sumers. Most creditors, for example, review 
these reports to make decisions about whether 
to extend credit to consumers and what terms 
and conditions to offer them. As such, informa-
tion contained in these reports affects whether 
a person is able to get a private education loan 
to pay for college costs, to secure a mortgage 
loan to buy a home, or to obtain a credit card, 
as well as the terms and conditions under which 
consumer credit products or services are offered 
to them. 
(E) Credit reports are also increasingly 
used for many noncredit decisions, including by 
landlords to determine whether to rent an 
apartment to a prospective tenant and by em-
ployers to decide whether to hire potential job 
applicants or to offer a promotion to existing 
employees. 
(F) CRAs have a statutory obligation to 
verify independently the accuracy and complete-
ness of information included on the reports that 
they provide. 
(G) The nationwide CRAs have failed to 
establish and follow reasonable procedures, as 
required by existing law, to establish the max-
imum level of accuracy of information contained 
on consumer reports. Given the repeated fail-
ures of these CRAs to comply with accuracy re-
quirements on their own, legislation is intended 
to provide them with detailed guidance improv-
ing the accuracy and completeness of informa-
tion contained in consumer reports, including 
procedures, policies, and practices that these 
CRAs should already be following to ensure full 
compliance with their existing obligations. 
(H) The presence of inaccurate or incom-
plete information on these reports can result in 
substantial financial and emotional harm to 
consumers. Credit reporting errors can lead to 
the loss of a new employment opportunity or a 
denial of a promotion in an existing job, stop 
someone from being able to access credit on fa-
vorable terms, prevent a person from obtaining 
rental housing, or even trigger mental distress. 
(I) Current industry practices impose an 
unfair burden of proof on consumers trying to 
fix errors on their reports. 
(J) Consumer reports containing inac-
curate or incomplete credit information also un-
dermine the ability of creditors and lenders to
effectively and accurately underwrite and price 
credit. 
(K) Recognizing that credit reporting af-
fects the lives of almost all consumers in this 
country and that the consequences of errors on 
a consumer report can be catastrophic for a 
consumer, the Consumer Bureau began accept-
ing consumer complaints about credit reporting 
in October 2012. 
(L) As of early December 2019, the Con-
sumer Bureau has handled approximately 
391,560 credit reporting complaints about the 
top three CRAs, making credit reporting con-
sistently in the top third most-complained-about 
subject matter on which the Consumer Bureau 
accepts consumer complaints. Incorrect infor-
mation in reports and frustrations about bur-
densome and time-consuming process to dis-
puting items is are consistently top reported 
concerns from consumers. 
(M) Other common types of credit report-
ing complaints submitted to the Consumer Bu-
reau related to the improper use of a report, 
trouble obtaining a report or credit score,
CRAs’ investigations, and credit monitoring or 
identity protection. 
(N) In the fall 2019 ‘‘Supervisory High-
lights’’, the Consumer Bureau noted that one or 
more of the largest CRAs continue to struggle 
to adequately oversee furnishers to ensure that 
they were adhering to the CRA’s vetting poli-
cies and to establish proper procedures to verify 
public record information. 
(O) According to the fall 2016 ‘‘Super-
visory Highlights’’, Consumer Bureau exam-
iners determined that one or more debt collec-
tors never investigated indirect disputes that 
lacked detail or were not accompanied by at-
tachments with relevant information from the 
consumer. Examiners also found that notifica-
tions sent to consumers about disputes consid-
ered frivolous failed to identify for the con-
sumers the type of material that they could pro-
vide in order for the debt collector to complete 
the investigation of the disputed item. 
(P) A February 2014 Consumer Bureau 
report titled ‘‘Credit Reporting Complaint 
Snapshot’’ found that consumers are confused 
about the extent to which the nationwide CRAs
are required to provide them with validation 
and documentation of a debt that appears on 
their credit report. 
(Q) As evidence that the current system 
lacks sufficient market incentives for CRAs to 
develop more robust procedures to increase the 
accuracy and completeness of information on 
credit reports, litigation discovery documented 
by 
the 
National 
Consumer 
Law 
Center 
(‘‘NCLC’’), as part of a February 2019 report 
titled ‘‘Automated Injustice Redux: Ten Years 
after a Key Report, Consumers Are Still Frus-
trated Trying to Fix Credit Reporting Errors’’, 
showed that at least two of the three largest 
CRAs use quota systems to force employees to 
process disputes hastily and without the oppor-
tunity for conducting meaningful investigations. 
At least one nationwide CRA only allowed dis-
pute resolution staff 5 minutes to handle a con-
sumer’s call. Furthermore, these CRAs were 
found to have awarded bonuses for meeting 
quotas and punished those who didn’t meet pro-
duction numbers with probation. 
(R) Unlike most other business relation-
ships, where consumers can register their satis-
faction or unhappiness with a particular credit 
product or service simply by taking their busi-
ness elsewhere, consumers have no say in 
whether their information is included in the 
CRAs databases and limited legal remedies to 
hold the CRAs accountable for inaccuracies or 
poor service. 
(S) Accordingly, despite the existing statu-
tory mandate for CRAs to follow reasonable 
procedures to assure the maximum possible ac-
curacy of the information whenever they pre-
pare consumer reports, numerous studies, the 
high volume of consumer complaints submitted 
to the Consumer Bureau about incorrect infor-
mation on consumer reports, and supervisory 
activities by the Consumer Bureau demonstrate 
that CRAs continue to skirt their obligations 
under the law. 
(2) INCORRECT
INFORMATION
ON
CONSUMER 
REPORTS.— 
(A) Consumers are entitled to dispute er-
rors on their consumer reports with either the 
CRA, who issued the report, or directly with 
furnishers, who supplied the account informa-
tion to the CRA, and request that mistakes be
deleted or removed. Consumers, who believe an 
investigation has not correctly resolved their 
dispute, however, have few options, other than 
requesting that a statement about the dispute 
be included with their future reports. 
(B) CRAs have a statutory obligation 
under the FCRA to perform a reasonable inves-
tigation by conducting a substantive and 
searching inquiry when a consumer disputes an 
item on their report. In doing so, CRAs must 
conduct an independent review about the accu-
racy of any disputed item and cannot merely 
rely 
on 
a 
furnisher’s 
‘‘rubber-stamp’’ 
verification of the integrity of the information 
they have provided to CRAs. 
(C) In ‘‘Report to Congress Under Section 
319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Trans-
actions Act of 2003’’ released by the Federal 
Government in December 2012, found that 26 
percent of survey participants identified at least 
one potentially material error on their consumer 
reports, and 13 percent experienced a change in 
their credit score once the error was fixed. 
(D) Consumer Bureau examiners have 
identified repeated deficiencies with the nation-
wide CRAs’ information collection. In the fall 
2019 ‘‘Supervisory Highlights’’, the Consumer 
Bureau noted continued weaknesses with CRAs’ 
methods and processes for assuring maximum 
possible accuracy in their reports. Examiners 
also found, with certain exceptions, no quality 
control policies and procedures in place to test 
consumer reports for accuracy. 
(E) In its ‘‘Credit Reporting Complaint 
Snapshot’’ released in February 2014, the Con-
sumer Bureau found that consumers were un-
certain about the depth and validity of the in-
vestigations performed about a disputed item. 
