d

Reasonableness of credit reporting agency’s cloaking procedure, which cloaked erroneous information received
on magnetic tape from businesses for only 12 months after initial correction in agency’s records, was for jury on
claim for negligent violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., C.A.5 (Miss.)
2001, 246 F.3d 359 , rehearing and rehearing en banc denied 254 F.3d 72 , certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 346, 534
U.S. 951, 151 L.Ed.2d 261 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Credit reporting agency followed reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of consumer’s credit file
and did not breach its duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by relying on erroneous updates of
consumer’s indebtedness provided by creditors, despite having received prior information indicating that reports
of consumer’s indebtedness were in error. Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1997, 112 F.3d 98 .
Credit reporting agency’s failure, following reinvestigation of disputed items in credit report, to note that lien was
against consumer as a business entity, rather than as an individual, and that consumer contested lien, did not
render report fundamentally incomplete, so as to serve as basis for consumer’s claim that reinvestigation
procedures were inadequate to reasonably assure accurate correction of disputed items and thus violated
subsec. (b) of this section. Stewart v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.D.C.1984, 734 F.2d 47, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 146 .
Circumstances indicating that agent for consumer reporting agency devoted at most 30 minutes in preparing his
report respecting consumer, that report was rife with innuendo, misstatement, and slander, that a recheck of
investigation showed that agent depended solely on one biased informant, that agent made no verification despite
a requirement to contrary, that it took three days to recheck original investigation, and that every allegation therein
was found untrue were such as to establish violations of accuracy and disclosure provisions of this subchapter.
Millstone v. O’Hanlon Reports, Inc., C.A.8 (Mo.) 1976, 528 F.2d 829 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Credit reporting agency’s accuracy-assuring procedures were not rendered unreasonable under Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by fact that agency’s credit report continued to list outstanding balance for particular debt
after balance had been satisfied by compromise payment to debt collector; debt collector affirmatively and
erroneously maintained that debt remained outstanding, and thus agency’s inaccurate report was not attributable
to its procedures. Saenz v. Trans Union, LLC, D.Or.2007, 621 F.Supp.2d 1074 . Credit Reporting Agencies
3
Allegations by debtors, who received discharge of their debts in bankruptcy pursuant to chapter 7 of the
bankruptcy code, that credit reports issued by credit reporting agency falsely declared their discharged debts to
be due and owing, that agency’s rate of error in its reports was 64 percent for debtors who filed chapter 7
bankruptcy proceedings, that the agency obtained bankruptcy discharge orders from an electronic court reporting
service, and that agency could have accessed that information by computer to accurately update credit reports
stated claim against agency for violations of the accurate reporting and reasonable investigation requirements of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act (CCRAA).
White v. Trans Union, LLC, C.D.Cal.2006, 462 F.Supp.2d 1079 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Credit reporting agencies followed reasonable procedures under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to assure
accuracy of information in credit card holder’s history report by contacting issuing bank to verify information in
report after holder reported that information was not accurate, absent special circumstances demonstrating that
further investigation was required; holder told agencies that bank told him it would report account in different way,
agencies then contacted bank to verify information, bank verified account, and agencies updated reports
accordingly. Schaffhausen v. Bank of America, N.A., D.Minn.2005, 393 F.Supp.2d 853 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 3
Credit reporting agency was not liable under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for reporting living consumers as
deceased; no reasonable jury could find that agency’s procedures were unreasonable solely because they failed
to catch erroneous data entry that one of its customers inserted into the system, and before consumers initiated a
