Source: https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/219380-you-cannot-sue-an-oc-for-frca-violations/?tab=comments
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 10:15:58
Document Index: 442473981

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681']

You cannot sue an OC for FRCA violations - Is There a Lawyer in the House - Credit InfoCenter Forums
By Ronalddog, September 16, 2003 in Is There a Lawyer in the House
You cannot sue an OC under the FRCA for placing erroneous or inaccurate information on your credit report - only state and federal agencies can sue.
Go ahead and beat me up if you can.
Not sure where you heard that, but Nelson vs. Chase pretty much shoots your entire topic down into flames. I also know for a fact you can sue a creditor under section 604 if they throw an inquiry on your report without your permission, and I've Googled cases that cite section 623.
I'm still a little rusty on this topic otherwise...I'm not to the point where I'm ready to file suit against Bank of America just yet, but they're third on my list right now.
Ok Ron, you've made a statement. I agree with Xan, Nelson v. Chase, among other cases, shoots down your statement.
What's the basis for your statement ? What have you 'found' ??
Pale Rider 10
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/watkins.htm
This responds to your letter concerning the relationship between Sections 607( and 623(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). You note that Section 623(a)(1)© allows a party that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") to provide an address for consumers to dispute information, and thereby avoid the general accuracy requirements of Section 623(a)(1)(A). You also note that Section 623© prohibits consumers from suing furnishers who violate Section 623(a), meaning that the only remedy is enforcement by governmental authorities. You ask whether these limitations increase the obligation of CRAs under Section 607( , which requires such organizations to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information" in their consumer reports.
Section 623 was added to the FCRA by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208, Title II, Subtitle D, Chapter 1, the "CCRRA"). That major overhaul of the FCRA was signed into law on September 30, 1996, and most of its provisions became effective one year later. We understand your point that the obligations imposed by Section 623(a) on furnishers of information to CRAs (and the remedies it provides consumers for violation) are limited, and your view that CRAs should be more vigilant as a result. However, the FCRA imposed no accuracy duties at all on the furnishers of information to CRAs prior to the addition of Section 623 in the CCRRA. Even though the Section is limited in some respects, it imposes legal obligations where none existed before. Section 623(a)(1)( forbids furnishers from continuing to report inaccurate information that is disputed by consumers in writing to the address provided by the furnisher (using the procedure you cited). In addition, Section 623( imposes clear investigative duties on furnishers when they receive disputes from CRAs, and allows consumers to sue violators of this subsection to obtain damages (which may be punitive if the consumer shows willful violation) and attorney fees. Prior to the addition of Section 623 in 1996, the FCRA provided for none of those duties or liabilities on furnishers of information to CRAs.
Section 607( was not changed by the CCRRA. It remains in the same form as when the FCRA became law on October 26, 1970. Congress left Section 607( intact when it rewrote the FCRA in 1996, and on several other occasions when it amended the statute over the years. Despite some deficiencies in Section 623(a) from the consumer perspective, it does impose accuracy duties on furnishers where none existed prior to the effective date of the CCRRA. Nothing suggests that, in prescribing obligations for furnishers for the first time, Congress intended to change CRA duties under Section 607( . Therefore, it is our view that the duties of CRAs under Section 607( were neither expanded nor reduced by the addition of Section 623 by the CCRRA.
Are you doing legal research for creditors, consumers, or yourself? Or are you just trolling? What is your situation and do you actually need help?
I am just trying to figure out if you are just socially inept or if you have an agenda?
cybercrusader 10
Location: Lat. 27:58N and Lon. 86:56E 29,026ft.
uh....both?
C'mon cutsey bear, the suspense is killing me. Sh*t or get off the toilet.
I think mr. dog has some big problems of his own, and don't want to do his own research.
Or, mr. dog is trying to make himself look like a big whig know it all on another board someplace and comes here to get his info first before he posts back to that board.
Read it, read it again, and read it ten more times to be sure you understand it.
Don't play his game.
Where's Swede? I say ban this turkey.
Oh I dont know guys.. let him stay and say these silly things that arent true.
Keeps us all on our toes and even makes us think harder.. then we can look back on this thread and have a plethera of information to use against more idiot OCs and idiot CAs.
Gets in teacher mode:
Ron-DARLING.. Being a paralegal I think you need to READ The FCRA.. read it ALL THE WAY THROUGH and then tell me what it says about FURNISHERS of information..
When your done reading we will talk.
No problem whatsoever....Since you apparently didn't take the time to thoroughly conduct your research on this topic as a "seasoned paralegal" would, I'll be glad to beat you up. Xan is, of course right....
Section § 1681s-2(a) does prevent a consumer for suing a furnisher for providing inaccurate information, HOWEVER Section § 1681s-2( deals with what happens after a dispute have been filtered through a CRA and a consumer can most definitely sue under this section so it appears as though you are again, incorrect.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA135EC5A1F7368588256B6F0056EF47/$file/0015946.pdf?openelement
Toby D. Nelson ("Nelson") appeals the judgment of the district court for the District of Nevada dismissing his suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681u ("the FCRA") for failure to state a cause of action against the defendant Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation("Chase"). Holding that section 1681s-2( does create a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of credit information, we reverse the judgment of the district court.