Consumers also expressed frustration that, even 
though they provided supporting materials that 
they believed demonstrated the inaccuracy of 
the information provided by furnishers, errors 
continued to remain on their reports. 
(F) In the winter 2015 ‘‘Supervisory High-
lights’’ released in March 2015, the Consumer 
Bureau reported that one or more nationwide 
CRAs failed to adequately fulfill their dispute- 
handling obligations, including by not for-
warding to furnishers all relevant information 
found in letters and supporting documents sup-
plied by consumers when they submitted dis-
putes failing to notify consumers that they had 
completed investigations, and not providing con-
sumers with the results of the CRAs’ reviews 
about their disputes. 
(G) Consumer Bureau examiners also 
noted in the fall 2016 ‘‘Supervisory Highlights’’ 
released in October 2016 that one or more enti-
ties failed to provide adequate guidance and 
training to staff about how to differentiate 
FCRA disputes from general customer inquir-
ies, complaints, or debt validation requests. 
Consumer Bureau supervisors also directed one 
or more entities to develop and implement rea-
sonable procedures to ensure that direct and in-
direct disputes are appropriately logged, cat-
egorized, and resolved. 
(H) Consumers’ increasing frustration 
about the difficulties of trying to fix credit re-
porting errors, evidenced through the volume of 
consumer complaints related to errors sub-
mitted to the Consumer Bureau, are also 
echoed in another Federal Government study 
issued in January 2015. In the ‘‘Report to Con-
gress under Section 319 for the Fair and Accu-
rate Credit Transactions Act of 2003’’, the 
study found that nearly 70 percent (84 people) 
of participants from a previous survey that had 
filed disputes with CRAs continued to believe 
that at least some of the disputed information 
remained inaccurate at the time of the follow- 
up survey. Despite these views, 50 percent (42 
people) of the survey participants decided to 
just give up trying to fix the errors, with only 
45 percent (38 people) of them planning to con-
tinue to try to resolve their disputes. 
(I) The consistently high volume of con-
sumer complaints submitted to the Consumer 
Bureau about credit reporting errors, coupled 
with the largest CRAs’ repeated quality control 
weaknesses found by Consumer Bureau exam-
iners, show that the nationwide CRAs have 
failed to establish and follow reasonable proce-
dures to assure maximum accuracy of informa-
tion and to conduct independent investigations 
of consumers’ disputes. These ongoing problems 
demonstrate the need for legislation to— 
(i) enhance obligations on furnishers 
to substantiate information and require 
furnishers to keep records for the same
amount of time that adverse information 
about these accounts may appear on a per-
son’s consumer report; 
(ii) eliminate CRAs’ discretion to de-
termine the relevancy of materials provided 
by consumers to support their dispute 
claims by instead requiring them to pass 
all material onto furnishers and elimi-
nating CRA’s discretion to deem some dis-
putes frivolous or irrelevant when a con-
sumer resubmits a claim that they believe 
has been inadequately resolved; 
(iii) enhance educational content on 
CRAs’ websites to improve consumers’ un-
derstanding of the dispute process and to 
make it easier for all consumers to initiate 
claims, including by providing these disclo-
sures in other languages besides English; 
and 
(iv) create a new consumer right to 
appeal reviews by CRAs and furnishers of 
the initial disputes. 
(3) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.— 
(A) Despite the fact that the FCRA cur-
rently provides implicit authority for injunctive
relief, consumers have been prevented from ex-
ercising this right against CRAs. Legislation 
explicitly clarifying this right is intended to un-
derscore congressional intent that injunctive re-
lief should be viewed as a remedy available to 
consumers. 
(B) Myriad findings by the courts, regu-
lators, consumers, and consumer advocates 
make clear that CRAs have failed to establish 
adequate standards for the accuracy and com-
pleteness of consumer reports, yet the nation-
wide CRAs have demonstrated little willingness 
to voluntarily retool their policies and proce-
dures to fix the problems. 
(C) Providing courts with explicit authority 
to issue injunctive relief, by telling the CRAs to 
remedy unlawful practices and procedures, 
would further CRAs’ mandate under the FCRA 
to assure the maximum possible accuracy and 
completeness of information contained on credit 
reports. 
(D) Absent explicit authority to issue in-
junctions, history suggests that the nationwide 
CRAs are likely to continue conducting business 
as usual in treating any monetary settlements
with individual consumers and fines imposed by 
State attorneys general and Federal regulators, 
simply as the ‘‘cost of doing business’’. 
(4) CREDIT SCORES.— 
(A) While nationwide CRAs are required 
by law to supply consumers with a free copy of 
their credit report annually, they can charge 
consumers to obtain a credit score disclosure. 
(B) Many consumers do not realize that 
they have more than just ‘‘one’’ credit score. 
Because the submission of credit information to 
CRAs is voluntary and not all furnishers submit 
information to every CRA, the information con-
tained in a report also varies among CRAs. As 
a result, the credit score generated by each 
CRA is also likely to vary, resulting in poten-
tially different credit decisions based on an 
evaluation of different credit reports obtained 
from different CRAs. 
(C) A February 2015 Consumer Bureau 
report titled ‘‘Consumer Voices on Credit Re-
ports and Scores’’ found that consumers had 
questions about what actions to take to improve 
their scores once they had seen them, sug-
gesting that additional disclosures and edu-
cational content would be helpful to consumers. 
The Consumer Bureau found that consumers 
were confused by conflicting advice on how to 
improve their scores. 
(D) That report also noted that consumers 
found the process for obtaining consumer re-
ports and credit scores confusing. Consumers 
also were uncertain about whether, and under 
what circumstances, they could obtain a con-
sumer report for free. 
(5) PRIVATE EDUCATION LOANS.— 
(A) The Consumer Bureau’s October 2014 
report titled ‘‘Annual Report of the CFPB Stu-
dent Loan Ombudsman’’ noted many private 
education loan borrowers, who sought to nego-
tiate a modified repayment plan when they were 
experiencing a period of financial distress, were 
unable to get assistance from their loan holders, 
which often resulting in them defaulting on 
their loans. This pattern resembles the dif-
ficulty that a significant number of mortgage 
loan borrowers experienced when they sought to 
take responsible steps to work with their mort-
gage loan servicer to avoid foreclosure during 
the Great Recession.
(B) Although private student loan holders 
may allow a borrower to postpone payments 
while enrolled in school full-time, many limit 
this option to a certain time period, usually 48 
to 66 months. This limited time period may not 
be sufficient for those who need additional time 
to obtain their degree or who want to continue 
their education by pursing a graduate or profes-
sional degree. The Consumer Bureau found 
that borrowers who were unable to make pay-
ments often defaulted or had their accounts 
sent to collections before they were even able to 
graduate. 
(6) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AT CERTAIN PRO-
PRIETARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AND CAREER 
EDUCATION PROGRAMS.— 
(A) NCLC cited the proliferation of law 
enforcement actions against many for-profit 
schools in its June 2014 report, titled ‘‘Ensur-
ing Educational Integrity: 10 Steps to Improve 
State Oversight of For-profit Schools’’, to dem-
onstrate the pervasive problem in this sector of 
targeting low-income students with deceptive 
high-pressure sales techniques involving inflated 
job placement rates and misleading data on
graduate wages, and false representations about 
the transferability of credits and the employ-
ability of graduates in occupations that require 
licensure. Student loan borrowers at these 
schools may be left with nothing but worthless 
credentials and large debt. Those who default 
on their student loans face years with damaged 
credit that will adversely impact their ability to 
rent or buy homes, purchase cars, and find em-
ployment. 