complaint about the information, agency had no obligation to check the accuracy of that information or to take
note of the discrepancy between a tradeline showing deceased and other tradelines showing activity. Anderson
v. Trans Union, LLC, W.D.Wis.2004, 345 F.Supp.2d 963 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
For purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), credit reporting agencies did not act unreasonably by
reporting information simply because it came from particular creditor; although this creditor apparently had
engaged in misreporting in the past, the five cases cited by consumer were merely isolated incidents, consumer
made no showing that the incidents were related, and the five incidents appeared marginal when contrasted with
the millions of pieces of credit information that creditor provided to credit reporting agencies. McKeown v. Sears
Roebuck & Co., W.D.Wis.2004, 335 F.Supp.2d 917 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Evidence was sufficient to support jury’s finding that credit reporting agency did not follow reasonable
procedures to ensure accuracy of consumer’s credit report, demonstrating agency’s negligent noncompliance with
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); agency included incorrect information about consumer’s prior insurance
claims on claims report, consumer complained to agency about false information, after original mistakes were
corrected, more incorrect claims data reappeared on report and remained on report well after FCRA lawsuit was
filed, and agency failed to explain the alleged computer glitches that caused the incorrect information to appear
on report. Boris v. Choicepoint Services, Inc., W.D.Ky.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 851 , amended 2003 WL 23009851
Borrower failed to establish that credit reporting company violated Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information concerning borrower in preparing
report, absent showing that information reported regarding borrower’s bankruptcy petition and outstanding
balance on education loan was inaccurate; borrower’s bankruptcy petition and bankruptcy court order dismissing
petition without granting borrower relief presented conclusive proof of borrower’s bankruptcy filing, and
information provided by lender regarding education loan established accuracy of reported outstanding balance,
absent any evidence disputing substance of records. Boothe v. TRW Credit Data, S.D.N.Y.1991, 768 F.Supp.
Credit reporting agency was not liable to plaintiff for accurately reporting that creditor’s judgment against plaintiff
had been vacated and the case dismissed with “no record”; vacating court had failed to comply with statutory
procedures which would have removed judgment from public records, and agency’s report was not rendered
inadequate by its failure to specify that it had been creditor who requested vacation of judgment. Grays v. Trans
Union Credit Information Co., N.D.Ohio 1990, 759 F.Supp. 390 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Credit bureau which reported that automobile credit company had repossessed two vehicles from consumer did
not violate provision of Consumer Credit Reporting Act creating duty to maintain reasonable procedures to
achieve maximum possible accuracy in preparation of consumer credit reports, even though consumer in fact had
been guarantor rather than direct obligor with respect to the vehicles, where credit bureau initially directly
contacted creditor and where there was no evidence of inconsistencies or discrepancies that readily appeared on
face of credit file. Swoager v. Credit Bureau of Greater St. Petersburg, Fla., M.D.Fla.1985, 608 F.Supp. 972 .
Credit bureau was negligent in failing to reconcile inaccurate file on consumer with file which had been corrected
at consumer’s instance and by not following procedures that would have prevented re-reporting of the inaccurate
information even after the two files were combined; therefore, credit bureau was liable to consumer in the amount
of $10,000 for injuries he suffered resulting from such negligence, including injury to his reputation, his family, his
work, and his sense of well-being. Morris v. Credit Bureau of Cincinnati, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1983, 563 F.Supp. 962 .
No judicial inquiry into a credit reporting agency’s procedures for gathering and evaluating information is required
if the report in question is in fact true; in other words, accuracy of the final product forecloses inquiry into
reasonableness of the procedures used to produce the report. McPhee v. Chilton Corp., D.C.Conn.1978, 468
