(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 

Syllabus 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA ET AL. v. 

BURR ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 06–84. Argued January 16, 2007 —Decided June 4, 2007* 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires notice to a consumer

subjected to “adverse action . . . based in whole or in part on any information contained in a consumer [credit] report.” 15 U. S. C. 

§1681m(a). As applied to insurance companies, “adverse action” is “a

denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or a reduction 

or other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of coverage or 

amount of, any insurance, existing or applied for.” §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i).

FCRA provides a private right of action against businesses that use

consumer reports but fail to comply. A negligent violation entitles a 

consumer to actual damages, §1681o(a), and a willful one entitles the

consumer to actual, statutory, and even punitive damages, §1681n(a). 

Petitioners in No. 06–100 (GEICO) use an applicant’s credit score

to select the appropriate subsidiary insurance company and the particular rate at which a policy may be issued. GEICO sends an adverse action notice only if a neutral credit score would have put the 

applicant in a lower priced tier or company; the applicant is not otherwise told if he would have gotten better terms with a better credit 

score. Respondent Edo’s credit score was taken into account when 

GEICO issued him a policy, but GEICO sent no adverse action notice 

because his company and tier placement would have been the same

with a neutral score. Edo filed a proposed class action, alleging willful violation of §1681m(a) and seeking statutory and punitive damages under §1681n(a). The District Court granted GEICO summary

judgment, finding no adverse action because the premium would 

—————— 

*Together with No. 06–100, GEICO General Insurance Co. et al. v. 

Edo, also on certiorari to the same court. 
2 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Syllabus 

have been the same had Edo’s credit history not been considered. Petitioners in No. 06–100 (Safeco) also rely on credit reports to set initial insurance premiums. Respondents Burr and Massey—whom 

Safeco offered higher than the best rates possible without sending 

adverse action notices—joined a proposed class action, alleging willful violation of §1681m(a) and seeking statutory and punitive damages under §1681n(a). The District Court granted Safeco summary

judgment on the ground that offering a single, initial rate for insurance cannot be “adverse action.” The Ninth Circuit reversed both 

judgments. In GEICO’s case, it held that an adverse action occurs 

whenever a consumer would have received a lower rate had his consumer report contained more favorable information. Since that 

would have happened to Edo, GEICO’s failure to give notice was an

adverse action. The court also held that an insurer willfully fails to

comply with FCRA if it acts in reckless disregard of a consumer’s 

FCRA rights, remanding for further proceedings on the reckless disregard issue. Relying on its decision in GEICO’s case, the Ninth Circuit rejected the District Court’s position in the Safeco case and remanded for further proceedings. 

Held: 

1. Willful failure covers a violation committed in reckless disregard 

of the notice obligation. Where willfulness is a statutory condition of

civil liability, it is generally taken to cover not only knowing violations of a standard, but reckless ones as well. See, e.g., McLaughlin 

v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U. S. 128, 133. This construction reflects 

common law usage. The standard civil usage thus counsels reading 

§1681n(a)’s phrase “willfully fails to comply” as reaching reckless

FCRA violations, both on the interpretive assumption that Congress

knows how this Court construes statutes and expects it to run true to 

form, see Commissioner v. Keystone Consol. Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 

152, 159, and under the rule that a common law term in a statute 

comes with a common law meaning, absent anything pointing another way, Beck v. Prupis, 529 U. S. 494, 500–501. Petitioners claim 

that §1681n(a)’s drafting history points to a reading that liability attaches only to knowing violations, but the text as finally adopted

points to the traditional understanding of willfulness in the civil

sphere. Their other textual and structural arguments are also unpersuasive. Pp. 6–10.

2. Initial rates charged for new insurance policies may be adverse 

actions. Pp. 10–17. 

(a) Reading the phrase “increase in any charge for . . . any insurance, existing or applied for,” §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i), to include a disadvantageous rate even with no prior dealing fits with the ambitious

objective of FCRA’s statement of purpose, which uses expansive 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Syllabus 

terms to describe the adverse effects of unfair and inaccurate credit 

reporting and the responsibilities of consumer reporting agencies.

See §1681(a). These descriptions do nothing to suggest that remedies

for consumers disadvantaged by unsound credit ratings should be

denied to first-time victims, and the legislative histories of both

FCRA’s original enactment and a 1996 amendment reveal no reason 

to confine attention to customers and businesses with prior dealings.

Finally, nothing about insurance contracts suggests that Congress

meant to differentiate applicants from existing customers when it set 

the notice requirement; the newly insured who gets charged more owing to an erroneous report is in the same boat with the renewal applicant. Pp. 10–13.

(b) An increased rate is not “based in whole or in part on” a credit 

report under §1681m(a) unless the report was a necessary condition 

of the increase. In common talk, “based on” indicates a but-for causal 

relationship and thus a necessary logical condition. Though some 

textual arguments point another way, it makes more sense to suspect 

that Congress meant to require notice and prompt a consumer challenge only when the consumer would gain something if the challenge 

succeeded. Pp. 13–14.

(c) In determining whether a first-time rate is a disadvantageous

increase, the baseline is the rate that the applicant would have received had the company not taken his credit score into account (the

“neutral score” rate GEICO used in Edo’s case). That baseline comports with the understanding that §1681m(a) notice is required only 

when the credit report’s effect on the initial rate is necessary to put 

the consumer in a worse position than other relevant facts would 

have decreed anyway. Congress was more likely concerned with the 

practical question whether the consumer’s rate actually suffered 

when his credit report was taken into account than the theoretical 

question whether the consumer would have gotten a better rate with

the best possible credit score, the baseline suggested by the Government and respondent-plaintiffs. The Government’s objection to this 

reading is rejected. Although the rate initially offered for new insurance is an “increase” calling for notice if it exceeds the neutral rate, 

once a consumer has learned that his credit report led the insurer to

charge more, he need not be told with each renewal if his rate has not

changed. After initial dealing between the consumer and the insurer,

the baseline for “increase” is the previous rate or charge, not the 

“neutral” baseline that applies at the start. Pp. 15–17.

