AFSA FILES AMICUS IN FCRA 3RD CIRCUIT CASE
AFSA joined several other trades in an amicus brief in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case in front of the 3rd Circuit. The question in the case, Ritz v. Nissan, is whether a furnisher has to investigate not only the factual accuracy of reported information, but also must assess and resolve legal disputes. AFSA and the other trades argue that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers have a duty to investigate whether disputed information in a credit file is accurate, but not to resolve all legal disputes about a debt. The brief is similar to one the trades filed in the 11th circuit last year.
As in the 11th Circuit, the CFPB and FTC also submitted an amicus brief in the case, but on the other side of the issue. The agencies argue that the duty to investigate a dispute applies not only to factual disputes, but also disputes that can be labeled as legal in nature.
The trades’ amicus pushes back on this claim, writing, “For years, courts around the country have held that FCRA requires furnishers and CRAs [credit reporting agencies] to investigate and remove factually inaccurate information, but not to correctly resolve all legal disputes about a debt. The trades explained, “That conclusion accords with the FCRA’s text, structure, purpose, and history. The contrary proposal advanced by Plaintiffs and the Bureau is neither sensible nor workable.”
April 10th, 2024