F.Supp. 494 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Confusion of computer credit reports so as to attribute to plaintiff credit history of person with similar name who
had previously been adjudicated bankrupt did not provide basis for federal claim under provision requiring
consumer reporting agency, when preparing consumer report, to follow reasonable procedures to insure
maximum possible accuracy of information concerning individual about whom report relates. Lowry v. Credit
Bureau, Inc. of Georgia, N.D.Ga.1978, 444 F.Supp. 541 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Reasonable procedures - Limit the furnishing of reports
Allegation that consumer reporting agency complied with former creditor’s requests to buy consumer’s credit
report, for “account review” purposes, stated claim for violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); two requests
for reports within span of few months, even though account had been closed for years with undisputed zero
balance, could have given agency reasonable grounds to believe that creditor wanted report for impermissible
purpose. Levine v. World Financial Network Nat. Bank, C.A.11 (Ga.) 2006, 437 F.3d 1118 , rehearing and
rehearing en banc denied 179 Fed.Appx. 685, 2006 WL 1114982 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Debtor who sued consumer reporting agencies failed to allege that agencies did not maintain reasonable
procedures to limit furnishing of credit reports to intended purposes, as required to state claim under Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA); complaint averred only generalized “incorrect and incomplete” reporting practices.
Hinton v. Trans Union, LLC, E.D.Va.2009, 654 F.Supp.2d 440 , affirmed 382 Fed.Appx. 256, 2010 WL 2294589 .
Tenants alleging that check guarantee service violated this subchapter failed to make sufficient factual showing
that provision of this section to the effect that every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable
procedures designed to limit furnishing of consumer reports to purposes listed under this subchapter had been
violated. Alexander v. Moore & Associates, Inc., D.C.Hawai’i 1982, 553 F.Supp. 948 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 4
Reasonable procedures - Standard of conduct
Liability under this subchapter does not flow automatically from fact that credit reporting agency reports
inaccurate information but, instead, liability flows from failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of information concerning individual about whom information relates; standard of conduct by
which trier of fact must judge adequacy of consumer reporting agency procedures is what reasonably prudent
person would do under the circumstances. Bryant v. TRW, Inc., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1982, 689 F.2d 72 . Credit
Standard of conduct by which trier of fact must judge adequacy of consumer reporting agency procedures is
what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. Thompson v. San Antonio Retail
Merchants Ass’n, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1982, 682 F.2d 509 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
To determine whether consumer reporting agency maintained reasonable procedures to limit furnishing of
consumer reports to permissible purposes, standard of conduct is what reasonably prudent person would do
under circumstances. Dobson v. Holloway, M.D.Ga.1993, 828 F.Supp. 975 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Standard for measuring reasonableness of consumer reporting agency’s procedures for updating its records is
“what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances”; test involves balancing potential harm
from inaccuracy against burden on agency of safeguarding against such inaccuracy. Houston v. TRW
Information Services, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1989, 707 F.Supp. 689 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Consumer credit reporting agency which maintained and followed reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of its credit reports on consumer had satisfactorily discharged its duty of reasonable care under
Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to contents of credit report, which indicated that vehicle purchased by
consumer and financed through financing agency was voluntarily repossessed, which consumer conceded was
true and accurate, although after settlement of consumer dispute, financing company requested that previously
reported voluntary repossession be removed from consumer’s credit file. Watson v. Credit Bureau, Inc. of
Georgia, S.D.Miss.1986, 660 F.Supp. 48 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1