3. GEICO did not violate the statute, and while Safeco might have, 

it did not act recklessly. Pp. 18–21. 

(a) Because the initial rate GEICO offered Edo was what he

would have received had his credit score not been taken into account, 
4 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Syllabus 

GEICO owed him no adverse action notice under §1681m(a). P. 18. 

(b) Even if Safeco violated FCRA when it failed to give Burr and

Massey notice on the mistaken belief that §1681m(a) did not apply to

initial applications, the company was not reckless. The common law 

has generally understood “recklessness” in the civil liability sphere as

conduct violating an objective standard: action entailing “an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it

should be known.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 836. There being no indication that Congress had something different in mind, 

there is no reason to deviate from the common law understanding in

applying the statute. See Beck v. Prupis, 529 U. S., at 500–501. 

Thus, a company does not act in reckless disregard of FCRA unless

the action is not only a violation under a reasonable reading of the 

statute, but shows that the company ran a risk of violating the law

substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that

was merely careless. The negligence/recklessness line need not be

pinpointed here, for Safeco’s reading of the statute, albeit erroneous,

was not objectively unreasonable. Section 1681a(k)(1)(B)(i) is silent

on the point from which to measure “increase,” and Safeco’s reading 

has a foundation in the statutory text and a sufficiently convincing

justification to have persuaded the District Court to adopt it and rule 

in Safeco’s favor. Before these cases, no court of appeals had spoken 

on the issue, and no authoritative guidance has yet come from the

Federal Trade Commission. Given this dearth of guidance and the 

less-than-pellucid statutory text, Safeco’s reading was not objectively

unreasonable, and so falls well short of raising the “unjustifiably high

risk” of violating the statute necessary for reckless liability. Pp. 18– 

21. 

No. 06–84, 140 Fed. Appx. 746; No. 06–100, 435 F. 3d 1081, reversed

and remanded. 

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 

C. J., and KENNEDY and BREYER, JJ., joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined 

as to all but footnotes 11 and 15, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined 

as to all but Part III–A, and in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., 

joined as to Parts I, II, III–A, and IV–B. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion 

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, 

J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which 

ALITO, J., joined. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 06–84 and 06–100 

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., 

PETITIONERS 

06–84 v. 

CHARLES BURR ET AL. 

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 

PETITIONERS 

06–100 v. 

AJENE EDO 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 4, 2007]

 JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.* 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA or Act) requires

notice to any consumer subjected to “adverse action . . . 

based in whole or in part on any information contained in

a consumer [credit] report.” 15 U. S. C. §1681m(a). Anyone who “willfully fails” to provide notice is civilly liable to 

the consumer. §1681n(a). The questions in these consolidated cases are whether willful failure covers a violation 

committed in reckless disregard of the notice obligation, 

and, if so, whether petitioners Safeco and GEICO committed reckless violations. We hold that reckless action is 

covered, that GEICO did not violate the statute, and that 

—————— 

* JUSTICE SCALIA joins all but footnotes 11 and 15 of this opinion. 
2 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

while Safeco might have, it did not act recklessly. 

I 

A 

Congress enacted FCRA in 1970 to ensure fair and 

accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy. See 84 Stat. 

1128, 15 U. S. C. §1681; TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 

19, 23 (2001). The Act requires, among other things, that

“any person [who] takes any adverse action with respect to

any consumer that is based in whole or in part on any 

information contained in a consumer report” must notify

the affected consumer.1 15 U. S. C. §1681m(a). The notice 

must point out the adverse action, explain how to reach

the agency that reported on the consumer’s credit, and tell

the consumer that he can get a free copy of the report and

dispute its accuracy with the agency. Ibid. As it applies

to an insurance company, “adverse action” is “a denial or 

cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or a reduction or other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of

coverage or amount of, any insurance, existing or applied 

for.” §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i).

FCRA provides a private right of action against businesses that use consumer reports but fail to comply. If a 

violation is negligent, the affected consumer is entitled to 

actual damages. §1681o(a) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). If willful, 

however, the consumer may have actual damages, or

statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000, and even 

—————— 

1So far as it matters here, the Act defines “consumer report” as “any

written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer

reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit 

standing, [or] credit capacity . . . which is used or expected to be used or

collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in

establishing the consumer’s eligibility for . . . credit or insurance to be

used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” 15 U. S. C. 

§1681a(d)(1) (footnote omitted). The scope of this definition is not at 

issue. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

punitive damages. §1681n(a) (2000 ed.). 

B 

 Petitioner GEICO2 writes auto insurance through four 

subsidiaries: GEICO General, which sells “preferred”

policies at low rates to low-risk customers; Government

Employees, which also sells “preferred” policies, but only

to government employees; GEICO Indemnity, which sells

standard policies to moderate-risk customers; and GEICO

Casualty, which sells nonstandard policies at higher rates

to high-risk customers. Potential customers call a toll-free 

number answered by an agent of the four affiliates, who 

takes information and, with permission, gets the applicant’s credit score.3 This information goes into GEICO’s

computer system, which selects any appropriate company

and the particular rate at which a policy may be issued. 

For some time after FCRA went into effect, GEICO sent 

adverse action notices to all applicants who were not

offered “preferred” policies from GEICO General or Government Employees. GEICO changed its practice, however, after a method to “neutralize” an applicant’s credit

score was devised: the applicant’s company and tier

placement is compared with the company and tier placement he would have been assigned with a “neutral” credit

score, that is, one calculated without reliance on credit 

history.4 Under this new scheme, it is only if using a 

—————— 

2The specific petitioners are subsidiary companies of the GEICO Corporation; for the sake of convenience, we call them “GEICO” collectively. 3 The Act defines a “credit score” as “a numerical value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system used by a

person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain 

credit behaviors, including default.” 15 U. S. C. §1681g(f)(2)(A) (2000 

ed., Supp. IV). Under its contract with its credit information providers,

GEICO learned credit scores and facts in the credit reports that significantly influenced the scores, but did not have access to the credit 

reports themselves. 4A number of States permit the use of such “neutral” credit scores to 
4 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

neutral credit score would have put the applicant in a 

lower priced tier or company that GEICO sends an adverse action notice; the applicant is not otherwise told if he

would have gotten better terms with a better credit score. 

