On February 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held that a furnisher of credit information must present evidence regarding its investigation of a consumer’s credit reporting dispute in order to satisfy the FCRA dispute resolution requirements. Modica v. Am. Suzuki Fin. Servs., No. CV11-02183-PHX, 2013 WL 656495 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2013). The plaintiff leased a vehicle from the defendant and did not return it at the end of the lease term. The defendant reported the account as “current/paying as agreed” after the plaintiff returned the vehicle. The plaintiff disputed this charge to the credit bureaus which contacted the defendant to notify them of the dispute and confirm the charge. The defendant eventually changed the report to show an unpaid balance with a charge-off, prompting the plaintiff to bring suit alleging breach of contract, violation of a state law regarding credit reporting, and violation of FCRA. In denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the FCRA claim, the court noted that FCRA requires a furnisher of credit information to conduct a “reasonable investigation” upon receipt of a consumer dispute. The court found that the creditor did not engage in a reasonable investigation—the defendant was unable to explain discrepancies between what it submitted to the credit reporting agencies and a letter it submitted to the plaintiff which showed she had no past due payments. In fact, the defendant was unable to say what the credit investigation entailed, a fact that precluded its claim for summary judgment.

On February 20, in remarks during the public portion of the CFPB’s Consumer Advisory Board meeting, CFPB Director Richard Cordray identified four “classes of problems” the CFPB will seek to address in the future. Mr. Cordray stated that the CFPB will focus on (i) deceptive and misleading marketing of consumer financial products and services; (ii) financial products that trigger a cycle of debt; (iii) certain markets – such as debt collection, loan servicing, and credit reporting – where consumers are unable to choose their provider; and (iv) discrimination. While the CFPB has already taken a number of enforcement actions to address the first set of problems, Mr. Cordray noted that with respect to the second class of problems the CFPB is still assessing how to deploy its various tools to best protect consumers while preserving access to responsible credit. Mr. Cordray also noted that loan servicing practices remain a concern, and again drew parallels between the mortgage servicing market and the student loan servicing market, noting that the CFPB is looking to take steps that may address the same kinds of problems faced by student loan borrowers. With respect to discrimination, Mr. Cordray argued that African-Americans and Hispanics have unequal access to responsible credit and pay more for mortgages and auto loans, and reiterated the CFPB’s commitment to utilizing the disparate impact theory of discrimination when pursuing enforcement actions.

On February 15, Senate Banking Committee members Mark Warner (D-VA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent a letter to the CFPB and the FTC following up on the agencies’ recent reports regarding the consumer reporting market. The Senators ask for the agencies’ help in “tak[ing] further action to improve consumer credit reporting,” and request that they prepare a separate report on whether the current legal framework for the regulation of credit reporting is sufficient or whether additional legislation may be needed.

On February 11, the FTC released the results of its study of the U.S. credit reporting industry, including its finding that five percent of consumers had errors on one of their three major credit reports that could lead to them paying more for products. The study also found that (i) one in four consumers identified errors on their credit reports that might affect their credit scores; (ii) one in five consumers had an error that was corrected by a credit reporting agency (CRA) after it was disputed; (iii) four out of five consumers who filed disputes experienced some modification to their credit report, with slightly more than one in 10 noticing a change in their credit score after the agencies modified errors on their credit report; (iv) approximately one in 20 consumers had a maximum score change of more than 25 points and only one in 250 consumers had a maximum score change of more than 100 points. The main types of disputed and confirmed material errors identified by the study were errors in the trade line (consumer accounts) or collections information. The FTC report is the first major study that looks at the full range of participants in the credit reporting and scoring process, including consumers; data furnishers, which include creditors, lenders, debt collection agencies, and the court system; the Fair Isaac Corporation, which develops FICO credit scores; and the national CRAs. The FTC is required to conduct a study of credit report accuracy and provide interim reports every two years, through 2012, with a final report due in 2014. Late last year, the CFPB, which shares jurisdiction over CRAs, published a white paper on its review of how the three largest CRAs manage consumer data and complaints.

On December 13, the CFPB issued a white paper on its review of 2011 data to determine how the three largest consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) manage consumer data and complaints. According to the CFPB press release, its review of the data revealed that more than half of the trade lines (the accounts in a consumer’s name reported by creditors) in the CRAs databases are supplied by the credit card industry, with 40 percent related to bank cards, such as general credit cards, and 18 percent from retail credit cards. Only seven percent comes from mortgage lenders or servicers, and only four percent comes from auto lenders. The CFPB also reported that (i) almost 40 percent of disputes have to do with collections, and debt in collection is five times more likely to be disputed than mortgage information, (ii) fewer than one in five people obtain copies of their credit report each year, (iii) most information contained in credit reports comes from a few large companies, and (iv) most complaints are forwarded to the furnishers that provided the original information, while the CRAs resolve an average of 15 percent of consumer disputed items internally. The report adds that certain documentation provided by consumers to support their cases may not be getting passed on to the data furnishers for them to properly investigate and report back to the CRA, but the report does not offer any policy prescriptions.