(B) The closure and bankruptcy of Corin-
thian Colleges, which was found to have de-
ceived students by steering them into high-in-
terest student loans based on misleading grad-
uation rates and employment data, is a good 
example of the problem. Even after its closure, 
many Corinthian students remained saddled 
with student loan debt, worthless degrees, and 
few prospects for employment. 
(C) Attending a 2-year, for-profit college 
costs, on average, four times as much as at-
tending a community college. Students at for- 
profit colleges represent only about 11 percent 
of the total higher education population but a 
startling 44 percent of all Federal student loan
defaults, according to the United States De-
partment of Education (‘‘DOE’’). 
(D) According to NCLC, a dispropor-
tionate number of for-profit students are low-in-
come and people of color. These schools target 
veterans, working parents, first-generation stu-
dents, and non-English speaking students, who 
may be more likely than their public or private 
nonprofit school counterparts to drop out, incur 
enormous student debt, and default on this 
debt. In the 2011–2012 school year, 28 percent 
of African Americans and 15 percent of Latinos 
attending 4-year institutions were enrolled in a 
for-profit school, compared to 10 percent of 
Whites. 
(E) As highlighted in a press release titled 
‘‘Obama Administration Announces Final Rules 
to Protect Students from Poor-Performing Ca-
reer College Programs’’, that was issued by the 
DOE on October 30, 2014, ‘‘[t]oo often, stu-
dents at career colleges—including thousands of 
veterans—are charged excessive costs, but don’t 
get the education they paid for. Instead, stu-
dents in such programs are provided with poor 
quality training, often for low-wage jobs or in
occupations where there are simply no job op-
portunities. They find themselves with large 
amounts of debt and, too often, end up in de-
fault. In many cases, students are drawn into 
these programs with confusing or misleading in-
formation.’’. 
(7) MEDICAL DEBT.— 
(A) Research by the Consumer Bureau has 
found that the inclusion of medical collections 
on consumer reports has unfairly reduced con-
sumers’ credit scores. 
(B) The Consumer Bureau’s review of 5 
million anonymized credit files from September 
2011 to September 2013, for example, found 
that credit scores may underestimate a person’s 
creditworthiness by up to 10 points for those 
who owe medical debt, and may underestimate 
a person’s creditworthiness by up to 22 points 
after the medical debt has been paid. For con-
sumers with lower credit scores, especially those 
on the brink of what is considered subprime, a 
10 to 22 point decrease in their credit scores 
can have a significant impact on their lives, in-
cluding by affecting whether they are able to
qualify for credit and, if so, the terms and con-
ditions under which it is extended to them. 
(C) The Consumer Bureau found that half 
of all collections trade lines that appear on con-
sumer reports are related to medical bills 
claimed to be owed to hospitals and other med-
ical providers. These trade lines affect the re-
ports of nearly one-fifth of all consumers in the 
credit reporting system. 
(D) The Consumer Bureau has found that 
there are no objective or enforceable standards 
that determine when a debt can or should be 
reported as a collection trade line. Because debt 
buyers and collectors determine whether, when, 
and for how long to report a collection account, 
there is only a limited relationship between the 
time period reported, the severity of a delin-
quency, and when or whether a collection trade 
line appears on a consumer’s credit report. 
(E) Medical bills can be complex and con-
fusing for many consumers, which results in 
consumers’ uncertainty about what they owe, to 
whom, when, or for what, that may cause some 
people, who ordinarily pay their bills on time, to 
delay or withhold payments on their medical
debts. This uncertainty can also result in med-
ical collections appearing on consumer reports. 
In a December 2014 report titled ‘‘Consumer 
Credit Reports: A Study of Medical and Non- 
Medical Collections’’, the Consumer Bureau 
found that a large portion of consumers with 
medical collections show no other evidence of fi-
nancial distress and are consumers who ordi-
narily pay their other financial obligations on 
time. Unlike with most credit products or serv-
ices, such as credit cards, installment loans, 
utilities, or wireless or cable services that have 
contractual account disclosures describing the 
terms and conditions of use, most consumers 
are not told what their out-of-pocket medical 
costs will be in advance. Consumers needing ur-
gent or emergency care rarely know, or are pro-
vided, the cost of a medical treatment or proce-
dure before the service is rendered. 
(F) The Consumer Bureau concluded that 
the presence of medical collections is less pre-
dictive of future defaults or serious delin-
quencies than the presence of a nonmedical col-
lection in a study titled ‘‘Data Point: Medical 
Debt and Credit Scores’’, issued in May 2014.
(G) FICO’s latest credit scoring model, 
‘‘FICO 9’’, changes the treatment of paid col-
lections to disregard any collection matters that 
the consumer has paid in full. FICO 9, how-
ever, is not yet widely used by lenders. 
(H) VantageScore’s latest credit scoring 
model, ‘‘VantageScore 4.0’’, will be available in 
the fall of 2017. This model will penalize med-
ical collections less than non-medical ones. 
(I) The three nationwide CRAs entered 
into a settlement agreement with the New York 
State attorney general in 2015 to address defi-
ciencies in their dispute resolution process and 
enhance the accuracy of items on reports. These 
policy changes will be implemented in a three- 
phased rollout, culminating by June 2018. Sub-
sequently, these CRAs entered into a coopera-
tive agreement with 31 State Attorneys Gen-
eral, which was the basis of the creation of the 
National Consumer Assistance Plan (‘‘NCAP’’) 
to change some of their business practices. 
(J) While the CRAs appear to be volun-
tarily adopting policy changes on a nationwide 
basis, they are not obligated to do so for con-
sumers who reside in States that are not party 
to any of the consent orders. 
(K) As a result of the settlement agree-
ments, the three nationwide CRAs will set a 
180-day waiting period before including medical 
collections on a report and will remove a med-
ical collection from a report once it is paid by 
an insurance company. While this change will 
benefit many, once a medical collection appears 
on a report, it will only be deleted or suppressed 
if it is found to have been the insurance com-
pany’s obligation to pay and the insurer pays it. 
Given the research showing there is little pre-
dictive value in medical debt information, med-
ical collections that are paid or settled should 
quickly be removed from a report, regardless of 
who pays or settles this debt. 
(8) FINANCIAL ABUSE BY KNOWN PERSONS.— 
(A) Financial abuse and exploitation are 
frequently associated with domestic violence. 
This type of abuse may result in fraudulent 
charges to a credit card or having fraudulent 
accounts created by the abuser in the survivor’s 
name that could affect ratings by CRAs. Finan-
cial abuse may also result in the survivor’s in-
ability to make timely payments on their valid 
obligations due to loss or changes in income 
that can occur when their abuser steals from or 
coerces the survivor to relinquish their pay-
checks or savings that could affect ratings by 
CRAs. 
(B) By racking up substantial debts in the 
survivor’s name, abusers are able to exercise fi-
nancial control over their survivors to make it 
economically difficult for the survivor, whose 
credit is often destroyed, to escape the situa-
tion. 