Respondent Ajene Edo applied for auto insurance with 

GEICO. After obtaining Edo’s credit score, GEICO offered 

him a standard policy with GEICO Indemnity (at rates 

higher than the most favorable), which he accepted. Because Edo’s company and tier placement would have been 

the same with a neutral score, GEICO did not give Edo an

adverse action notice. Edo later filed this proposed class

action against GEICO, alleging willful failure to give

notice in violation of §1681m(a); he claimed no actual

harm, but sought statutory and punitive damages under 

§1681n(a). The District Court granted summary judgment 

for GEICO, finding there was no adverse action when “the 

premium charged to [Edo] . . . would have been the same 

even if GEICO Indemnity did not consider information in

[his] consumer credit history.” Edo v. GEICO Casualty 

Co., CV 02–678–BR, 2004 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 28522, *12 

(D. Ore., Feb. 23, 2004), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 06–

100, p. 46a.

Like GEICO, petitioner Safeco5 relies on credit reports

to set initial insurance premiums,6 as it did for respondents Charles Burr and Shannon Massey, who were offered higher rates than the best rates possible. Safeco 

—————— 

ensure that consumers with thin or unidentifiable credit histories are 

not treated disadvantageously. See, e.g., N. Y. Ins. Law Ann. §§2802(e),

(e)(1) (West 2006) (generally prohibiting an insurer from “consider[ing] 

an absence of credit information,” but allowing it to do so if it “treats

the consumer as if the applicant or insured had neutral credit information, as defined by the insurer”). 5Again, the actual petitioners are subsidiary companies, of Safeco Corporation in this case; for convenience, we call them “Safeco” collectively. 6The parties do not dispute that the credit scores and credit reports 

relied on by GEICO and Safeco are “consumer reports” under 15 

U. S. C. §1681a(d)(1). 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

sent them no adverse action notices, and they later joined

a proposed class action against the company, alleging

willful violation of §1681m(a) and seeking statutory and 

punitive damages under §1681n(a). The District Court 

ordered summary judgment for Safeco, on the understanding that offering a single, initial rate for insurance cannot 

be “adverse action.” 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed

both judgments. In GEICO’s case, it held that whenever a 

consumer “would have received a lower rate for his insurance had the information in his consumer report been 

more favorable, an adverse action has been taken against 

him.” Reynolds v. Hartford Financial Servs. Group, Inc., 

435 F. 3d 1081, 1093 (2006). Since a better credit score 

would have placed Edo with GEICO General, not GEICO

Indemnity, the appeals court held that GEICO’s failure to

give notice was an adverse action. 

The Ninth Circuit also held that an insurer “willfully” 

fails to comply with FCRA if it acts with “reckless disregard” of a consumer’s rights under the Act. Id., at 1099. 

It explained that a company would not be acting recklessly 

if it “diligently and in good faith attempted to fulfill its 

statutory obligations” and came to a “tenable, albeit erroneous, interpretation of the statute.” Ibid. The court went 

on to say that “a deliberate failure to determine the extent

of its obligations” would not ordinarily escape liability 

under §1681n, any more than “reliance on creative lawyering that provides indefensible answers.” Ibid. Because 

the court believed that the enquiry into GEICO’s reckless

disregard might turn on undisclosed circumstances surrounding GEICO’s revision of its notification policy, the

Court of Appeals remanded the company’s case for further

proceedings.7 

—————— 

7Prior to issuing its final opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals

had issued, then withdrawn, two opinions in which it held that GEICO 
6 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

In the action against Safeco, the Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s position, relying on its reasoning 

in GEICO’s case (where it had held that the notice requirement applies to a single statement of an initial charge 

for a new policy). Spano v. Safeco Corp., 140 Fed. Appx. 

746 (2005). The Court of Appeals also rejected Safeco’s

argument that its conduct was not willful, again citing the 

GEICO case, and remanded for further proceedings. 

We consolidated the two matters and granted certiorari

to resolve a conflict in the Circuits as to whether 

§1681n(a) reaches reckless disregard of FCRA’s obligations,8 and to clarify the notice requirement in §1681m(a).

548 U. S. ___ (2006). We now reverse in both cases. 

II 

GEICO and Safeco argue that liability under §1681n(a) 

for “willfully fail[ing] to comply” with FCRA goes only to 

acts known to violate the Act, not to reckless disregard of

statutory duty, but we think they are wrong. We have 

said before that “willfully” is a “word of many meanings 

whose construction is often dependent on the context in

which it appears,” Bryan v. United States, 524 U. S. 184, 

191 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); and where 

willfulness is a statutory condition of civil liability, we 

have generally taken it to cover not only knowing violations of a standard, but reckless ones as well, see 

McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U. S. 128, 132–133 

(1988) (“willful,” as used in a limitation provision for 

—————— 

had “willfully” violated FCRA as a matter of law. Reynolds v. Hartford 

Financial Servs. Group, Inc., 416 F. 3d 1097 (CA9 2005); Reynolds v. 

Hartford Financial Servs. Group, Inc., 426 F. 3d 1020 (CA9 2005). 8Compare, e.g., Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F. 3d 220, 227 

(CA3 1997) (adopting the “reckless disregard” standard), with Wantz v. 

Experian Information Solutions, 386 F. 3d 829, 834 (CA7 2004) (construing “willfully” to require that a user “knowingly and intentionally

violate the Act”); Phillips v. Grendahl, 312 F. 3d 357, 368 (CA8 2002) 

(same). 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 7 

Opinion of the Court 

actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, covers claims 

of reckless violation); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. 

