ICBA and other groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief rebutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s continued assertions that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers are obligated to settle legal disputes.
Latest Case: In Ritz v. Nissan-Infiniti LT, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is considering whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires furnishers to assess and resolve legal disputes about the validity of underlying debt, as argued by the plaintiffs, the CFPB, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Amicus Brief: In a friend-of-the-court brief, ICBA and other groups said the FCRA requires CRAs and furnishers to investigate the factual accuracy of reported information. As in previous briefs in related cases, the groups urged the court to reject the theory that the law also requires credit bureaus and data furnishers to determine the legal validity of claims between creditors and debtors.
Separate Cases: The debate continues to play out in several cases on data furnisher and CRA legal requirements under the FCRA. ICBA has filed similar briefs in Sessa v. TransUnion, Milgram v. Chase Bank USA, and related cases against Holiday Inn Club Vacations.
Background: The FCRA defines and establishes guidelines for credit reports and the process for consumers to dispute information in their credit files.