(C) Domestic abuse survivors with poor 
credit are likely to face significant obstacles in 
establishing financial independence from their 
abusers. This can be due, in part, because con-
sumer reports may be used when a person at-
tempts to obtain a checking account, housing, 
insurance, utilities, employment, and even a se-
curity clearance as required for certain jobs. 
(D) Providing documentation of identity 
(‘‘ID’’) theft in order to dispute information on 
one’s consumer report can be particularly chal-
lenging for those who know their financial 
abuser.
(E) While it is easier for consumers who 
obtain a police report to remove fraudulent in-
formation from their consumer report and pre-
vent it from reappearing in the future, accord-
ing to the Empire Justice Center, safety and 
other noncredit concerns may impact the capac-
ity of a survivor of financial abuse committed 
by a known person to turn to law enforcement 
to get a police report. 
(F) According to the Legal Aid Society in 
New York, domestic abuse survivors, seeking to 
remove adverse information stemming from fi-
nancial abuse by contacting their furnishers di-
rectly, are likely to face skepticism about claims 
of ID theft perpetrated by a partner because of 
an assumption that they are aware of, and may 
have been complicit in, the activity which the 
survivor alleges stems from financial abuse. 
(9) DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING MARKETING 
PRACTICES.— 
(A) The Consumer Bureau’s February 
2015 report titled ‘‘Consumer Voices on Credit 
Reports and Scores’’ found that some con-
sumers did not obtain a copy of their consumer 
report due to concerns about security or of
being trapped into purchasing unwanted prod-
ucts like an additional report or a credit moni-
toring service. 
(B) In January 2017, the Consumer Bu-
reau fined TransUnion and Equifax for decep-
tively marketing credit scores for purchase by 
consumers as the same credit scores typically 
used by lenders to determine creditworthiness 
and for luring consumers into costly subscrip-
tion services that were advertised as ‘‘free’’ or 
‘‘$1’’ that automatically charged recurring fees 
unless cancelled by consumers. The Consumer 
Bureau also found that Equifax was illegally 
advertising its products on webpages that con-
sumers 
accessed 
through 
AnnualCreditReport.com before consumers ob-
tained their free disclosures. Because of these 
troubling practices, TransUnion was ordered to 
pay $13.9 million in restitution to harmed con-
sumers and a civil penalty of $3 million to the 
Consumer Bureau. Equifax was ordered to pay 
more than $3.7 million to affected consumers 
as well as a civil money penalty of $2.5 million 
to the Consumer Bureau. As part of the con-
sent orders, the CRAs are also supposed to
change the way that they sell their products to 
consumers. The CRAs must also obtain con-
sumers’ express consent before enrolling them 
into subscription services as well as make it 
easer for consumers to cancel these programs. 
(C) The Consumer Bureau fined the other 
nationwide CRA—Experian—in March 2017 
for deceiving consumers about the use of credit 
scores that it marketed and sold to consumers 
as credit scores that were used by lenders and 
for illegally advertising its products on web 
pages 
that 
consumers 
accessed 
through 
AnnualCreditReport.com before they obtained 
their free annual disclosures. Experian was or-
dered to pay more than $3.7 million in restitu-
tion to harmed consumers and a civil monetary 
penalty of $2.5 million to the Consumer Bu-
reau. 
(D) The Consumer Bureau’s January and 
March 2017 consent orders with the three na-
tionwide CRAs show that these CRAs have en-
ticed consumers into purchasing products and 
services that they may not want or need, in 
some instances by advertising products or serv-
ices ‘‘free’’ that automatically converted into an
ongoing subscription service at the regular price 
unless cancelled by the consumer. Although 
these CRAs must now change their deceptive 
marketing practices, codifying these duties is an 
appropriate way to ensure that these companies 
never revert back to such misleading tactics. 
(E) Given the ubiquitous use of consumer 
reports in consumers’ lives and the fact that 
consumers’ participation in the credit reporting 
system is involuntary, CRAs should also 
prioritize providing consumers with the effective 
means to safeguard their personal and financial 
information and improve their credit standing, 
rather than seeking to exploit consumers’ con-
cerns and confusion about credit reporting and 
scoring, to boost their companies’ profits. 
(F) Vulnerable consumers, who have legiti-
mate concerns about the security of their per-
sonal and financial information, deserve clear, 
accurate, and transparent information about 
the credit reporting tools that may be available 
to them, such as fraud alerts and freezes. 
(10) CLARITY IN CREDIT SCORING.— 
(A) The February 2015 report of the Bu-
reau of Consumer Financial Protection titled
‘‘Consumer Voices on Credit Reports and 
Scores’’ found that some consumers are reluc-
tant to comparison shop for loans and other 
types of consumer credit products out of fear 
that they will lower their credit scores by doing 
so. 
(B) The Consumer Bureau found that one 
of the most common barriers for people in re-
viewing their own credit reports and shopping 
for the best credit terms was a lack of under-
standing of the differences between ‘‘soft’’ and 
‘‘hard’’ inquiries and whether requesting a copy 
of their own report would adversely impact their 
credit standing. 
(C) The Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection revealed that consumers with accu-
rate perceptions of their creditworthiness may 
be better equipped to shop for favorable credit 
terms. 
(11) CREDIT CHECKS AND EMPLOYMENT DECI-
SIONS.— 
(A) The use of consumer reports as a fac-
tor in making hiring decisions has been found 
to be prevalent in a diverse array of occupa-
tions, and is not limited to certain high-level 
management or executive positions. 
(B) According to the California Labor 
Federation, only 25 percent of employers re-
searched the credit history of job applicants in 
1998. However, this practice had increased to 
43 percent by 2006 and to 60 percent by 2011. 
(C) A study titled ‘‘Do Job Applicant 
Credit Histories Predict Job Performance Ap-
praisal Ratings or Termination Decisions?’’, 
published in 2012, found that, while credit his-
tory might conceptually measure a person’s 
level of responsibility, ability to meet deadlines, 
dependability, or integrity, it does not, in prac-
tice, actually predict an employee’s performance 
or likelihood to quit. Credit reports contain 
many inaccuracies and credit history can be 
contaminated by events that are sometimes out-
side a person’s control, such as a sudden med-
ical expense after an accident or the loss of a 
job during an economic downturn. The study 
found that there is no benefit from using credit 
history to predict job performance or turnover. 
(D) Despite the absence of data showing a 
correlation between job performance and credit-
worthiness, employers continue to use credit 
checks as a proxy for assessing character and 
integrity. According to a 2012 Society for 
Human Resource Management survey, organi-
zations indicated that they used credit checks 
on job candidates primarily to reduce or prevent 
theft and embezzlement and to minimize legal 
liability for negligent hiring. 
(E) The use of credit checks for employ-
ment purposes creates a true ‘‘catch-22’’ for 
unemployed people with impaired credit. For 
example, the financial hardship caused by losing 
a job may cause some unemployed individuals 
to make late or partial payments on their bills, 
but their poor credit standing caused by this 
negative information on their consumer report 
can also impede their chances of obtaining a 
new job to end their financial distress. 
(F) A September 2014 report by the New 
York City Council’s Committee on Civil Rights 
noted that, for those who have been unemployed 
for an extended period of time and whose credit 
has suffered as they fell behind on bills, the use 
of credit reports in the hiring process can exac-
erbate and perpetuate an already precarious sit-
uation. 