Thurston, 469 U. S. 111, 125–126 (1985) (same, as to a

liquidated damages provision of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967); cf. United States v. Illinois 

Central R. Co., 303 U. S. 239, 242–243 (1938) (“willfully,” 

as used in a civil penalty provision, includes “‘conduct

marked by careless disregard whether or not one has the 

right so to act’” (quoting United States v. Murdock, 290 

U. S. 389, 395 (1933))). This construction reflects common 

law usage, which treated actions in “reckless disregard” of

the law as “willful” violations. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, 

R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of 

Torts §34, p. 212 (5th ed. 1984) (hereinafter Prosser and 

Keeton) (“Although efforts have been made to distinguish” 

the terms “willful,” “wanton,” and “reckless,” “such distinctions have consistently been ignored, and the three terms 

have been treated as meaning the same thing, or at least 

as coming out at the same legal exit”). The standard civil 

usage thus counsels reading the phrase “willfully fails to 

comply” in §1681n(a) as reaching reckless FCRA violations,9 and this is so both on the interpretive assumption 

—————— 

9 It is different in the criminal law. When the term “willful” or “willfully” has been used in a criminal statute, we have regularly read the 

modifier as limiting liability to knowing violations. See Ratzlaf v. 

United States, 510 U. S. 135, 137 (1994); Bryan v. United States, 524 

U. S. 184, 191–192 (1998); Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 200– 

201 (1991). This reading of the term, however, is tailored to the criminal law, where it is characteristically used to require a criminal intent

beyond the purpose otherwise required for guilt, Ratzlaf, supra, at 136– 

137; or an additional “ ‘bad purpose,’ ” Bryan, supra, at 191; or specific

intent to violate a known legal duty created by highly technical statutes, Cheek, supra, at 200–201. Thus we have consistently held that a

defendant cannot harbor such criminal intent unless he “acted with 

knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.” Bryan, supra, at 193. Civil 

use of the term, however, typically presents neither the textual nor the 

substantive reasons for pegging the threshold of liability at knowledge

of wrongdoing. Cf. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 836–837 (1994) 
8 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

that Congress knows how we construe statutes and expects us to run true to form, see Commissioner v. Keystone 

Consol. Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 152, 159 (1993), and 

under the general rule that a common law term in a statute comes with a common law meaning, absent anything

pointing another way, Beck v. Prupis, 529 U. S. 494, 500– 

501 (2000).

GEICO and Safeco argue that Congress did point to 

something different in FCRA, by a drafting history of 

§1681n(a) said to show that liability was supposed to

attach only to knowing violations. The original version of

the Senate bill that turned out as FCRA had two standards of liability to victims: grossly negligent violation

(supporting actual damages) and willful violation (supporting actual, statutory, and punitive damages). S. 823, 

91st Cong., 1st Sess., §1 (1969). GEICO and Safeco argue 

that since a “gross negligence” standard is effectively the

same as a “reckless disregard” standard, the original bill’s

“willfulness” standard must have meant a level of culpability higher than “reckless disregard,” or there would 

have been no requirement to show a different state of 

mind as a condition of the potentially much greater liability; thus, “willfully fails to comply” must have referred to a

knowing violation. Although the gross negligence standard was reduced later in the legislative process to simple

negligence (as it now appears in §1681o), the provision for

willful liability remains unchanged and so must require

knowing action, just as it did originally in the draft of

§1681n.

Perhaps. But Congress may have scaled the standard 

for actual damages down to simple negligence because it 

thought gross negligence, being like reckless action, was 

covered by willfulness. Because this alternative reading is 

—————— 

(contrasting the different uses of the term “recklessness” in civil and 

criminal contexts). 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 9 

Opinion of the Court 

possible, any inference from the drafting sequence is

shaky, and certainly no match for the following clue in the

text as finally adopted, which points to the traditional

understanding of willfulness in the civil sphere.

The phrase in question appears in the preamble sentence of §1681n(a): “Any person who willfully fails to

comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that

consumer . . . .” Then come the details, in paragraphs

(1)(A) and (1)(B), spelling out two distinct measures of 

damages chargeable against the willful violator. As a 

general matter, the consumer may get either actual damages or “damages of not less than $100 and not more than

$1,000.” §1681n(a)(1)(A). But where the offender is liable 

“for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or 

knowingly without a permissible purpose,” the statute sets 

liability higher: “actual damages . . . or $1,000, whichever

is greater.” §1681n(a)(1)(B).

If the companies were right that “willfully” limits liability under §1681n(a) to knowing violations, the modifier

“knowingly” in §1681n(a)(1)(B) would be superfluous and 

incongruous; it would have made no sense for Congress to

condition the higher damages under §1681n(a) on knowingly obtaining a report without a permissible purpose if

the general threshold of any liability under the section

were knowing misconduct. If, on the other hand, “willfully” covers both knowing and reckless disregard of the

law, knowing violations are sensibly understood as a more

serious subcategory of willful ones, and both the preamble

and the subsection have distinct jobs to do. See United 

States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538–539 (1955) (“‘[G]ive

effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute’” 

(quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 

(1883))).

The companies make other textual and structural arguments for their view, but none is persuasive. Safeco 
10 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

thinks our reading would lead to the absurd result that 

one could, with reckless disregard, knowingly obtain a 

consumer report without a permissible purpose. But this 

is not so; action falling within the knowing subcategory

does not simultaneously fall within the reckless alternative. Then both GEICO and Safeco argue that the reference to acting “knowingly and willfully” in FCRA’s criminal enforcement provisions, §1681q and §1681r, indicates

that “willfully” cannot include recklessness. But we are 

now on the criminal side of the law, where the paired

modifiers are often found, see, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §1001 (2000

ed. and Supp. IV) (false statements to federal investigators); 20 U. S. C. §1097(a) (embezzlement of student loan 

funds); 18 U. S. C. §1542 (2000 ed. and Supp. IV) (false 

statements in a passport application). As we said before, 

in the criminal law “willfully” typically narrows the otherwise sufficient intent, making the government prove 

something extra, in contrast to its civil-law usage, giving a 

plaintiff a choice of mental states to show in making a case

for liability, see n. 9, supra. The vocabulary of the criminal side of FCRA is consequently beside the point in construing the civil side. 

