Court Opinion

ID: 9462229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:35:30.81955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:28.693282
License: Public Domain

OPINION
Before ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
We adopt the careful reasoning of Judge Copple, reported at 399 F.Supp. 1092 (D.Ariz.1975). The only contention here made by the appellant is that it is not a “consumer reporting agency”. Under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act’s definition of a “consumer report” (15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)), the appellant’s argument must be rejected. Not only does a report of the previous issuance of an unpayable check bear “on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, [and] personal characteristics . . .”, a check itself is, essentially, an instrument of credit.1
Affirmed.

. The majority rejects that which it perceives as its Brother Wright’s principal thesis, i.e., that supposed legislative history, even if accurate rather than only speculative, can override the plain, unambiguous language of a CongressionalAct and lawful regulations issued under authority conferred by the Act.