Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Jen23514

CORTEZ v. TRANS UNION, LLC

Recommended Posts

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?sh...nfco20100813077

 

In short, Cortez pulled her TU, printed it, and took it to a car dealership to finance a car.

 

The dealer ran it's own report, and there was an OFAC alert. She was detained at the car dealership (refused to return her keys while they investigated with calls to the FBI), but eventually things were cleared up and she purchased the car. The dealership gave her a copy of their report.

 

The suit deals with the subsequent behavior by TU, such as refusing to admit that there was an alert on her report, refusing to investigate, and not following the Treasury Department's guidelines for placing such information on a report.

 

The information in Trans Union's OFAC alert is provided to purchasers through a third party vendor called "Accuity".

 

Trans Union enters the information it receives from Accuity under the "SPECIAL MESSAGES" section appearing on its credit reports. Trans Union does no other comparison or due diligence with the data it receives from Accuity to attempt to match it to the consumer whose credit report is being furnished. Thus, Trans Union neither compares the OFAC information to other information about a given consumer already in its files, nor does it compare it to any information provided by the creditor/subscriber. J.A. 179. Moreover, once Trans Union receives the OFAC information it does not check or confirm its accuracy; in fact, Trans Union has a policy of never reinvestigating disputes involving OFAC alerts. J.A. 203-04. Trans Union merely "report back that the input information is a match to the OFAC report." J.A. 204.

 

She sued under FCRA.

 

TU claimed that OFAC alerts do not fall under the scope of FCRA. (US businesses are prohibited from extending credit/doing business with people/entities on the list).

 

But, the OFAC alert was sent to a subscriber who was in the process of a credit transaction.

 

Then TU went on to claim that it's report contained the most accurate information possible because it reported information furnished by the govt AND it provided the maximum possible accuracy because "match" connotes "possible match" rather than "exact match."

 

Trans Union's own records showed that Cortez was born in May of 1944 and her middle name was "Jean." J.A. 526-527. The person on OFAC's SDN List was named Sandra Quintero Cortes and was born in June of 1971. Id. Within Trans Union's own records there existed a large discrepancy in regard to Cortez's last name, middle name, and even her date of birth. There were other discrepancies as well, including citizenship. Despite those distinctions, the credit report Trans Union sent to the dealership stated: "INPUT NAME MATCHES NAME ON THE OFAC DATABASE." Trans Union included that "warning" even though it had information that should have made it apparent that the OFAC alert had no place in Cortez's credit report.

 

The jury found that Trans Union failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in producing Cortez's credit report and was negligent in doing so. They awarded her money. It was appealed and overturned. Then appeal was appealed, and in the end, Cortez got her money, almost 5 years later (and an uncountable amount of tears I assume).

 

There is quite a bit more detail in the link about he various sections of the FCRA and the violations by TU and the courts' thoughts on the issue.

 

Good Read IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious whether it would have appeared on the hard copy had she requested it...I know the HAWK alerts show up on a paper copy but are not viewable online.

 

Not sure that matters will stop with the 3rd Circuit ruling...my guess would be that a rehearing en banc will be requested. Further, given the inconsistent holdings between Circuits (the 3rd expressly dissed the 5th) AND given the other Homeland Security implications, it would not surprise me to see this appealed to the SCotUS.

 

It would seem the courts were also somewhat troubled over the $50K, given the comment that

The district court found that a compensatory award of $50,000 was "exceedingly generous" but concluded that it did not justify judicial interference. Cortez, 2007 WL 2702945 at *2. As stated above, the scope of our review here is exceedingly narrow. We agree with the district court that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's compensatory award.

 

It is also possible that TU may just decide to lick their wounds with the chop from $750K to $100K having been upheld...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think TU didn't have to pay enough :blink:

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...and if one wants to assess liability, then the litigation should have included the federal government given that they MAINTAIN the farcical lists from which the OFAC alerts are generated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think TU didn't have to pay enough :D

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...and if one wants to assess liability, then the litigation should have included the federal government given that they MAINTAIN the farcical lists from which the OFAC alerts are generated.

 

If the two Cortez's in question were born in the same decade and if TU would have had even a bare minimum of procedure in place to cross reference these types of entries, then yes, I would be inclined to agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think TU didn't have to pay enough :blink:

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...and if one wants to assess liability, then the litigation should have included the federal government given that they MAINTAIN the farcical lists from which the OFAC alerts are generated.

 

If the two Cortez's in question were born in the same decade and if TU would have had even a bare minimum of procedure in place to cross reference these types of entries, then yes, I would be inclined to agree with you.

 

What is an OFAC alert?

Edited by Hillbilly with Credit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think TU didn't have to pay enough :blink:

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...and if one wants to assess liability, then the litigation should have included the federal government given that they MAINTAIN the farcical lists from which the OFAC alerts are generated.

 

If the two Cortez's in question were born in the same decade and if TU would have had even a bare minimum of procedure in place to cross reference these types of entries, then yes, I would be inclined to agree with you.

 

What is an OFAC alert?

 

In order to bite my tongue regarding the issue, I shall just offer the federal link...

 

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/

 

probably more than you EVER wanted to know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She bought a car from someone who detained her while they called the FBI?

If you read the links about what OFAC is, it sort of makes sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She bought a car from someone who detained her while they called the FBI?

If you read the links about what OFAC is, it sort of makes sense...

 

what Beli said.

 

At the same time, she was infinitely more patient with the situation than I would have been. I probably would have dialed 911 on my cell if they did not turn over my car keys, detaining me? I think not.

 

Let them work out the details with the FBI, then call me later. THEN I'll MAYBE consider coming back in, :lol:

Edited by Jen23514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the award should really have had another 0 in it IMHO...

 

 

the information wasn't even CLOSE...and TU didn't even BOTHER investigating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the information wasn't even CLOSE...and TU didn't even BOTHER investigating

 

I know. I can understand the initial error, but they did nothing to correct once they were notified many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this part the best:

 

The jury also apparently wanted to make sure that its verdict sent a clear message. On the verdict form, below the monetary awards, the jury wrote: "The Trans Union business process needs to be completely revamped with much more focus on customer service and the consumer."

 

RCJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't it be FUN for one of us to be on one of these juries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Today's Birthdays

    1. PAFICO
      PAFICO
      Age: 63
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      177,772
    • Most Online
      1,528

    Newest Member
    valentiinemon
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines