Opinion ID: 6220839
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Any other adverse item of information,

Text: other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.5 See 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(1)-(5). The list covers information to be excluded from credit reports, in a progression that moves from 5 We note that there is a simple scrivener's error in Section 1681c(a)(5). Moran v. Screening Pros., LLC, 943 F.3d 1175, 1183 n.6 (9th Cir. 2019). Thus, a comma should be included to separate the exclusionary clause as follows, Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes [,] which antedates the report by more than seven years. Id. -21- bankruptcy cases (Section 1681c(a)(1)), to civil suits, judgments and arrests (Section 1681c(a)(2)), paid tax liens (Section 1681c(a)(3)), and accounts placed for collection (Section 1681c(a)(4)). Fairly read, all of these categories comprise adverse items of information, and immediately precede Section 1681c(a)(5), which adds to the category of material to be excluded from reports, [a]ny other adverse item of information, other than records of conviction of crimes[,] which antedates the report by more than seven years. Id. § 1681c(a)(5). The catch-all language is broad enough to cover medical debt and debt resulting from domestic abuse, which consist of adverse items of information not covered by the immediately preceding provisions. See FTC Staff Report, supra at 57 (Section 1681c(a)(5) applies to all adverse information that is not covered by Sections 1681c (a)(1)-(4)).6 6As originally legislated as part of the FCRA in 1970, Section 1681c (a)(5) was enacted as Section 1681c(a)(6). See Moran, 943 F. 3d at 1182 (describing original enactment). In 1990, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the agency with original interpretative authority over the FCRA, released a report providing guidance on the statute. See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Commentary on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 55 Fed. Reg. 18,804 (May 4, 1990) (FTC Staff Commentary). The Commentary states that the catch-all provision applied to all adverse information that is not covered by Section 1681c(a)(1)-(5). Id. at 18,818. In 1998, Congress amended the FCRA, including Section 1681c(a)(6). As a result, the catch-all provision became Section 1681c(a)(5). See Moran, 943 F.3d at 1183 (noting change). In 2011, as primary interpretative authority was being handed over from the FTC to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the FTC issued a staff report -22- Measuring the reach of preemption, Section 1681c(a)(5) points to age. Subject to three exceptions found in Section 1681c(b), it prohibits consumer reporting agencies from reporting adverse information that is more than seven years old. 7 Correspondingly, agencies may report that information, provided it does not predate the report for more than seven years. Id. But they are not required to do so. See FTC Staff Report, supra at 55 (Section 1681c(a)(5) does not require consumer reporting agencies to report all adverse information within the time period[] set forth, but only prohibits them from reporting adverse items beyond [that] time period[]). In drafting (a)(1)-(a)(5) of Section 1681c, Congress defined the subject matter, the kinds and uses of information, it was regulating narrowly and with specificity: information older than seven years relating to bankruptcies, civil suits, civil judgments, records of arrest, paid tax liens, accounts in collection, or that is otherwise adverse. withdrawing the 1990 Commentary. See FTC Staff Report, supra at 8. As noted in the text, for Section 1681c(a)(5) the Staff Report maintained the position the Commentary had adopted in 1990 in connection with then Section 1681c(a)(6). Id. at 57. 7See De Armond, supra at 408 ([T]he FCRA provision is less about the substantive character of the information and much more about its age. The provision establishes that information is sufficiently 'fresh' only for the designated period of time, without governing the content itself.). -23- On appeal to us, CDIA has not developed any argument as to whether and how the Amendments might trench on this more circumscribed subject matter -- i.e., the items of information listed in Section 1681c(a). Thus, given the arguments made to us, we vacate the District Court judgment finding that Section 1681t(b)(1)(E) preempts the Maine Amendments in their entirety, and remand to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.8