Under this section and § 1681d of this title, agency could not be absolved of responsibility for furnishing
inaccurate information on the ground that it accurately reported information it received from its subscribers;
determining factor, once information contained in consumer report was found to be inaccurate, was whether
agency maintained reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, and the standard was what a
reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. Bryant v. TRW, Inc., E.D.Mich.1980, 487
F.Supp. 1234 , affirmed 689 F.2d 72 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Reproduction of existing reports
Action of credit reporting agency in merely mailing copies of previously prepared reports could not be a violation
of section of Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibiting inclusion of stale and unverified information in new consumer
reports, as statute does not address reproduction of existing reports, and copies agency sent to its customer each
indicated date and circumstances of reports and could not be confused as providing new or fresh information.
Clay v. Equifax, Inc., C.A.11 (Ala.) 1985, 762 F.2d 952 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Resale of consumer reports
Resellers of consumer information were not required under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to use
reasonable procedures to assure accuracy of information, but rather only to use reasonable procedures
to ensure that reports were sold only for purposes permitted by FCRA. Lewis v. Ohio Professional
Electronic Network LLC, S.D.Ohio 2003, 248 F.Supp.2d 693 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
End-user of consumers’ credit reports obtained reports from consumer credit reporting agency, for purposes of
consumers’ claims against end-user for violation of disclosure provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
even though end-user requested report from an intermediary reseller of consumer credit reports. Myers v.
Bennett Law Offices, D.Nev.2002, 238 F.Supp.2d 1196 .
Standard of conduct, reasonable procedures
Liability under this subchapter does not flow automatically from fact that credit reporting agency reports
inaccurate information but, instead, liability flows from failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of information concerning individual about whom information relates; standard of conduct by
which trier of fact must judge adequacy of consumer reporting agency procedures is what reasonably prudent
person would do under the circumstances. Bryant v. TRW, Inc., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1982, 689 F.2d 72 . Credit
Standard of conduct by which trier of fact must judge adequacy of consumer reporting agency procedures is
what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. Thompson v. San Antonio Retail
Merchants Ass’n, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1982, 682 F.2d 509 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
To determine whether consumer reporting agency maintained reasonable procedures to limit furnishing of
consumer reports to permissible purposes, standard of conduct is what reasonably prudent person would do
under circumstances. Dobson v. Holloway, M.D.Ga.1993, 828 F.Supp. 975 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Standard for measuring reasonableness of consumer reporting agency’s procedures for updating its records is
“what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances”; test involves balancing potential harm
from inaccuracy against burden on agency of safeguarding against such inaccuracy. Houston v. TRW
Information Services, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1989, 707 F.Supp. 689 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Consumer credit reporting agency which maintained and followed reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of its credit reports on consumer had satisfactorily discharged its duty of reasonable care under
Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to contents of credit report, which indicated that vehicle purchased by
consumer and financed through financing agency was voluntarily repossessed, which consumer conceded was
true and accurate, although after settlement of consumer dispute, financing company requested that previously
reported voluntary repossession be removed from consumer’s credit file. Watson v. Credit Bureau, Inc. of
Georgia, S.D.Miss.1986, 660 F.Supp. 48 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Under this section and § 1681d of this title, agency could not be absolved of responsibility for furnishing
inaccurate information on the ground that it accurately reported information it received from its subscribers;
determining factor, once information contained in consumer report was found to be inaccurate, was whether
agency maintained reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, and the standard was what a
reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. Bryant v. TRW, Inc., E.D.Mich.1980, 487
F.Supp. 1234 , affirmed 689 F.2d 72 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Strict liability
Provision in Fair Credit Reporting Act requiring credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to
ensure maximum possible accuracy does not impose strict liability for inaccurate entries in consumer reports;
preparer is held only to duty of reasonable care. Spence v. TRW, Inc., C.A.6 (Mich.) 1996, 92 F.3d 380 . Credit
Fair Credit Reporting Act does not make credit reporting agency strictly liable for all inaccuracies, but rather
agency can escape liability if it establishes that inaccurate report was generated by following reasonable
procedures. Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., C.A.11 (Fla.) 1991, 936 F.2d 1151 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 3
possible accuracy of information does not impose strict liability for any inaccurate credit report, but only duty of
reasonable care in preparation of the report and such duty extends to updating procedures. Thompson v. San
Antonio Retail Merchants Ass’n, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1982, 682 F.2d 509 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Consumer who was allegedly the victim of identity theft was not entitled to injunctive relief which essentially
subjected credit reporting agencies to strict liability for inaccuracies that appeared on her future credit reports,
where such an injunction went well beyond, and conflicted with, the standards and duties of credit reporting
agencies set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Jarrett v. Bank of America, D.Kan.2006, 421
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not make credit reporting agencies strictly liable for all inaccuracies.
Enwonwu v. Trans Union, LLC, N.D.Ga.2005, 364 F.Supp.2d 1361 , motion to set aside judgment denied 2005
WL 1420857 , affirmed 164 Fed.Appx. 914, 2006 WL 227585 , rehearing and rehearing en banc denied 179
Fed.Appx. 686, 2006 WL 1173159 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer reporting agency is not strictly liable under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for all inaccuracies;
agency will not be liable if it reported inaccurate information on a consumer’s credit report provided it followed
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Anderson v. Trans Union, LLC, W.D.Wis.2004,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not hold consumer reporting agencies strictly liable for dissemination of
inaccurate information. Wiggins v. Equifax Services, Inc., D.D.C.1993, 848 F.Supp. 213 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 3
There is no imposition of strict liability for inaccuracy or incompleteness of credit report under Fair Credit
Reporting Act, but company must follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of
information concerning individual who is subject of report. Ladner v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc.,
S.D.Miss.1993, 828 F.Supp. 427 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1 Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Summary judgment