III 

A 

Before getting to the claims that the companies acted

recklessly, we have the antecedent question whether 

either company violated the adverse action notice requirement at all. In both cases, respondent-plaintiffs’

claims are premised on initial rates charged for new insurance policies, which are not “adverse” actions unless

quoting or charging a first-time premium is “an increase 

in any charge for . . . any insurance, existing or applied 

for.” 15 U. S. C. §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i).

In Safeco’s case, the District Court held that the initial 

rate for a new insurance policy cannot be an “increase” 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 11 

Opinion of the Court 

because there is no prior dealing. The phrase “increase in

any charge for . . . insurance” is readily understood to 

mean a change in treatment for an insured, which assumes a previous charge for comparison. See Webster’s 

New International Dictionary 1260 (2d ed. 1957) (defining 

“increase” as “[a]ddition or enlargement in size, extent, 

quantity, number, intensity, value, substance, etc.; augmentation; growth; multiplication”). Since the District 

Court understood “increase” to speak of change just as 

much as of comparative size or quantity, it reasoned that 

the statute’s “increase” never touches the initial rate offer, 

where there is no change.

The Government takes the part of the Court of Appeals 

in construing “increase” to reach a first-time rate. It says

that regular usage of the term is not as narrow as the 

District Court thought: the point from which to measure

difference can just as easily be understood without referring to prior individual dealing. The Government gives 

the example of a gas station owner who charges more than

the posted price for gas to customers he doesn’t like; it 

makes sense to say that the owner increases the price and 

that the driver pays an increased price, even if he never 

pulled in there for gas before. See Brief for United States 

as Amicus Curiae 26.10 The Government implies, then,

that reading “increase” requires a choice, and the chosen

reading should be the broad one in order to conform to 

what Congress had in mind. 

We think the Government’s reading has the better fit 

with the ambitious objective set out in the Act’s statement 

—————— 

10Since the posted price seems to be addressed to the world in general, one could argue that the increased gas price is not the initial 

quote. But the same usage point can be made with the example of the 

clothing model who gets a call from a ritzy store after posing for a

discount retailer. If she quotes a higher fee, it would be natural to say 

that the uptown store will have to pay the “increase” to have her in its 

ad. 
12 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

of purpose, which uses expansive terms to describe the

adverse effects of unfair and inaccurate credit reporting

and the responsibilities of consumer reporting agencies. 

See §1681(a) (inaccurate reports “directly impair the

efficiency of the banking system”; unfair reporting methods undermine public confidence “essential to the continued functioning of the banking system”; need to “insure” 

that reporting agencies “exercise their grave responsibilities” fairly, impartially, and with respect for privacy). The 

descriptions of systemic problem and systemic need as 

Congress saw them do nothing to suggest that remedies

for consumers placed at a disadvantage by unsound credit

ratings should be denied to first-time victims, and the

legislative histories of FCRA’s original enactment and of 

the 1996 amendment reveal no reason to confine attention 

to customers and businesses with prior dealings. Quite 

the contrary.11 Finally, there is nothing about insurance 

contracts to suggest that Congress might have meant to 

differentiate applicants from existing customers when it 

set the notice requirement; the newly insured who gets

charged more owing to an erroneous report is in the same 

boat with the renewal applicant.12 We therefore hold that 

—————— 

11See S. Rep. No. 91–517, p. 7 (1969) (“Those who . . . charge a higher

rate for credit or insurance wholly or partly because of a consumer 

report must, upon written request, so advise the consumer . . .”); S. Rep. 

No. 103–209, p. 4 (1993) (adverse action notice is required “any time

the permissible use of a report results in an outcome adverse to the 

interests of the consumer”); H. R. Rep. No. 103–486, p. 26 (1994)

(“[W]henever a consumer report is obtained for a permissible purpose

. . . , any action taken based on that report that is adverse to 

the interests of the consumer triggers the adverse action notice 

requirements”). 12 In fact, notice in the context of an initially offered rate may be of

greater significance than notice in the context of a renewal rate; if, for 

instance, insurance is offered on the basis of a single, long-term guaranteed rate, a consumer who is not given notice during the initial 

application process may never have an opportunity to learn of any

adverse treatment. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 13 

Opinion of the Court 

the “increase” required for “adverse action,” 15 U. S. C.

§1681a(k)(1)(B)(i), speaks to a disadvantageous rate even

with no prior dealing; the term reaches initial rates for

new applicants. 

B 

Although offering the initial rate for new insurance can

be an “adverse action,” respondent-plaintiffs have another 

hurdle to clear, for §1681m(a) calls for notice only when

the adverse action is “based in whole or in part on” a credit 

report. GEICO argues that in order to have adverse action “based on” a credit report, consideration of the report

must be a necessary condition for the increased rate. The 

Government and respondent-plaintiffs do not explicitly 

take a position on this point. 

To the extent there is any disagreement on the issue, we

accept GEICO’s reading. In common talk, the phrase 

“based on” indicates a but-for causal relationship and thus

a necessary logical condition. Under this most natural 

reading of §1681m(a), then, an increased rate is not “based 

in whole or in part on” the credit report unless the report

was a necessary condition of the increase. 

As before, there are textual arguments pointing another 

way. The statute speaks in terms of basing the action “in 

part” as well as wholly on the credit report, and this

phrasing could mean that adverse action is “based on” a 

credit report whenever the report was considered in the

rate-setting process, even without being a necessary condition for the rate increase. But there are good reasons to

think Congress preferred GEICO’s necessary-condition 

reading.