On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a property reporting firm cannot be held liable for a willful violation of FCRA because the firm’s interpretation that it was not a consumer reporting agency subject to FCRA requirements was not unreasonable. Fuges v. Southwest Fin. Servs., Ltd., No 11-4504, 2012 WL 6051966 (3rd Cir. Dec. 6, 2012). The borrower filed a putative class action against a property reporting firm, alleging that the firm failed to comply with FCRA when it prepared a report requested by a bank in connection with the borrower’s credit application. On the reporting firm’s motion for summary judgment, the district court explained that the property report contained information about deeds, mortgages, parcel number and taxes, and lien information that more closely relate to a particular parcel of property than to a particular consumer, and that the report did not contain a social security number, payment history, previous addresses, or other information typically included in consumer credit reports. It held that no jury could find that the firm acted willfully because the firm’s reading of FCRA as not being applicable to property-reporting activities was not unreasonable, and granted summary judgment in favor of the firm. The appellate court agreed, holding that (i) the statute’s terms are ambiguous, (ii) the firm’s reading of the those terms has some foundation in the statutory text, and was therefore not objectively unreasonable, and (iii) there is no judicial or agency guidance that would suggest that the firm’s reading is contrary to the intended meaning of the provisions in question, and therefore the firm did not run a substantial risk in adopting its interpretation. Further, the court rejected the borrower’s argument that the reporting firm should lose the potential protection of the “reasonable interpretation” defense, because it never actually interpreted FCRA prior to the commencement of the suit. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the reporting firm.

On November 29, the CFPB issued a bulletin to nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies (NSCRAs) reminding such firms of their obligation under FCRA to facilitate the process by which consumers may obtain a free annual consumer report. The CFPB also announced that its enforcement team issued warning letters to several NSCRAs that may be violating FCRA, based on reviews conducted under the CFPB’s new authority to examine certain CRAs. According to Bulletin 2012-09, the CFPB expects every NSCRA to (i) enable consumers to request a free annual consumer report by a toll-free telephone number that is published as specified, (ii) ensure that its streamlined process for obtaining a free annual consumer report has adequate capacity to accept requests, (iii) collect only as much personal information from a consumer requesting a free annual consumer report as is reasonably necessary to identify the consumer properly, (iv) provide clear and easily understandable information and instructions to consumers, (v) comply with Regulation V when using or disclosing personally identifiable information collected from a consumer in connection with the consumer’s request for any FCRA-required disclosure, and (vi) accept requests for free annual consumer reports from consumers who use methods other than the streamlined process or instruct such consumers on how to use the streamlined process. The sample warning letter released by the CFPB cites possible violations of the requirements outlined in the Bulletin and urges recipients to review practices and procedures to ensure compliance.

On November 8, a bipartisan group of lawmakers released the responses of nine firms the lawmakers targeted in July 2012 as “major data brokerage companies” and from which the members sought information about how each firm collects, uses, and protects consumer data. Representative Markey (D-MA) who is leading the inquiry of these firms characterized the responses as incomplete, particularly with regard to how the firms analyze personal information to categorize and rate consumers. Last month, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) initiated a similar review of data broker practices.

The CFPB today released its first periodic Supervisory Highlights publication, along with an updated examination manual and a bulletin about the Bureau’s examination appeals process.

The Supervisory Highlights report describes the CFPB’s supervisory activity from July 2011 through September 2012, including with regard to credit cards, credit reporting, and mortgages, and “signal[s] to all institutions the kinds of activities that should be carefully scrutinized.” During its first year of conducting exams, the CFPB states that it has found compliance management system deficiencies, including with regard to fair lending compliance programs and oversight of affiliate and third-party service providers.  The report also reviews nonpublic actions taken to enforce compliance with the CARD Act and FCRA,  and identifies several areas of concern for mortgage originators.

Bulletin 2012-07 details the CFPB supervisory appeals process, and addresses confidentiality and the role of the CFPB Ombudsman.  Finally, the updated Supervision and Examination Manual incorporates the various procedures issued since the manual first was published in October 2011, e.g. the payday lending and consumer reporting exam procedures.  The updated manual also includes new references to the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the republishing of federal consumer finance law regulations under the CFPB’s authority.

