Court Opinion

ID: 9472779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:10:31.341701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:08.516267
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the decision reached in this case which cites with approval Hansen v. Morgan, 582 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir.1978). That decision concluded that § 1681q “does state a ‘requirement imposed under this subchapter’ ” (referring to the FCRA). Id. at 1219. The Hansen court, however, added a sentence after reaching its conclusion:
If the agency [consumer reporting agency] is complying with the statute, then a user cannot utilize an accout with a consumer reporting agency to obtain consumer information for a purpose not permitted under § 1681b without using a false pretense.

Id.

I am not sure the above rationale necessarily follows from the language of § 1681b, which refers to “permissible purposes of consumer reports” (emphasis added), because “permissible purposes” and “false pretenses” are not necessarily so integrated. The willful and knowing requirement in the “false pretenses” section (1681q) was omitted in the above quoted statement. Thus, for example, one may obtain a consumer report under what is believed to be a proper purpose under the statute but which a court may later rule to be impermissible legally under § 1681b; I would not be prepared to rule that use to be one obtained under the willful and knowing false pretense standard of § 1681b.
As noted also in Hansen, 582 F.2d at 1218, under another section of Title 15, civil liability is limited under the FCRA to instances involving malice or willful intent to injure. Our decision, therefore, should not be interpreted as requiring less than a willful and purposeful act with a motivation to injure in order to establish liability under the FCRA.