(G) In a March 2013 Demos report titled 
‘‘Discredited: How Employment Credit Checks 
Keep Out Qualified Workers Out of a Job’’, one 
in four survey participants who were unem-
ployed said that a potential employer had re-
quested to check their credit report as part of 
a job application. Among job applicants with 
blemished credit histories in the survey, one in 
seven had been told that they were not being 
hired because of their credit history. 
(H) While job applicants must give prior 
approval for a prospective employer to pull their 
credit reports under the FCRA, this authoriza-
tion, as a practical matter, does not constitute 
an effective consumer protection because an 
employer may reject any job applicant who re-
fuses a credit check. 
(I) Some negative information on a report 
may stem from uncontrollable circumstances, or 
significant life events in a consumer’s life, such 
as a medical crisis or a divorce. Demos found 
that poor credit is associated with household 
unemployment, lack of health coverage, and
medical debt, which are factors that reflect eco-
nomic conditions in the country and personal 
misfortune that have little relationship with how 
well a job applicant would perform at work. 
(J) In October 2011, FICO noted that 
from 2008 to 2009 approximately 50 million 
people experienced a 20-point drop in their 
credit scores and about 21 million saw their 
scores decline by more than 50 points. While 
the Great Recession reduced many consumers’ 
credit scores due to foreclosures and other fi-
nancial hardships, the financial crisis had a 
particularly harsh impact on African Americans 
and Latinos, as racial and ethnic minorities and 
communities of color were frequently targeted 
by predatory mortgage lenders who steered bor-
rowers into high-cost subprime loans, even when 
these borrowers would have qualified for less 
costly prime credit. 
(K) A May 2006 Brookings Institution re-
port titled ‘‘Credit Scores, Reports, and Getting 
Ahead in America’’ found that counties with a 
relatively higher proportion of racial and ethnic 
minorities in the United States tended to have 
lower credit scores compared with counties that
had a lower concentration of communities of 
color. 
(L) Studies have consistently found that 
African American and Latino households tend, 
on average, to have lower credit scores than 
White households. The growing use of credit 
checks, therefore, may disproportionately screen 
otherwise qualified racial and ethnic minorities 
out of jobs, leading to discriminatory hiring 
practices, and further exacerbating the trend 
where unemployment for African American and 
Latino communities is elevated well above the 
rate of Whites. 
(M) A 2012 Demos survey found that 65 
percent of White respondents reported having 
good or excellent credit scores while over half of 
African American households reported only hav-
ing fair or bad credit. 
(12) DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING MARKETING 
PRACTICES.— 
(A) The Consumer Bureau’s February 
2015 report titled ‘‘Consumer Voices on Credit 
Reports and Scores’’ found that some con-
sumers did not obtain a copy of their consumer 
report due to concerns about security or of
being trapped into purchasing unwanted prod-
ucts like an additional report or a credit moni-
toring service. 
(B) In January 2017, the Consumer Bu-
reau fined TransUnion and Equifax for decep-
tively marketing credit scores for purchase by 
consumers as the same credit scores typically 
used by lenders to determine creditworthiness 
and for luring consumers into costly subscrip-
tion services that were advertised as ‘‘free’’ or 
‘‘$1’’ that automatically charged recurring fees 
unless cancelled by consumers. The Consumer 
Bureau also found that Equifax was illegally 
advertising its products on webpages that con-
sumers 
accessed 
through 
AnnualCreditReport.com before consumers ob-
tained their free disclosures. Because of these 
troubling practices, TransUnion was ordered to 
pay $13.9 million in restitution to harmed con-
sumers and a civil penalty of $3 million to the 
Consumer Bureau. Equifax was ordered to pay 
more than $3.7 million to affected consumers 
as well as a civil money penalty of $2.5 million 
to the Consumer Bureau. As part of the con-
sent orders, the CRAs are also supposed to
change the way that they sell their products to 
consumers. The CRAs must also obtain con-
sumers’ express consent before enrolling them 
into subscription services as well as make it 
easer for consumers to cancel these programs. 
(C) The Consumer Bureau fined the other 
nationwide CRA—Experian—in March 2017 
for deceiving consumers about the use of credit 
scores that it marketed and sold to consumers 
as credit scores that were used by lenders and 
for illegally advertising its products on web 
pages 
that 
consumers 
accessed 
through 
AnnualCreditReport.com before they obtained 
their free annual disclosures. Experian was or-
dered to pay more than $3.7 million in restitu-
tion to harmed consumers and a civil monetary 
penalty of $2.5 million to the Consumer Bu-
reau. 
(D) The Consumer Bureau’s January and 
March 2017 consent orders with the three na-
tionwide CRAs show that these CRAs have en-
ticed consumers into purchasing products and 
services that they may not want or need, in 
some instances by advertising products or serv-
ices ‘‘free’’ that automatically converted into an
ongoing subscription service at the regular price 
unless cancelled by the consumer. Although 
these CRAs must now change their deceptive 
marketing practices, codifying these duties is an 
appropriate way to ensure that these companies 
never revert back to such misleading tactics. 
(E) Given the ubiquitous use of consumer 
reports in consumers’ lives and the fact that 
consumers’ participation in the credit reporting 
system is involuntary, CRAs should also 
prioritize providing consumers with the effective 
means to safeguard their personal and financial 
information and improve their credit standing, 
rather than seeking to exploit consumers’ con-
cerns and confusion about credit reporting and 
scoring, to boost their companies’ profits. 
(F) Vulnerable consumers, who have legiti-
mate concerns about the security of their per-
sonal and financial information, deserve clear, 
accurate, and transparent information about 
the credit reporting tools that may be available 
to them, such as fraud alerts and freezes. 
(13) PROTECTIONS
FOR
CONSUMERS’ CREDIT 
INFORMATION.—
(A) Despite heightened awareness, inci-
dents of ID theft continue to rise. In February 
2015, the Federal Government reported that ID 
theft was the top consumer complaint that it 
received for the 15th consecutive year. As these 
incidents increase, consumers experience signifi-
cant financial loss and emotional distress from 
the inability to safeguard effectively and inex-
pensively their credit information from bad ac-
tors. 
(B) According to a Carnegie Mellon study, 
children are 50 times more likely than adults to 
have their identities stolen. Child identities are 
valuable to thieves because most children do not 
have existing files, and their parents may not 
notice fraudulent activity until their child ap-
plies for a student loan, a job, or a credit card. 
As a result, the fraudulent activity of the bad 
actors may go undetected for years. 
(C) Despite the increasing incidents of 
children’s ID theft, parents who want to 
proactively prevent their children from having 
their identity stolen, may not be able to do so. 
Only one of the three nationwide CRAs cur-
rently allows parents from any State to set up
a freeze for a minor child. At the other two na-
tionwide CRAs, parents can only obtain a freeze 
after a child has become an ID theft victim be-
cause, it is only at this point, that these CRAs 
have an existing credit file for the child. While 
many States have enacted laws to address this 
problem, there is no existing Federal law. 
(D) According to Javelin Strategy & 
Research’s 2015 Identity Fraud study, $16 bil-
lion was stolen by fraudsters from 12.7 million 
American consumers in 2014. Similarly, the 
United States Department of Justice found an 
estimated 7 percent of all residents age 16 or 
older (about 17.6 million persons) in this coun-
try were victims of one or more incidents of ID 
theft in 2014, and the number of elderly victims 
age 65 or older (about 86 percent) increased 
from 2.1 million in 2012 to 2.6 million in 2014. 