If Congress didn't want the irresponsible furnisher privately sued under (a), why should Congress have provided for private suit under ( ? This doubt chimes with the argument that subsections © and (d) of§ 1681s-2 don't mention ( because ( creates no private right of action at all.
The answer to the objection was given in oral argument by counsel for amicus Federal Trade Commission, as follows. It can be inferred from the structure of the statute that Congress did not want furnishers of credit information exposed to suit by any and every consumer dissatisfied with the credit information furnished. Hence, Congress limited the enforcement of the duties imposed by § 1681s-2(a) to governmental bodies. But Congress did provide a filtering mechanism in § 1681s-2( by making the disputatious consumer notify a CRA and setting up the CRA to receive notice of the investigation by the furnisher. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3) (allowing CRA to terminate reinvestigation of disputed item if CRA "reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant"). With this filter in place and opportunity for the furnisher to save itself from liability by taking the steps required by § 1681s-2( , Congress put no limit on private enforcement under §§ 1681n & o.
Coming here to ask questions to learn is ok, that's why we're all here- but coming here to spread misinformation is not, the members here will not allow it and I suggest you stop.
Xan is, of course right....
The ground suddenly feels very, very cold........
(some of you may have to think about that for a minute or two.. )
On an unrelated note, this guy isn't a newbie...if you look, he's got something like 50 posts on this board...damned if I know where they are though, cause I've never heard of him.
I did, still don't get it....
You can read em all by clicking on "Profile" in his post, then "Find all posts by...". Being a newbie is really not related to post counts, neither is being an expert. It's easy to run around the board and post misinformation, questions and bumps but that doesn't give a poster any credibility whatsoever. It's about the quality, not quantity.
(swede, the ground is cold because hell froze over.)
It's easy to run around the board and post misinformation, questions and bumps but that doesn't give a poster any credibility whatsoever. It's about the quality, not quantity.
Oh I know, but there were some replies along the lines of this guy is new here...he's obviously been around here before, just under the radar up until now. So I don't think he's trolling...well...not completely trolling....
Perhaps didn't want to do the research himself, so threw out something combative in order to get us to do it for him?
I feel so used. So trashy. So violated.
Mmmmmmmm....used....
Oh duh.....LOL, a bit slow today....
No - I was on vacation in a different state and don't have my research with me - it has only been a day.
I found three current cases in the United States District Court, Northern District of California against First USA in which First USA uses as a defense that an individual cannot sue a OC under the FCRA; only the state and federal agencies can - also an individual cannot sue under the California Fair Credit Reporting Laws because federal law supercedes. The cases were dismissed with prejudice (means you cannot file again) because of these two items.
Use PACER and look up the cases for First USA. I will post what I found around 1:00 p.m. pacific standard time today.
Also admin and swede if you want to ban me, go ahead - I try to be civil and get an adult discussion and I am continually "dissed." You tell me not to be combative so I put up a statement instead of an accusation and I am "dissed."
It has only been one day since I posted the first post in this series and people are freaking out. So I misplace a question mark or an exclamation - is that a capital offense?????" What ever happened to not shooting the messenger for the message????
Apparently the Nelson case is good law:
I shepardized it in Lexis and there is no negative treatment:
Lexis summary:
The district court dismissed the action, ruling that 18 U.S.C.S. § 1681s-2( did not create a private action. On review, the court disagreed. The court found that Congress limited the enforcement of the duties imposed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681s-2(a) to governmental bodies. But Congress did provide a filtering mechanism in 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681s-2( by making the disputatious consumer notify a credit reporting agency (CRA) and setting up the CRA to receive notice of the investigation by the furnisher. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(3). With this filter in place and opportunity for the furnisher to save itself from liability by taking the steps required by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681s-2( , Congress put no limit on private enforcement under 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1681n & o. The court found that the statute had been drawn with extreme care, reflecting the tug of the competing interests of consumers, CRAs, furnishers of credit information, and users of credit information. It was determined that it could not remake the balance struck by Congress, or introduce limitations on an express right of action where no limitation had been written by the legislature.
Those people who lost (and recently) against First USA got bamboozed.
See how this works - I ask a question and you give me a case - I research it and then everyone is informed.
So let's go back to the debt verification after the initial 30 days and see if we can prove that is legally binding.
You asked for it, see, its right there!!!
Ron, you really DO need to question and re-assess your presentation skills. I suggest you pick up a copy of How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.
Had you read my poinst you would have seen that's exactly what I highlighted for you. I believe the second post in this thread brought the Nelson decision to your attention, what you posted here was nothing we didn't already know, we were already informed without your help.
We don't want to ban anyone. What I said was that you had already stepped on most people's toes by your rude comments about this site spreading misinformation etc and that if you continued offending others member you might have to leave. As long as you and everyone else behaves, there's no banning goin on.
Oh I feel so deliciously white trash <g>
Sorry.. couldnt resist.
Okay - look at Kurtzman v. First USA Bank Case No. C03-01515 JW USDC Northern District of California
Mayes v. First USA Bank, Case No. C03-0527 SC USDC Northern District of California
All of the documents are online with PACER - the plaintiff's got steamrolled in these cases with bad case law. The lawyers for Bank One (First USA) are sure weasels.
Well, maybe if these people came more prepared, they wouldn't have been steamrolled, however. I swear, ppl don't spend enough time covering all their bases, they just figure they can stroll in and take care of whatever it is on the fly.