Court Opinion

ID: 9478529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:51:24.89135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:28.802477
License: Public Domain

REYNOLDS, Senior District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“Act”) was designed to protect the rights of consumers when engaged in consumer-related transactions such as transactions concerning an individual’s eligibility for credit, insurance or employment. The plaintiffs and WNS were not engaged, and did not expect to be engaged, in a consumer-related transaction. Therefore, the plaintiffs are outside the scope of the act.
The phrase “consumer report” must be read so as to give the Act as a whole a rational construction. The type of transaction for which the information was in fact *457used or collected should determine whether the report is a consumer report. Thus, a subject whose business transactions were not consumer-related is not protected by the Act.
In this case, the plaintiffs and WNS agree as a fact that information in the report was collected for and was expected to be used for litigation, which was not a consumer purpose under the Act. Therefore, the report was not a “consumer report.” It is irrelevant what the reporting agency expected the report to be used for. Because the plaintiffs were not engaged in a consumer-related transaction with WNS, the plaintiffs are outside the scope of the Act and may not use the Act to recover damages against WNS.