(E) Consumers frequently express concern 
about the security of their financial informa-
tion. According to a 2015 MasterCard survey, 
a majority of consumers (77 percent) have anx-
iety about the possibility that their financial in-
formation and Social Security numbers may be 
stolen or compromised, with about 55 percent
of consumers indicating that they would rather 
have naked pictures of themselves leaked online 
than have their financial information stolen. 
(F) That survey also revealed that con-
sumers’ fears about the online security of their 
financial information even outweighed con-
sumers’ worries about other physical security 
dangers such as having their houses robbed (59 
percent) or being pickpocketed (46 percent). 
(G) According to Consumer Reports, 
roughly 50 million American consumers spent 
about $3.5 billion in 2010 to purchase products 
aimed at protecting their identity, with the an-
nual cost of these services ranging from $120 
to $300. As risks to consumers’ personal and fi-
nancial information continue to grow, con-
sumers need additional protections to ensure 
that they have fair and reasonable access to the 
full suite of ID theft and fraud prevention 
measures that may be right for them. 
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 
Except as otherwise specified, the amendments made 
by this Act shall take effect 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS FUND. 
(a) IN
GENERAL.—The dollar amount specified 
under section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 
U.S.C. 289(a)(3)(A)) is reduced by $26,000,000 (in-
creased by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000) (in-
creased by $15,000,000). 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall take effect on September 30, 2029. 
TITLE I—IMPROVEMENTS TO 
THE DISPUTE PROCESS 
SEC. 101. DISPUTE PROCEDURES AND DISCLOSURES RE-
LATING TO REINVESTIGATIONS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 611(a) of the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)) is amended to read 
as follows: 
‘‘(a) REINVESTIGATIONS
OF DISPUTED INFORMA-
TION BY A CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY.— 
‘‘(1) REINVESTIGATIONS REQUIRED.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection 
(f), if the completeness or accuracy of any item 
of information contained in a consumer’s file at 
a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the 
consumer and the consumer notifies the agency 
(either directly or indirectly through a reseller 
or an authorized third party) of such dispute, 
the agency shall, free of charge—
‘‘(i) conduct a reasonable reinvestiga-
tion using the process described in para-
graph (3) to determine whether the dis-
puted information is inaccurate, incom-
plete, or cannot be verified; 
‘‘(ii) notify the consumer that a nota-
tion described in section 605(e) will be 
added to the consumer’s file until the re-
investigation has been completed and that 
such notation can be removed at the re-
quest of the consumer; and 
‘‘(iii) before the end of the 30-day pe-
riod beginning on the date on which the 
consumer reporting agency receives the no-
tice of the dispute from the consumer or 
the reseller— 
‘‘(I) record the current status of 
the disputed information; or 
‘‘(II) delete or modify the item in 
accordance with paragraph (3)(D). 
‘‘(B) EXTENSION OF PERIOD TO REINVES-
TIGATE.—Except as provided in subparagraph 
(C), the 30-day period described in subpara-
graph (A) may be extended for period not to ex-
ceed 15 days if the consumer reporting agency
receives additional information from the con-
sumer or the reseller regarding the dispute 
after the date on which the consumer reporting 
agency notified any person who provided any 
item of information in dispute under paragraph 
(2)(A). 
‘‘(C) LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF PE-
RIOD TO REINVESTIGATE.—Subparagraph (B) 
shall not apply to any reinvestigation in which, 
during the 30-day period described in subpara-
graph (A), the disputed information is found to 
be inaccurate or incomplete, or the consumer 
reporting agency determines that the disputed 
information cannot be verified. 
‘‘(2) PROMPT
NOTICE
OF
DISPUTE
TO
FUR-
NISHER OF INFORMATION; PROVISION OF INFORMA-
TION REGARDING DISPUTE PROVIDED BY THE CON-
SUMER OR RESELLER.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Before the end of the 
period of 5 business days beginning on the date 
on which a consumer reporting agency receives 
notice of a dispute from any consumer or re-
seller under paragraph (1)(A), the consumer re-
porting agency shall provide notification of the 
dispute to any person who provided any item of
information in dispute, at the address and in 
the manner established with such person. The 
notice shall include all information, including 
substantiating documents, regarding the dispute 
that was submitted to the consumer reporting 
agency. 
‘‘(B) PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMA-
TION
REGARDING
DISPUTE
AFTER
NOTIFICA-
TION TO THE FURNISHER OF INFORMATION.— 
If a consumer reporting agency receives addi-
tional information regarding the dispute from 
the consumer or reseller after the agency pro-
vides the notification described under subpara-
graph (A) and before the end of the 30-day pe-
riod described in paragraph (1)(A), the con-
sumer reporting agency shall, not later than 3 
business days after receiving such information, 
provide such information to the person who pro-
vided the information in dispute. 
‘‘(3) REASONABLE STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER 
REPORTING AGENCIES FOR CONDUCTING REINVES-
TIGATIONS AND RESOLVING DISPUTES SUBMITTED 
BY CONSUMERS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a re-
investigation of disputed information, a con-
sumer reporting agency shall, at a minimum— 
‘‘(i) maintain sufficient resources and 
trained staff, commensurate with the vol-
ume and complexity of disputes received or 
reasonably anticipated to be received, to 
determine whether the disputed informa-
tion is accurate, complete, or can be 
verified by the person who provided the in-
formation; 
‘‘(ii) ensure that all staff involved at 
any level of the reinvestigation process, in-
cluding any individual with ultimate au-
thority over determining whether the dis-
puted information is inaccurate, incom-
plete, or cannot be verified, are located 
within the United States; 
‘‘(iii) verify that the personally identi-
fiable information of the consumer submit-
ting the dispute matches the personally 
identifiable information contained in the 
consumer’s file, and that such information 
is accurate and complete;
‘‘(iv) verify that the consumer report-
ing agency has a record of the information 
being disputed; and 
‘‘(v) conduct a reasonable review that 
considers all information, including sub-
stantiating documents, provided by the 
consumer or reseller. 
‘‘(B) CONSUMER
REPORTING.—The con-
sumer reporting agency shall not impose any 
limitation or otherwise impede the ability of a 
consumer to submit information about the dis-
puted item. 
‘‘(C) INDEPENDENT
ANALYSIS.—The re-
investigation conducted under subparagraph 
(A) shall be an independent analysis, separate 
from any investigation by a reseller or a person 
who provided the disputed information. 
‘‘(D) DELETION OR MODIFICATION OF IN-
FORMATION
CONTAINED
IN
A
CONSUMER 
FILE.—If the disputed information is found to 
be inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, 
the dispute resolution staff of the consumer re-
porting agency shall have the direct authority to 
delete or modify such information in the con-
sumer’s file, as appropriate, during the 30-day
period described in paragraph (1)(A), shall 
promptly notify the consumer of the results of 
the reinvestigation as described in paragraph 
(4), and shall promptly notify any person who 
provided such information to the consumer re-
porting agency of the modification or deletion 
made to the consumer’s file. 