Evidence that credit reporting agency issued two reports that were inconsistent with each other, that one report
was inaccurate, and that inconsistencies related to the inaccurate information, was sufficient to allow jury to infer
that credit reporting agency did not follow reasonable procedures, thus precluding summary judgment on credit
applicant’s claim under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., C.A.3 (N.J.) 1996, 101
F.3d 957 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether inaccurate information on consumer’s credit report was
substantial factor in her inability to secure credit to purchase vehicle for her son, precluding summary judgment
for consumer reporting agency in consumer’s action alleging negligent noncompliance under FCRA. Price v.
Trans Union, LLC, E.D.Pa.2010, 737 F.Supp.2d 281 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issues of material fact, regarding whether credit reporting agency’s reporting was so misleading as to
be inaccurate, precluded summary judgment on automobile owner’s claim against agency, alleging violation of
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Krajewski v. American Honda Finance Corp., E.D.Pa.2008, 557 F.Supp.2d
596 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether credit bureau employed and followed reasonable
procedures to assure accuracy of its credit reports, precluding summary judgment on consumer’s claim that
bureau violated Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in its reporting procedures. Perez v. Trans Union, LLC,
E.D.Pa.2007, 526 F.Supp.2d 504 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether inaccuracy in consumer’s credit report resulted from failure of credit
reporting agency to follow reasonable procedures precluded summary judgment on claim that agency violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Jordan v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, N.D.Ga.2006, 410 F.Supp.2d
1349 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether credit reporting agency’s policies and procedures provided
reasonable internal checks on access to credit information precluded summary judgment in consumer’s action
against agency based on its employee’s unauthorized actions in obtaining her credit report for friend. Cole v.
American Family Mut. Ins. Co., D.Kan.2006, 410 F.Supp.2d 1020 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Material issue of genuine fact existed as to whether consumer reporting agency (CRA), which purchased
inaccurate criminal history portion of investigative consumer report from independent contractor, employed
reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of the information purchased from contractor, precluding summary
judgment in favor of CRA on job candidate’s claim under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Poore v. Sterling
Testing Systems, Inc., E.D.Ky.2006, 410 F.Supp.2d 557 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether credit reporting agency (CRA) unreasonably failed to ensure that its
affiliate, which owned and maintained consumer’s credit file, changed the credit file after CRA allegedly received
notice that consumer’s credit report erroneously classified her as “consumer deceased,” precluded summary
judgment for CRA, in consumer’s action alleging CRA violated its duty under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to
maintain reasonable procedures calculated to ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit reports.
Gohman v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, D.Minn.2005, 395 F.Supp.2d 822 . Federal Civil Procedure
2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether debt collector that supplied information to consumer reporting
agency failed to conduct an adequate investigation and supplied reporting agency with incomplete and inaccurate
information as to identity of consumer who had written bad check, precluded entry of summary judgment on Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims asserted against it by consumer who allegedly sustained emotional distress
and was denied more favorable interest rate on mortgage loan as result of bad check report erroneously included
in his credit file. Moore v. Equifax Information Services LLC, N.D.Ga.2004, 333 F.Supp.2d 1360 . Federal Civil
Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether consumer was injured by inclusion of inaccurate entry into
her credit report, precluding summary judgment on consumer’s willful and negligent noncompliance claim under
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), on evidence that consumer’s credit card application was denied because of
erroneous information transmitted by agency, creditors offered her higher interest rates than those offered to
consumers with excellent credit, and she suffered embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, anxiety,
frustration, and damage to her reputation as result of erroneous information. Lawrence v. Trans Union LLC,
E.D.Pa.2003, 296 F.Supp.2d 582 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether consumer suffered emotional distress and humiliation as
result of consumer information resellers’ alleged failure to implement system to identify end-users of
inaccurate credit reports precluded summary judgment in consumer’s action against resellers for
violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Lewis v. Ohio Professional Electronic Network LLC, S.D.Ohio
2003, 248 F.Supp.2d 693 . Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issues of material fact as to whether recipient of consumers’ credit reports actually requested reports
from intermediary reseller of reports, and whether recipient failed to disclose an impermissible purpose for which
the reports were requested, precluded summary judgment on the issue of whether the reports were obtained
under false pretenses, for purposes of consumers’ claim against recipient for violation of disclosure provision of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, D.Nev.2002, 238 F.Supp.2d 1196 .
Federal Civil Procedure 2491.8
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether consumer reporting agencies acted reasonably after consumer
disputed inaccurate information in her credit report precluded summary judgment in consumer’s action for
violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Thomas v. Gulf Coast Credit Services, Inc., M.D.Ala.2002, 214
F.Supp.2d 1228 .
Substantial issues of material fact existed as to whether credit reporting agency fulfilled its statutory obligation to
