Opinion ID: 2191418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: III-B-5 Limited Disclosure to Governmental Agencies.

Text: The Federal Act provides that a consumer reporting agency may furnish identifying information respecting any consumer, limited to his name, address, former addresses, places of employment, or former places of employment, to a governmental agency. 15 U.S.C. § 1681f (1974). Plaintiffs contend that this provision for limited disclosure to governmental agencies must override by preemption what plaintiffs take to be a denial of it in the Maine Act-a denial shown, they say, by the omission of the Act to provide expressly for such limited disclosure combined with restrictions upon disclosure delineated in Section 1313. Facially, the language of the Federal and Maine Acts does not present so direct a conflict, if conflict at all, as plaintiffs claim. The Federal Act states only an authorization, not a mandate, for limited disclosure to governmental agencies, and the Maine Act does not plainly prohibit such limited disclosure. Despite the expressly stated restrictions of Section 1313, under Section (3)(D) or (E) thereof [27] disclosure to governmental agencies would be permissible in most cases likely to arise. For the same policy reasons, then, that led us to decide against nullifying in this proceeding the restrictions imposed by Section 1313 as facially violating the constitutional protection of commercial speech, ante at pp. 208, 209, we decide against plaintiffs the issue of federal preemption relative to the disclosure of information to governmental agencies. We so decide because the issue is raised here on the basis of the facial provisions of the Maine and Federal Acts, rather than in an as applied context calling upon us to adjudicate in an actual set of circumstances whether the Maine Act prohibits a particular disclosure of information to a governmental agency which the Federal Act authorizes. The entry shall be: 1-Appeal of defendant and cross appeal of plaintiffs denied. 2-The judgment of the Superior Court is modified as follows: (a) As to the first sentence thereof: (1) by striking therefrom ss 1321 and ss 1314 and inserting in their place: Section 1314(1), Section 1321(1), those particular provisions in Section 1321(2) and (3) prohibiting the inclusion in a consumer agency report, or the retention in a consumer agency's file, of `irrelevant' information or of information the agency `has reason to believe is not relevant to the purpose for which it is sought', and Section 1321(4)(A); and (2) by inserting after the words amended version and before the words of the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act the phrase, to be set off by commas: as well as Section 1323(2). Thus modified, said first sentence of the judgment is made to read in its entirety: The Court finds for the plaintiffs on the grounds that Section 1314(1), Section 1321(1), those particular provisions in Section 1321(2) and (3) prohibiting the inclusion in a consumer agency report, or the retention in a consumer agency's file, of `irrelevant' information or of information the agency `has reason to believe is not relevant to the purpose for which it is sought', and Section 1321(4)(A) of both the original and amended version, as well as Section 1323(2), of the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act, 10 M.R.S.A. ss 1311 et seq. are void and unconstitutional for violation of the First Amendment. (b) By striking from the judgment the sentence reading: Notwithstanding the Court's decision for the Plaintiffs on their First Amendment challenges, the Court also finds that the following terms are void for vagueness pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: `personal life style', `philosophy' and `uncorroborated hearsay' as found in ss 1321(1) of the original act; `political beliefs' found in ss 1321(1) of the amended act; and in all instances where the term `relevant', its negative or `obsolete' are found in the original and amended versions of the act, including ss 1321(2) and (3) and ss 1323(2) of the amended act. (c) By striking from the judgment the full sentence which commences with the words: The Court finds for the Defendants. . . and by substituting in place thereof a full sentence reading: The Court finds for the Defendant on Count 5 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint which alleged violations of the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States. 3-The judgment of the Superior Court, as thus modified, is affirmed. 4-Case remanded to the Superior Court for entry of the modified judgment herein affirmed. 5-No costs on appeal. All concurring.