First Circuit confirms FCRA private right of action against furnishers of credit information

[Jen23514]

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.asp...dc-04607e7f2690

Foley & Lardner LLP

Marty Bishop

 

USA

February 10 2010

Foley & Lardner LLP logo

 

Wen Chiang succeeded on the law but failed on the facts in his Fair Credit Reporting Act claim against Verizon. In Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., Case No. 09-1214 (lst Cir., Feb. 9, 2010), Chiang claimed that Verizon failed to investigate adequately his disputes about the telephone bill payment information it furnished to the consumer reporting agencies (“CRAâ€). In this case of first impression for the lst Circuit, the Court concluded that the FCRA does provide a private right of action when a furnisher of credit information fails to conduct a reasonable investigation after a CRA notifies it that a consumer disputes information it provided. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(. In order to make out a case, a plaintiff must show:

 

1. The furnisher received a dispute from a CRA;

 

2. The furnisher’s investigation of the dispute was unreasonable; and

 

3. There were actual inaccuracies that the furnisher could have discovered had it conducted a reasonable investigation.

 

Whether an investigation is reasonable is determined by an objective standard. The plaintiff has to demonstrate some causal relationship between the furnisher’s allegedly unreasonable investigation, and its failure to discover inaccuracies in his report. Whether a furnisher’s procedures are reasonable must be determined in light of what it learned about the dispute from the CRA. The more superficial the CRA’s notice of dispute, the less of an investigation that is required of the furnisher.

 

In this case, Chiang presented no evidence that the procedures Verizon employed to investigate reported disputes were unreasonable. He did not even seek discovery about them. Moreover, Chiang failed to demonstrate any actual inaccuracies in the furnished information that a reasonable investigation might of discovered. Chiang’s affidavit and letters which showed that he had many disagreements with Verizon over billing did not show that any of his substantive disputes involved actual factual inaccuracies that a reasonable investigation could have uncovered. The Court stated: “To the extent that his argument reduces to the claim that any investigation that did not accept his allegations as accurate was by definition unreasonable, it failed.†Summary judgment was granted in favor of Verizon.

 

One side note: Although a consumer may raise his dispute about credit information directly with the furnisher of the information, he does not have a private right of action against the furnisher unless the furnisher also receives the notice from the CRA.

[beli]

Umm we already knew that.. which is why when we tell someone when filing a lawsuit not to use Section 623 as a biases of their lawsuit.

 

The courts just confirmed that.

[Jen23514]

Umm we already knew that.. which is why when we tell someone when filing a lawsuit not to use Section 623 as a biases of their lawsuit.

 

The courts just confirmed that.

 

there are quite a few posters around here who claim there is NO private right.

 

It just has to be done in a particular way.

[beli]

Umm we already knew that.. which is why when we tell someone when filing a lawsuit not to use Section 623 as a biases of their lawsuit.

 

The courts just confirmed that.

 

there are quite a few posters around here who claim there is NO private right.

 

It just has to be done in a particular way.

 

I still wouldn't file a lawsuit against data furnishes claimed to follow investigative procedures off section 623 as a sole basis of my lawsuit. There are other sections of FCRA with more teeth.

[Jen23514]

agreed, but this ruling and post were specific to the 623 and the naysayers who say it's a waste of time b/c it does not have a right to private action.

[Jen23514]

not sure how long this link will be good, but here is a link to the case:

 

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n...=MA&d=42750

[sedric1]

thanks for the info. im not too far from writing my first 623 dispute (for a BofA cc). the info here is somewhat alarming, but i will not deviate from the plan

[chriswufgator]

It shouldn't be alarming. For chrissakes' the plaintiff here didn't even so much as bother to ask them what they did to investigate. Reading the thing, it's one of those "You had the law on your side...but then you screwed it all up, so here's your $0" rulings...

[MannyLNJ]

not sure how long this link will be good, but here is a link to the case:

 

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n...=MA&d=42750

 

Google Cache linkhttp://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:8JJJGwiKYGAJ:www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp%3Fn%3D09-1214%26s%3DMA%26d%3D42750+Two+reports+said+that+Chiang+%22claims+that+this+account+was+never+paid+late.%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Jen23514]

It shouldn't be alarming. For chrissakes' the plaintiff here didn't even so much as bother to ask them what they did to investigate. Reading the thing, it's one of those "You had the law on your side...but then you screwed it all up, so here's your $0" rulings...

[NeverQuietHere]

 

Do it the right way and you can come out on top....

[Jen23514]

not sure how long this link will be good, but here is a link to the case:

 

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n...=MA&d=42750

 

Google Cache linkhttp://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:8JJJGwiKYGAJ:www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp%3Fn%3D09-1214%26s%3DMA%26d%3D42750+Two+reports+said+that+Chiang+%22claims+that+this+account+was+never+paid+late.%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

thanks

 

ttt

[jack1212]

Subscribe.

[Jen23514]

Subscribe.