maintain reasonable procedures ensuring accuracy of its information, precluding summary judgment in action
brought by consumer for violation of federal and state Fair Credit Reporting Acts. Milbauer v. TRW, Inc.,
E.D.N.Y.1989, 707 F.Supp. 92 .
Technical accuracy, accuracy of report
Consumer credit reporting agency was not liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for its technically
accurate disclosure that money judgment had been docketed against consumer, notwithstanding agency’s failure
to reveal that judgment docket did not accurately reflect judgment that was entered; agency was entitled to rely
on accuracy of court records. Henson v. CSC Credit Services, S.D.Ind.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1204 , affirmed in part
, reversed in part 29 F.3d 280 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Even if consumer reporting agency received notice of money judgment entered against consumer prior to
vacatur of that judgment, thereby rendering information technically accurate, it was still required to follow
reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy of that information at later date when it prepared its credit report.
Houston v. TRW Information Services, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1989, 707 F.Supp. 689 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
possible accuracy of information concerning consumer applies to consumer reports even though they may be
technically accurate, if it is shown that such reports are not accurate to maximum possible extent. Alexander v.
Moore & Associates, Inc., D.C.Hawai’i 1982, 553 F.Supp. 948 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Weight and sufficiency of evidence
Evidentiary basis was insufficient to support a rational inference that consumer reporting agency’s quality control
audit procedures, including the tabulation of adverse information and the agency’s challenged use of that
tabulation, would likely result in inaccurate information; accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission’s finding that
the agency failed to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in its consumer reports, in
violation of this section, was not based upon reasonable inferences drawn from the record evidence and would be
set aside. Equifax Inc. v. F.T.C., C.A.11 1982, 678 F.2d 1047 . Credit Reporting Agencies 1
Although certain of consumer-reporting agency’s procedures were somewhat questionable, there was
insufficient evidence to support finding that inaccuracy in investigative consumer report on insured to be used by
insurer in connection with underwriting disability insurance resulted from negligent failure to follow reasonable
procedures. Hauser v. Equifax, Inc., C.A.8 (Neb.) 1979, 602 F.2d 811 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Evidence was sufficient to support finding that consumer suffered damages based upon humiliation, mental
distress, and embarrassment, and that damages were caused by the credit reporting agency’s circulation of
incorrect claims report to third party insurers, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); consumer
testified that she was turned down for insurance by several insurers, that she was only able to obtain coverage at
higher cost through her insurance agent, that the inability to locate cheaper insurance due to fact that she was
unable to correct false report upset her greatly, that she was worried that if her agent retired, she would be unable
to obtain any coverage, and that she had many sleepless nights and was unable to function at work due to false
report. Boris v. Choicepoint Services, Inc., W.D.Ky.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 851 , amended 2003 WL 23009851 .
Consumer reporting agency was not liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for allegedly failing to
follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy of its reports, given complete lack of evidence that agency was
ever informed, prior to commencement of consumers’ FCRA action, that credit report contained inaccurate
information about consumers. Whelan v. Trans Union Credit Reporting Agency, E.D.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 824
Employee that was subject of report prepared by consumer reporting agency failed to show that information
contained in report was inaccurate and defamatory and, thus, employee did not make out claim under Consumer
Credit Protection Act, § 602 et seq., as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681 et seq. Hargrow v. Long, D.D.C.1989,
760 F.Supp. 1 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Where consumer reporting agency gathered personal information about consumers only from consumer’s
neighbors, information was not verified, report compiled referred to poll of four neighbors and asserted that all
sources were in agreement, although agency’s investigator had received information from only one neighbor,
actions of agent were so reprehensible as to justify award of damages under § 1618n of this title. Millstone v.
O’Hanlon Reports, Inc., E.D.Mo.1974, 383 F.Supp. 269 , affirmed 528 F.2d 829 . Credit Reporting Agencies
4
Willful violations
Where investigative consumer report contained detailed personal information about consumer, where only
substantive inaccuracy concerned nature of consumer’s employment duties and where good-faith dispute existed
as to whether consumer was interviewed in course of investigation, finding that consumer had not been
interviewed would not support a finding of willful failure by consumer-reporting agency to adopt reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Hauser v. Equifax, Inc., C.A.8 (Neb.) 1979, 602 F.2d 811 .
In action under this subchapter, evidence that plaintiff had history of difficulty with merchandise creditors
reporting accurately on status of his accounts, that such difficulties were well known to defendant consumer
reporting agency, and that plaintiff personally alerted defendant to fact that items of information in consumer
report it was about to release were inaccurate but defendant released report without checking further was
sufficient for jury to conclude that agency’s procedures were entirely inadequate and that agency was at least
negligent, if not willful. Hauser v. Equifax, Inc., C.A.8 (Neb.) 1979, 602 F.2d 811 .
Consumer’s allegations that consumer reporting agency (CRA) had a practice of regularly reporting a single
criminal incident multiple times, so that the consumer’s criminal record history reported to prospective employers

