Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) in response to the continuing threat posed by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Among other provisions, the CARES Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) with the intent to stop adverse credit reporting during the period of national emergency related to the coronavirus crisis. Despite this, furnishers should be aware that their procedures for responding to consumer disputes during the crisis period should not be relaxed.

A recent Minnesota federal court decision (Hrebal v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC) joined a growing number of courts across the country in finding that a creditor's failure to mark a tradeline as disputed can violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) without a consumer having to prove that a reasonable investigation could have uncovered an actual inaccuracy. This trend has created a split between courts in the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits and the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has issued a final regulation that requires credit reporting agencies doing business in New York to register annually with the Department of Financial Services (DFS) and also to comply with accompanying cybersecurity regulations, including the implementation of a cybersecurity program consistent with the requirements already in place for banks, insurance companies and other financial services institutions. The purpose of the new regulation is to protect New Yorkers from data breaches, such as the Equifax breach which exposed the private data of millions of individuals.

We have another court decision relying on the Supreme Court's recent Spokeo decision that found a class action plaintiff did not meet the injury-in-fact requirement under Article III of the United States Constitution. In Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., the Seventh Circuit concluded that a plaintiff's claim of statutory violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") alone did not create an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish standing to sue.

A California jury recently returned a large verdict in a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") case which alleged that TransUnion's credit reporting confused the class consumer names with the names of criminals and terrorists on a government watch list. Five years after lead plaintiff Sergio L. Ramirez filed suit against TransUnion alleging violations of the FCRA, the consumer class was awarded statutory and punitive damages exceeding $60 million. The jury awarded each of the 8,185 class members $984.22 in statutory damages and $6,353.08 in punitive damages.