If the statute has any claim to lucidity, not all “adverse

actions” require notice, only those “based . . . on” information in a credit report. Since the statute does not explicitly

call for notice when a business acts adversely merely after 

consulting a report, conditioning the requirement on 
14 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

action “based . . . on” a report suggests that the duty to 

report arises from some practical consequence of reading

the report, not merely some subsequent adverse occurrence that would have happened anyway. If the credit 

report has no identifiable effect on the rate, the consumer

has no immediately practical reason to worry about it

(unless he has the power to change every other fact that

stands between himself and the best possible deal); both

the company and the consumer are just where they would 

have been if the company had never seen the report.13 

And if examining reports that make no difference was

supposed to trigger a reporting requirement, it would be

hard to find any practical point in imposing the “based . . . 

on” restriction. So it makes more sense to suspect that

Congress meant to require notice and prompt a challenge 

by the consumer only when the consumer would gain 

something if the challenge succeeded.14 

—————— 

13For instance, if a consumer’s driving record is so poor that no insurer would give him anything but the highest possible rate regardless

of his credit report, whether or not an insurer happened to look at his 

credit report should have no bearing on whether the consumer must 

receive notice, since he has not been treated differently as a result of it. 14The history of the Act provides further support for this reading. 

The originally enacted version of the notice requirement stated: “Whenever . . . the charge for . . . insurance is increased either wholly or partly 

because of information contained in a consumer report . . . , the user of 

the consumer report shall so advise the consumer . . . .” 15 U. S. C. 

§1681m(a) (1976 ed.). The “because of” language in the original statute

emphasized that the consumer report must actually have caused the 

adverse action for the notice requirement to apply. When Congress 

amended FCRA in 1996, it sought to define “adverse action” with 

greater particularity, and thus split the notice provision into two 

separate subsections. See 110 Stat. 3009–426 to 3009–427, 3009–443 

to 3009–444. In the revised version of §1681m(a), the original “because

of” phrasing changed to “based on,” but there was no indication that

this change was meant to be a substantive alteration of the statute’s 

scope. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 15 

Opinion of the Court 

C 

To sum up, the difference required for an increase can

be understood without reference to prior dealing (allowing

a first-time applicant to sue), and considering the credit

report must be a necessary condition for the difference. 

The remaining step in determining a duty to notify in

cases like these is identifying the benchmark for determining whether a first-time rate is a disadvantageous increase. And in dealing with this issue, the pragmatic 

reading of “based . . . on” as a condition necessary to make 

a practical difference carries a helpful suggestion. 

The Government and respondent-plaintiffs argue that

the baseline should be the rate that the applicant would 

have received with the best possible credit score, while 

GEICO contends it is what the applicant would have had 

if the company had not taken his credit score into account

(the “neutral score” rate GEICO used in Edo’s case). We 

think GEICO has the better position, primarily because its 

“increase” baseline is more comfortable with the understanding of causation just discussed, which requires notice

under §1681m(a) only when the effect of the credit report

on the initial rate offered is necessary to put the consumer

in a worse position than other relevant facts would have

decreed anyway. If Congress was this concerned with

practical consequences when it adopted a “based . . . on”

causation standard, it presumably thought in equally

practical terms when it spoke of an “increase” that must 

be defined by a baseline to measure from. Congress was

therefore more likely concerned with the practical question whether the consumer’s rate actually suffered when

the company took his credit report into account than the

theoretical question whether the consumer would have

gotten a better rate with perfect credit.15 

—————— 

15While it might seem odd, under the current statutory structure, to

interpret the definition of “adverse action” (in §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i)) in 
16 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

The Government objects that this reading leaves a

loophole, since it keeps first-time applicants who actually

deserve better-than-neutral credit scores from getting

notice, even when errors in credit reports saddle them

with unfair rates. This is true; the neutral-score baseline 

will leave some consumers without a notice that might 

lead to discovering errors. But we do not know how often 

these cases will occur, whereas we see a more demonstrable and serious disadvantage inhering in the Government’s position.

Since the best rates (the Government’s preferred baseline) presumably go only to a minority of consumers, 

adopting the Government’s view would require insurers to

send slews of adverse action notices; every young applicant who had yet to establish a gilt-edged credit report, for

example, would get a notice that his charge had been 

“increased” based on his credit report. We think that the 

consequence of sending out notices on this scale would 

undercut the obvious policy behind the notice requirement, for notices as common as these would take on the 

character of formalities, and formalities tend to be ignored. It would get around that new insurance usually 

—————— 

conjunction with §1681m(a), which simply applies the notice requirement to a particular subset of “adverse actions,” there are strong indications that Congress intended these provisions to be construed in tandem. When FCRA was initially enacted, the link between the definition

of “adverse action” and the notice requirement was clear, since “adverse

action” was defined within §1681m(a). See 15 U. S. C. §1681m(a) (1976 

ed.). Though Congress eventually split the provision into two parts

(with the definition of “adverse action” now located at §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i)), 

the legislative history suggests that this change was not meant to alter

Congress’s intent to define “adverse action” in light of the notice requirement. See S. Rep. No. 103–209, at 4 (“The Committee bill . . .

defines an ‘adverse action’ as any action that is adverse to the interests

of the consumer and is based in whole or in part on a consumer report”);

H. R. Rep. No. 103–486, at 26 (“[A]ny action based on [a consumer] 

report that is adverse to the interests of the consumer triggers the 

adverse action notice requirements”). 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 17 

Opinion of the Court 

comes with an adverse action notice, owing to some legal

quirk, and instead of piquing an applicant’s interest about 

the accuracy of his credit record, the commonplace notices 

would mean just about nothing and go the way of junk

mail. Assuming that Congress meant a notice of adverse 

action to get some attention, we think the cost of closing

the loophole would be too high. 

