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 by Dan Bucherer
Recent Posts
- Capital Challenges | 2024 Independents Conference & Expo
- Updating the Economic Outlook
- News From Our Members | New PayNearMe Research Reveals Growing Importance of Customer Experience in Loan Repayment
- Featured Business Partner | Flagstar Bank
- AFSA Touts Consumer Privacy Rights