‘‘(4) NOTICE TO CONSUMER OF RESULTS OF 
REINVESTIGATION.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 busi-
ness days after the conclusion of a reinvestiga-
tion conducted under this subsection, the con-
sumer reporting agency shall provide written 
notice to the consumer of the results of the re-
investigation by postal mail or, if authorized by 
the consumer for that purpose, by other means 
available to the agency. 
‘‘(B) CONTENTS OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER 
OF RESULTS OF REINVESTIGATION.—The notice 
described in subparagraph (A) shall include— 
‘‘(i) a statement that the reinvestiga-
tion of the disputed information has been 
completed; 
‘‘(ii) a statement informing the con-
sumer as to whether the disputed informa-
tion was determined to be inaccurate, in-
complete, or unverifiable, including a state-
ment of the specific reasons supporting the 
determination; 
‘‘(iii) if information in the consumer’s 
file has been deleted or modified as a re-
sult of the reinvestigation— 
‘‘(I) a copy of the consumer re-
port and credit score or educational 
score (if applicable) that is based 
upon the consumer’s revised file; 
‘‘(II) a statement identifying the 
specific information from the con-
sumer’s file that was deleted or modi-
fied because such information was de-
termined to be inaccurate, incomplete, 
or unverifiable by the consumer re-
porting agency; 
‘‘(III) a statement that the con-
sumer has the right, free of charge, to 
obtain an additional consumer report 
and credit score or educational credit 
score (if applicable) within the 12- 
month period following the date of the 
conclusion of the reinvestigation, re-
gardless of whether the consumer ob-
tained or will obtain a free annual 
consumer report and credit score or 
educational score (if applicable) under 
section 612; and 
‘‘(IV) a statement that the con-
sumer has the right, free of charge, to 
request under subsection (d) that the 
consumer reporting agency furnish 
notifications of the consumer’s revised 
report; 
‘‘(iv) a description of the procedure 
used by the dispute resolution staff of the 
consumer reporting agency to determine 
the accuracy or completeness of the infor-
mation, including the business name, mail-
ing address, telephone number, and Inter-
net website address (if available) of any 
person who provided information who was 
contacted by the staff in connection with 
the determination; 
‘‘(v) a statement that the consumer 
has the right, free of charge, to add a nar-
rative statement to the consumer’s file dis-
puting the accuracy or completeness of the
information, regardless of the results of 
the reinvestigation by the agency, and the 
process for submitting such a narrative 
pursuant to subsection (b); 
‘‘(vi) a copy of all information relating 
to the consumer that was used by the con-
sumer reporting agency in carrying out the 
reinvestigation and relied upon as the basis 
for the determination about the accuracy 
and completeness of the disputed informa-
tion; 
‘‘(vii) a statement that a consumer 
may, free of charge, challenge the results 
of the reinvestigation by appeal within 120 
days after the date the notice of the results 
of the reinvestigation was provided to the 
consumer and the process for submitting 
an appeal; 
‘‘(viii) a statement informing the con-
sumer that a notation described in section 
605(e) will be added to the file of the con-
sumer during the period in which the con-
sumer appeals the results of a reinvestiga-
tion and that such notation can be re-
moved at the request of the consumer; and
‘‘(ix) any other information, as deter-
mined by the Bureau. 
‘‘(5) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO REINSER-
TION OF PREVIOUSLY DELETED OR MODIFIED MATE-
RIAL.— 
‘‘(A) CERTIFICATION OF NEW DETERMINA-
TION
THAT
ITEM
IS
ACCURATE
OR
COM-
PLETE.—A consumer reporting agency may not 
reinsert into a consumer’s file any information 
that was previously deleted or modified pursu-
ant to paragraph (3)(D), unless the person who 
provided the information— 
‘‘(i) requests that the consumer re-
porting agency reinsert such information; 
‘‘(ii) submits a written certification 
that the information is accurate and com-
plete; and 
‘‘(iii) provides a statement describing 
the specific reasons why the information 
should be inserted. 
‘‘(B) NOTICE TO CONSUMER BEFORE RE-
INSERTION CAN OCCUR.—Upon receipt of a re-
quest for reinsertion of disputed information 
under subparagraph (A), the consumer report-
ing agency shall, not later than 5 business days
before the consumer reporting agency reinserts 
the information into the consumer’s file, notify 
the consumer in writing of such request for re-
insertion. Such notice shall include— 
‘‘(i) the business name, mailing ad-
dress, telephone number, and Internet 
website address (if available) of any person 
who provided information to or contacted 
the consumer reporting agency in connec-
tion with the reinsertion; 
‘‘(ii) a copy of the information relat-
ing to the consumer, the certification that 
the information is accurate or complete, 
and the statement of the reasons sup-
porting reinsertion provided by the person 
who provided the information to the con-
sumer reporting agency under subpara-
graph (A); 
‘‘(iii) a statement that the consumer 
may obtain, free of charge and within the 
12-month period following the date the no-
tice under this subparagraph was issued, a 
consumer report and credit score or edu-
cational score (if applicable) from the con-
sumer reporting agency that includes the
reinserted 
information, 
regardless 
of 
whether the consumer obtained or will ob-
tain a free annual consumer report and 
credit score or educational credit score (if 
applicable) under section 612; 
‘‘(iv) a statement that the consumer 
may appeal the determination that the pre-
viously deleted or modified information is 
accurate or complete and a description of 
the procedure for the consumer to make 
such an appeal pursuant to subsection (i); 
and 
‘‘(v) a statement that the consumer 
has the right to add a narrative statement, 
free of charge, to the consumer’s file dis-
puting the accuracy or completeness of the 
disputed information and a description of 
the process to add such a narrative state-
ment pursuant to subsection (b). 
‘‘(6) EXPEDITED DISPUTE RESOLUTION.—If a 
consumer reporting agency determines that the in-
formation provided by the consumer is sufficient to 
substantiate that the item of information is inac-
curate, incomplete, or cannot be verified by the per-
son who furnished such information, and the con-
sumer reporting agency deletes or modifies such in-
formation within 3 business days of receiving notice 
of the dispute, the consumer reporting agency shall 
be exempt from the requirements of paragraph (4), 
if the consumer reporting agency provides to the 
consumer— 
‘‘(A) prompt notice confirming the deletion 
or modification of the information from the con-
sumer’s file in writing or by other means, if 
agreed to by the consumer when the informa-
tion is disputed; 
‘‘(B) a statement of the consumer’s right 
to request that the consumer reporting agency 
furnish notifications of a revised consumer re-
port pursuant to subsection (d); 
‘‘(C) not later than 5 business days after 
deleting or modifying the information, a copy of 
the consumer report and credit score or edu-
cational score (if applicable) that is based upon 
the consumer’s revised file; and 
‘‘(D) a statement that the consumer may 
obtain, free of charge and within the 12-month 
period following the date the notice under this 
paragraph was sent to the consumer, a con-
sumer report and credit score or educational
score (if applicable) from the consumer report-
ing agency, regardless of whether the consumer 
obtained or will obtain their free annual con-
sumer report and credit score or educational 
score (if applicable) under section 612. 