While on the subject of hypernotification, we should add 

a word on another point of practical significance. Although the rate initially offered for new insurance is an

“increase” calling for notice if it exceeds the neutral rate, 

did Congress intend the same baseline to apply if the 

quoted rate remains the same over a course of dealing, 

being repeated at each renewal date?

We cannot believe so. Once a consumer has learned 

that his credit report led the insurer to charge more, he

has no need to be told over again with each renewal if his 

rate has not changed. For that matter, any other construction would probably stretch the word “increase” more 

than it could bear. Once the gas station owner had 

charged the customer the above-market price, it would be

strange to speak of the same price as an increase every 

time the customer pulled in. Once buyer and seller have 

begun a course of dealing, customary usage does demand a 

change for “increase” to make sense.16 Thus, after initial 

dealing between the consumer and the insurer, the baseline for “increase” is the previous rate or charge, not the

“neutral” baseline that applies at the start. 

—————— 

16Consider, too, a consumer who, at the initial application stage, had

a perfect credit score and thus obtained the best insurance rate, but, at

the renewal stage, was charged at a higher rate (but still lower than

the rate he would have received had his credit report not been taken 

into account) solely because his credit score fell during the interim.

Although the consumer clearly suffered an “increase” in his insurance

rate that was “based on” his credit score, he would not be entitled to an 

adverse action notice under the baseline used for initial applications. 
18 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

IV 

A 

In GEICO’s case, the initial rate offered to Edo was the 

one he would have received if his credit score had not been 

taken into account, and GEICO owed him no adverse 

action notice under §1681m(a).17 

B 

Safeco did not give Burr and Massey any notice because 

it thought §1681m(a) did not apply to initial applications, 

a mistake that left the company in violation of the statute

if Burr and Massey received higher rates “based in whole 

or in part” on their credit reports; if they did, Safeco would 

be liable to them on a showing of reckless conduct (or 

worse). The first issue we can forget, however, for although the record does not reliably indicate what rates

they would have obtained if their credit reports had not

been considered, it is clear enough that if Safeco did violate the statute, the company was not reckless in falling 

down in its duty.

While “the term recklessness is not self-defining,” the

common law has generally understood it in the sphere of 

civil liability as conduct violating an objective standard: 

—————— 

17We reject Edo’s alternative argument that GEICO’s offer of a standard insurance policy with GEICO Indemnity was an “adverse action” 

requiring notice because it amounted to a “denial” of insurance through 

a lower cost, “preferred” policy with GEICO General. See 

§1681a(k)(1)(B)(i) (defining “adverse action” to include a “denial . . . of

. . . insurance”). An applicant calling GEICO for insurance talks with a

sales representative who acts for all the GEICO companies. The record 

has no indication that GEICO tells applicants about its corporate

structure, or that applicants request insurance from one of the several 

companies or even know of their separate existence. The salesperson 

takes information from the applicant and obtains his credit score, then 

either denies any insurance or assigns him to one of the companies 

willing to provide it; the other companies receive no application and

take no separate action. This way of accepting new business is clearly 

outside the natural meaning of “denial” of insurance. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 19 

Opinion of the Court 

action entailing “an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is

either known or so obvious that it should be known.”18 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 836 (1994); see Prosser 

and Keeton §34, at 213–214. The Restatement, for example, defines reckless disregard of a person’s physical safety 

this way: 

“The actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the

safety of another if he does an act or intentionally 

fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, 

knowing or having reason to know of facts which 

would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that

his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical

harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make

his conduct negligent.” Restatement (Second) of Torts

§500, p. 587 (1963–1964). 

It is this high risk of harm, objectively assessed, that is 

the essence of recklessness at common law. See Prosser 

and Keeton §34, at 213 (recklessness requires “a known or

obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow”).

There being no indication that Congress had something 

different in mind, we have no reason to deviate from the 

common law understanding in applying the statute. See 

Prupis, 529 U. S., at 500–501. Thus, a company subject to

FCRA does not act in reckless disregard of it unless the 

action is not only a violation under a reasonable reading of 

the statute’s terms, but shows that the company ran a risk

of violating the law substantially greater than the risk

associated with a reading that was merely careless. 

Here, there is no need to pinpoint the negligence/recklessness line, for Safeco’s reading of the statute, 

—————— 

18Unlike civil recklessness, criminal recklessness also requires subjective knowledge on the part of the offender. Brennan, 511 U. S., at 

836–837; ALI, Model Penal Code §2.02(2)(c) (1985). 
20 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of the Court 

albeit erroneous, was not objectively unreasonable. As we 

said, §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i) is silent on the point from which to 

measure “increase.” On the rationale that “increase” 

presupposes prior dealing, Safeco took the definition as

excluding initial rate offers for new insurance, and so sent

no adverse action notices to Burr and Massey. While we 

disagree with Safeco’s analysis, we recognize that its

reading has a foundation in the statutory text, see supra, 

at 11, and a sufficiently convincing justification to have 

persuaded the District Court to adopt it and rule in 

Safeco’s favor. 

This is not a case in which the business subject to the

Act had the benefit of guidance from the courts of appeals 

or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that might have

warned it away from the view it took. Before these cases, 

no court of appeals had spoken on the issue, and no authoritative guidance has yet come from the FTC19 (which

in any case has only enforcement responsibility, not substantive rulemaking authority, for the provisions in question, see 15 U. S. C. §§1681s(a)(1), (e)). Cf. Saucier v. 

Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 202 (2001) (assessing, for qualified 

immunity purposes, whether an action was reasonable in

light of legal rules that were “clearly established” at the 

time). Given this dearth of guidance and the less-thanpellucid statutory text, Safeco’s reading was not objectively unreasonable, and so falls well short of raising the 

“unjustifiably high risk” of violating the statute necessary 

—————— 

19Respondent-plaintiffs point to a letter, written by an FTC staff

member to an insurance company lawyer, that suggests that an “adverse action” occurs when “the applicant will have to pay more for 

insurance at the inception of the policy than he or she would have been 

charged if the consumer report had been more favorable.” Letter from 

Hannah A. Stires to James M. Ball (Mar. 1, 2000), 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/ball.htm (as visited May 17, 2007, 

and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). But the letter did not 

canvas the issue, and it explicitly indicated that it was merely “an 

informal staff opinion . . . not binding on the Commission.” Ibid. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 21 

Opinion of the Court 

for reckless liability.20 

* * * 

The Court of Appeals correctly held that reckless disregard of a requirement of FCRA would qualify as a willful 

violation within the meaning of §1681n(a). But there was 

no need for that court to remand the cases for factual 

development. GEICO’s decision to issue no adverse action 

notice to Edo was not a violation of §1681m(a), and 

Safeco’s misreading of the statute was not reckless. The 

judgments of the Court of Appeals are therefore reversed 

in both cases, which are remanded for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

20Respondent-plaintiffs argue that evidence of subjective bad faith

must be taken into account in determining whether a company acted

knowingly or recklessly for purposes of §1681n(a). To the extent that 

they argue that evidence of subjective bad faith can support a willfulness finding even when the company’s reading of the statute is objectively reasonable, their argument is unsound. Where, as here, the 

statutory text and relevant court and agency guidance allow for more 

than one reasonable interpretation, it would defy history and current

thinking to treat a defendant who merely adopts one such interpretation as a knowing or reckless violator. Congress could not have intended such a result for those who followed an interpretation that could 

reasonably have found support in the courts, whatever their subjective

intent may have been. 

Both Safeco and GEICO argue that good-faith reliance on legal 

advice should render companies immune to claims raised under 

§1681n(a). While we do not foreclose this possibility, we need not 

address the issue here in light of our present holdings. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

Opinion of STEVENS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 06–84 and 06–100 

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., 

PETITIONERS 

06–84 v. 

CHARLES BURR ET AL. 

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 

PETITIONERS 

06–100 v. 

AJENE EDO 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 4, 2007]

 JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. 

While I join the Court’s judgment and Parts I, II, III–A, 

and IV–B of the Court’s opinion, I disagree with the reasoning in Parts III–B and III–C, as well as with Part IV–

A, which relies on that reasoning. 

An adverse action taken after reviewing a credit report

“is based in whole or in part on” that report within the 

meaning of 15 U. S. C. §1681m(a). That is true even if the 

company would have made the same decision without

looking at the report, because what the company actually

did is more relevant than what it might have done. I find 

nothing in the statute making the examination of a credit 

report a “necessary condition” of any resulting increase. 

Ante, at 13. The more natural reading is that reviewing a 

report is only a sufficient condition.

The Court’s contrary position leads to a serious anom-
2 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. BURR 

Opinion of STEVENS, J. 

aly. As a matter of federal law, companies are free to

adopt whatever “neutral” credit scores they want. That 

score need not (and probably will not) reflect the median

consumer credit score. More likely, it will reflect a company’s assessment of the creditworthiness of a run-of-themill applicant who lacks a credit report. Because those 

who have yet to develop a credit history are unlikely to be 

good credit risks, “neutral” credit scores will in many cases 

be quite low. Yet under the Court’s reasoning, only those 

consumers with credit scores even lower than what may 

already be a very low “neutral” score will ever receive

adverse action notices.1 

While the Court acknowledges that “the neutral-score

baseline will leave some consumers without a notice that 

might lead to discovering errors,” ante, at 16, it finds this 

unobjectionable because Congress was likely uninterested 

in “the theoretical question of whether the consumer 

would have gotten a better rate with perfect credit.” Ante, 

at 16.2 The Court’s decision, however, disserves not only

those consumers with “gilt-edged credit report[s],” ante, at 

16, but also the much larger category of consumers with

better-than-“neutral” scores. I find it difficult to believe 

—————— 

1Stranger still, companies that automatically disqualify consumers

who lack credit reports will never need to send any adverse action 

notices. After all, the Court’s baseline is “what the applicant would

have had if the company had not taken his credit score into account,” 

ante, at 15, but from such companies, what the applicant “would have

had” is no insurance at all. An offer of insurance at any price, however 

inflated by a poor and perhaps incorrect credit score, will therefore 

never constitute an adverse action. 2The Court also justifies its deviation from the statute’s text by reasoning that frequent adverse action notices would be ignored. See ante, 

at 16–17. To borrow a sentence from the Court’s opinion: “Perhaps.” 

Ante, at 8. But rather than speculate about the likely effect of “hypernotification,” ante, at 17, I would defer to the Solicitor General’s position, informed by the Federal Trade Commission’s expert judgment,

that consumers by and large benefit from adverse action notices, 

however common. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27–29. 
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Opinion of STEVENS, J. 

that Congress could have intended for a company’s unrestrained adoption of a “neutral” score to keep many (if not 

most) consumers from ever hearing that their credit reports are costing them money. In my view, the statute’s 

text is amenable to a more sensible interpretation. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 06–84 and 06–100 

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., 

PETITIONERS 

06–84 v.

CHARLES BURR ET AL. 

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 

PETITIONERS 

06–100 v.

AJENE EDO 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 4, 2007]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins,

concurring in part. 

I agree with the Court’s disposition and most of its

reasoning. Safeco did not send notices to new customers 

because it took the position that the initial insurance rate 

it offered a customer could not be an “increase in any 

charge for . . . insurance” under 15 U. S. C. 

§1681a(k)(1)(B)(i). The Court properly holds that regardless of the merits of this interpretation, it is not an unreasonable one, and Safeco therefore did not act willfully. 

Ante, at 18–21. I do not join Part III–A of the Court’s 

opinion, however, because it resolves the merits of Safeco’s 

interpretation of §1681a(k)(1)(B)(i)—an issue not necessary to the Court’s conclusion and not briefed or argued by 

the parties.