CUNA amicus brief: FCRA applies to factual inaccuracies, not legal issues
CUNA and other organizations filed a brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday in a case involving the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Sessa v. TransUnion. The lawsuit involves whether the FCRA addresses only factual accuracy in credit reports, or also requires determinations of legal validity.
The plaintiff in Sessa alleges TransUnion failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of her credit report.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of TransUnion, stating the FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to guard against factual inaccuracies, not to resolve legal disputes.
CUNA and the organizations agree with this decision, noting it accords with the FCRA’s text, purpose, structure, and history.
“The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires credit reporting agencies to guard against factual inaccuracies, not to resolve legal disputes,” the filing organizations said in a joint statement. “We’re asking the Second Circuit to reject the CFPB’s theory, which would require credit reporting agencies to adjudicate legal disputes. That approach would have damaging economic consequences for consumers, furnishers, and credit reporting agencies.”
The brief notes the First, Seventh, Ninth, 10th, and 11th Circuits have all held that a reporting agency’s obligations extend only to factually accurate information.