Court Rules in Milgram v. Chase
Last week the 11th Circuit Court released its decision in Milgram v. Chase, for which AFSA submitted an amicus brief. The court ruled in in Chase’s favor.
The plaintiff, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), argued that credit reporting agencies are required to investigate legal disputes in addition to verifying factual accuracy in credit data. In a positive outcome, the court said that Chase’s investigation into the claims was reasonable. Because the investigation was reasonable, however, the court avoided the legal question of whether legal inaccuracies can raise a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Still, the ruling confirms that a disagreement over whether someone is legally responsible for a debt is not sufficient to show that the furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Judge Rosenbaum concurred and explained why the better course for consumers challenging the validity of a debt is to seek a declaratory judgment that indicates that they do not owe the furnisher any money.
June 15th, 2023
Recent Posts
- CFPB Memo Indicates Seismic Shift in Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as Banking Regulators Huddle to Collaborate
- AFSA Supports Bipartisan CFPB Reform Bill
- AFSA Webinar | Bridging the Communications Gap in Lending from SMS to RCS
- CFPB Announces Abandoning the Non-Bank Registry for Enforcement and Supervision Prioritization
- FCC Grants One-Year Extension to Revoke-All Call Consent Provision