‘‘(7) NO EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO CONDUCT 
REINVESTIGATION.—A consumer reporting agency 
may not refuse to conduct a reinvestigation under 
this subsection because the agency determines that 
the dispute was submitted by an authorized third 
party, unless the agency has clear and convincing 
evidence that the third party is not authorized to 
submit the dispute on the consumer’s behalf. If the 
consumer reporting agency refuses to reinvestigate a 
dispute for these reasons, it shall provide a clear and 
conspicuous notice to the consumer explaining the 
reasons for the refusal and describing the specific in-
formation the consumer is required to provide for 
the agency to conduct the reinvestigation.’’. 
(b) ENSURING CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES 
FURNISH CERTAIN NOTIFICATIONS WITHOUT CHARGE.— 
Section 611(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
U.S.C. 1681i(d)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and without 
charge’’ after ‘‘request of the consumer’’.
(c) INCLUDING SPECIALTY CONSUMER REPORTING 
AGENCIES IN REPORTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 611(e) of the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681i(e)) is 
amended by inserting ‘‘or 603(x)’’ after ‘‘section 
603(p)’’. 
(2) 
TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT.—Section 
611(e)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
U.S.C. 1681i(e)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘The 
Commission’’ and inserting ‘‘The Bureau’’. 
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Fair Credit 
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is further amend-
ed— 
(1) in section 605B(c)(2), by striking ‘‘section 
611(a)(5)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 611(a)(5)’’; 
(2) in section 611— 
(A) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘unless 
there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is 
frivolous or irrelevant,’’; and 
(B) in subsection (f)(3)— 
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking 
‘‘paragraph (6), (7), or (8) of subsection 
(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (4) or (5) of 
subsection (a)’’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking 
‘‘in the manner required under paragraph 
(8)(A)’’; and 
(3) in section 623(b)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘rel-
evant’’ before ‘‘information’’. 
(e) GLOBAL TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
TO REF-
ERENCES TO NATIONWIDE SPECIALTY CONSUMER RE-
PORTING AGENCY.—The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is further amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘section 603(w)’’ and inserting 
‘‘section 603(x)’’ each place such term appears; and 
(2) in section 612(a)(1)(A), by striking ‘‘(w)’’ 
and inserting ‘‘(x)’’. 
SEC. 102. CONSUMER AWARENESS OF DISPUTE RIGHTS. 
Section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
U.S.C. 1681i) is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new subsection: 
‘‘(h) INCREASED CONSUMER AWARENESS OF DIS-
PUTE RIGHTS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this subsection, each 
consumer reporting agency described under sub-
section (p) or (x) of section 603 shall— 
‘‘(A) establish an Internet website acces-
sible to consumers; and
‘‘(B) post on the home page of such 
website a hyperlink to a separate webpage es-
tablished and maintained solely for the purpose 
of providing information to a consumer about 
how to dispute an item of information in the 
consumer report of the consumer. 
‘‘(2) DISPUTE WEBPAGE REQUIREMENTS.—For 
a consumer reporting agency described under sub-
section (p) or (x) of section 603, the separate dis-
pute webpage described in paragraph (1)(B)— 
‘‘(A) may not include any type or form of 
marketing, advertising, information, or material 
associated with any products or services offered 
or sold to consumers; 
‘‘(B) shall clearly and conspicuously dis-
close a concise statement regarding how to file 
a dispute through the agency, free of charge, in 
the manner and format prescribed by the Bu-
reau; 
‘‘(C) shall describe the types of documents 
that will be used by the agency in resolving the 
dispute, including the business name and mail-
ing address to which a consumer may send such 
documents;
‘‘(D) shall include a clear and concise ex-
planation of and the process for using electronic 
or other means to submit such documents, free 
of charge, and without any character or data 
limitation imposed by the agency; 
‘‘(E) shall include a statement that the 
consumer may submit information, free of 
charge, that the consumer believes will assist 
the consumer reporting agency in determining 
the results of the reinvestigation of the dispute; 
‘‘(F) shall clearly and conspicuously dis-
close a statement describing the procedure like-
ly to be used by the consumer reporting agency 
in carrying out a reinvestigation to determine 
the accuracy or completeness of the disputed 
item of information, including the time period 
in which the consumer will be notified of the re-
sults of the reinvestigation, and a statement 
that the agency may extend the reinvestigation 
period by an additional 15 days if the consumer 
submits additional information after a certain 
date; and 
‘‘(G) shall provide translations of all infor-
mation on the webpage in each of the 10 most 
commonly 
spoken 
languages, 
other 
than
English, in the United States, as determined by 
the Bureau of the Census on an ongoing basis, 
and in formats accessible to individuals with 
hearing or vision impairments.’’. 
SEC. 103. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS BY FURNISHERS. 
Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
U.S.C. 1681s–2) is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new subsection: 
‘‘(f) DUTY OF FURNISHERS TO MAINTAIN RECORDS 
OF CONSUMERS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who furnishes in-
formation to a consumer reporting agency relating 
to a consumer who has an account with that person 
shall maintain all information necessary to substan-
tiate the accuracy and completeness of the informa-
tion furnished, including any records establishing the 
liability and terms and conditions under which credit 
was extended to a consumer and any payment his-
tory with respect to such credit. 
‘‘(2) RETENTION
PERIOD.—Records described 
under paragraph (1) shall be maintained until the 
information with respect to which the records relate 
may no longer be included in a consumer report pur-
suant to section 605.
‘‘(3) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.—If a person 
providing information to a consumer reporting agen-
cy is acquired by another person, or if another per-
son acquires the right to repayment connected to 
such information, the acquiring person shall be sub-
ject to the requirements of this subsection with re-
spect to such information to the same extent as the 
person who initially provided such information to the 
consumer reporting agency. The person selling or 
transferring the right to repayment shall provide the 
information described in paragraph (1) to the trans-
feree or the acquirer.’’. 
SEC. 104. DUTIES OF FURNISHERS RELATING TO DISPUTE 
PROCEDURES, NOTICES, AND DISCLOSURES. 
(a) DUTY TO PROVIDE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE 
INFORMATION.—Section 623(a) of the Fair Credit Re-
porting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(a)) is amended— 
(1) in the subsection heading, by inserting 
‘‘AND COMPLETE’’ after ‘‘ACCURATE’’; 
(2) in paragraph (1)— 
(A) by inserting ‘‘or incomplete’’ after ‘‘in-
accurate’’ each place that term appears; and 
(B) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘or 
completeness’’ after ‘‘accuracy’’; and 
(3) in paragraph (8)—
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting 
‘‘and completeness’’ after ‘‘accuracy’’; and 
(B) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘or 
completeness’’ after ‘‘accuracy’’. 
(b) NEGATIVE INFORMATION NOTICES
TO CON-
SUMERS.—Section 623(a)(7) of the Fair Credit Reporting 
Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(a)(7)) is amended to read as fol-
lows: 
‘‘(7) DUTY OF FURNISHERS TO INFORM CON-
SUMERS
ABOUT
REPORTING
NEGATIVE
INFORMA-
TION.— 
‘‘(A) GENERAL
NEGATIVE
INFORMATION 
WARNING NOTICE TO ALL CONSUMERS PRIOR 
TO FURNISHING SUCH INFORMATION.— 
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any person that 
regularly furnishes negative information to 
a consumer reporting agency described in 
subsection (p) or (x) of section 603 about 
activity on any accounts of a consumer 
held by such person or transactions associ-
ated with credit extended to a consumer by 
such person shall provide a written general 
negative information warning notice to 
each such consumer before such person