appeared much more serious than it actually was, that on three separate occasions consumer’s sole criminal
offense was reported multiple times on a credit report ordered by prospective employers, and that CRA’s conduct
was malicious, intentional, reckless, and grossly negligent, satisfied short and plain statement requirement for
stating a claim under the FCRA that CRA wilfully failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information in its reports. Smith v. HireRight Solutions, Inc., E.D.Pa.2010, 711
Consumer did not show that credit bureau was willfully noncompliant with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and
acted intentionally in conscious disregard for his rights, even if bureau acted unreasonably when it sold
consumer’s credit reports with apparent contradiction to automobile dealership, its customer, where consumer
stated that he did not believe anyone at bureau acted with malice or intent to harm him. Perez v. Trans Union,
LLC, E.D.Pa.2007, 526 F.Supp.2d 504 . Credit Reporting Agencies 3
Consumer did not show that credit reporting agency’s (CRA) alleged violation of its duty, under Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), to maintain reasonable procedures calculated to ensure maximum possible accuracy of
consumer credit reports was willful, as basis for punitive damages; there was no evidence CRA had not followed
its usual procedure to forward to its affiliate, which owned and maintained consumer’s credit file, the notice it
received from lender that credit report erroneously classified consumer as dead, nor any evidence that CRA knew
that its failure to make records of its communications with lender and affiliate and its failure to require affiliate to
change the credit file within fixed time period might be unlawful. Gohman v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,
D.Minn.2005, 395 F.Supp.2d 822 . Credit Reporting Agencies 4
Consumer failed to state claim under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), that credit reporting agencies furnished
false information, where consumer did not allege that agencies furnished false information with malice or willful
intent to injure consumer. Cisneros v. Trans Union, LLC, D.Hawai’i 2003, 293 F.Supp.2d 1167 . Credit
In action against consumer reporting agency under this subchapter, evidence of plaintiff’s visit to agency to
inform it of inaccuracies in report it was about to release and of defendant’s failure to follow-up with any kind of
rechecking was sufficient to allow jury to consider claim of willful failure to comply with requirements of this
section. Bryant v. TRW, Inc., E.D.Mich.1980, 487 F.Supp. 1234 , affirmed 689 F.2d 72 . Credit Reporting
Agencies 4

WestlawNext - List of 128 Notes of Decisions For 1681e Compliance Procedures

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

WestlawNext - List of 128 Notes of Decisions For 1681e Compliance Procedures

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

List of 128 Notes of Decisions for § 1681e.

Notes Of Decisions (128)

Accuracy of report - Generally

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

Accuracy of report - Causation

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

Accuracy of report - Notice from consumer

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

Accuracy of report - Reasonable procedures

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

Accuracy of report - Technical accuracy

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7

Causation, accuracy of report

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9

Consumer reporting agency

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10

Limit the furnishing of reports, reasonable procedures

Notice from consumer, accuracy of report

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11

Persons entitled to maintain action

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12

Reasonable procedures - Generally

Reasonable procedures - Accuracy of report

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13

Reasonable procedures - Limit the furnishing of reports

Reasonable procedures - Standard of conduct

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16

Reproduction of existing reports

Resale of consumer reports

Standard of conduct, reasonable procedures

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18

Technical accuracy, accuracy of report

Weight and sufficiency of evidence

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 22

Potrebbero piacerti anche