On October 22, the CFPB announced that it has begun accepting consumer complaints regarding the activities of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). In July 2012, the CFPB issued a rule that granted the Bureau authority, effective September 30, 2012, to supervise firms with more than $7 million in annual receipts from consumer reporting activities. As part of its new supervision activities, the CFPB is seeking consumer complaints with regard to (i) incorrect information on a credit report, (ii) a consumer reporting agency’s investigation, (iii) the improper use of a credit report, (iv) being unable to get a copy of a credit score or file, and (v) credit-monitoring or identity-protection services. The CFPB encourages consumers to attempt to resolve any problems directly with the CRA before submitting a complaint to the CFPB in order to take full advantage of certain rights afforded by federal consumer financial laws.

On October 10, the FTC announced that a major consumer reporting agency (CRA) agreed to settle charges that it improperly sold lists of consumers who were late on their mortgage payments. The CRA will pay $393,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the FTC Act by failing to implement procedures to prevent the sale of lists of consumer information to firms that should not have received them. In a separate but related case, which the DOJ pursued under a referral from the FTC, a data reseller and its affiliates settled charges that the companies violated the FTC Act and FCRA by (i) obtaining prescreened lists without having a permissible purpose, (ii) reselling the reports without disclosing to the consumer reporting agency that provided them who the end users would be, (iii) failing to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure that prospective users had a permissible purpose to get them, (iv) to the extent that firm offers of credit were made, failing to maintain a record of the criteria used to select consumers for these offers, and (v) failing to control access to sensitive consumer financial information. The resellers agreed to pay a $1.2 million civil penalty and will be barred from using or selling prescreened lists without a permissible purpose, or in connection with solicitations for debt relief or mortgage assistance relief products or services.

On October 10, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, sent letters to nine data brokers seeking information about how those companies compile and sell consumer information. For example, Mr. Rockefeller asked that, by November 2, 2012 the data brokers (i) provide a list of the sources from which the brokers have collected or received data from or about consumers over the past four years, (ii) describe the methods of data collection employed, (iii) identify the consumer data collected during that period, and (iv) list the products or services offered to third parties. This follows similar requests made in August by a bipartisan group of members of the House of Representatives. Because the data brokers targeted by members of the respective chambers of Congress overlap only in part, a total of fourteen companies have been asked to produce information and materials to Congress.

On October 1, the CFPB announced a coordinated enforcement action taken by federal regulators against a major credit card company and several of its subsidiaries alleged to have violated multiple consumer financial protection laws. According to the CFPB, the investigations conducted by it and other federal regulators and a state regulator revealed that the companies (i) charged illegal late fees, (ii) discriminated on the basis of age in the offering of credit, (iii) engaged in deceptive marketing, and (iv) failed to properly report consumer credit disputes. To resolve the allegations, the companies agreed to enter into several different consent orders. Two orders obtained by the CFPB and a joint CFPB/FDIC order require three of the subsidiaries collectively to refund approximately $85 million to approximately 250,000 customers and pay a cumulative $18 million in civil money penalties. Likewise, the OCC issued a consent order that includes an additional $500,000 penalty, and provides for restitution that overlaps with the broader restitution ordered by the CFPB. Finally, an order obtained by the Federal Reserve Board, requires the company, and certain of its subsidiaries, to pay an additional $9 million penalty. Furthermore, pursuant to the various orders, the companies agreed to undergo an independent audit and implement enhanced compliance systems to address the alleged illegal practices. This is the third public CFPB-led enforcement action aimed at credit card companies, and the first to go beyond allegations regarding ancillary products and resolve alleged violations of the CARD Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

On September 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit revived an individual’s private action under FCRA against a bank, alleging that the bank failed to adequately investigate and respond to notices it received from several consumer reporting agencies regarding disputed car loan. Boggio v. USAA Fed. Savings Bank, No 11-4040, slip op. (6th Cir. Sep. 27, 2012). After experiencing credit problems caused by his ex-wife’s failure to make payments on a car she purchased during their marriage by signing both of their names to a check, the plaintiff wrote to several consumer reporting agencies to dispute his responsibility for the loan in light of the forgery, as well as the parties’ separation and divorce agreements that stated the ex-wife would be responsible for the car payments. The plaintiff alleges that the reporting agencies notified the bank of the dispute, which the bank refused to investigate without a police report or fraud affidavit from the plaintiff, as required by the bank’s fraud policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, holding that the bank reasonably investigated the notices it received from credit reporting agencies, and that the plaintiff had ratified the debt. On appeal, the circuit court reversed and remanded the district court’s decision, holding that there is a genuine dispute of material fact with regard to the sufficiency of the bank’s investigation. The court added that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the bank’s fraud policy does not alter its finding of a genuine dispute of material fact, holding that FCRA does not permit the bank to require independent confirmation of the reporting agencies’ notices before conducting an investigation. The court also held that the dispute over ratification requires resolution by a trier of fact given the ambiguity of the separation agreement, among other issues.