I thought that most damages were an automatic $1K. This site: http://www.mix6.com/credit/#sue_them says otherwise. If this is the case, what determines whether you get the $1K or $2500? PS... there's a great chart for those of us in need of visualization at this link.
Hi Jam. I was just reading section 604 - 621 and it *looks* like they can be held to the $2500 if they continue to flagrantly violate this or any other part of FCRA. § 621. Administrative enforcement [15 U.S.C. § 1681s] (2)(A) In the event of a knowing violation, which constitutes a pattern or practice of violations of this title, the Commission may commence a civil action to recover a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person that violates this title. In such action, such person shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 per violation. (B) In determining the amount of a civil penalty under subparagraph (A), the court shall take into account the degree of culpability, any history of prior such conduct, ability to pay, effect on ability to continue to do business, and such other matters as justice may require. There are opinion letters by COfey, Bauchner, Throne, Gowen, Benner, Woolford, Landever, Long, Tatelbaum and Tatelbaum2 yet. Also a case Andrews v. TRW. And while I have your attention I want to run something else by you. Look at this section: § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] (b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater. To me this says that if they do this, not only do they have to pay us for damages, but the CRA can fine them also for another $1000. Do you agree?
Ya beat me to it... Butch posted a copy of the NCO suit PR to a thread on the new 7.5 year old reporting period; and sassy just bumped it, and the section listing the violations worth in the PR was $2,500, which lead me to point to the Administrative Enforcement section. So the answer is correctly, BOTH are right. They just get a $1,500 DISCOUNT on the violations unless its the FTC which files the suit on behalf of the consumers. If you do the math $1.5 MILLION/2500=600; even on that they got a major discount. So the FTC basically made them pay for a total of 600 violations, and left them off with that. So the largest FTC fine in history could have been a lot worse... But for consumers ourselves, we are only able to attempt to recover on our own the $1,000. It takes a lot of consumers to report a lot of violations to get to the Administrative Enforcement suits.
Good Q, Shanyl, When you or I sue & win it's 1000. When the FTC does it it's 2500. The section you quoted says "Administrative Enforcement". Enforcement by the Gov't. Figure's huh? LOL Nice to see you guy's discussing statutes.
Butch: How do you like the break-down of how many 'violations' the FTC settlement comes to when you break it down to an actual number? $1.5 MILLION/2500=600 So the FTC basically made them pay for a total of 600 violations, and left them off with that. So the largest FTC fine in history could have been a lot worse... OR do we actually believe that NCO really only re-aged 600 accounts in even just the last 2 years... Now, here's a good question... Can the same consumers who had their accounts re-aged illegally by NCO file against them to collect their own $1,000.00 payday; as long as of course the account was re-aged within the last two years? True the settlement 'admits no liability' but come on, the judge could clearly see if you pulled a report from PRE-SETTLEMENT showing 05/2003 as OPEN date; and POST-SETTLEMENT showing 02/1998 as the OPEN date, that there was in fact a violation. Could you imagine that outcome?
What you see on Mix6 is junk. Below is the FTC's Press Release on September 29, 1997. You can see that even the FTC didn't mention the consumers private right of action in here. That was established LATER. So if Mix6 choses to leave such old and out dated info up, I suggest you simply ignore it. FTC Press Release - September 29, 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRIVACY, ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION ENHANCED FOR CONSUMERS UNDER AMENDED CREDIT REPORTING STATUTE Employers, Creditors and Credit Bureaus Have Major New Responsibilities ENFORCEMENT STRENGTHENED The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for enforcing the FCRA. The new amendments now allow the agency to sue violators in most cases for up to $2500 per violation, in addition to obtaining injunctive relief. States for the first time will be able to enforce the amended FCRA in federal or state courts on behalf of consumers in order to halt illegal conduct, and in certain cases to recover damages on behalf of state residents of up to $1000 per violation.
Re: Re: $1000 vs $2500 Well, I would personally go for a settlement offer of $1,000.00 PER CRA which they reported to, and then possibly entertain a 24 hour 50% OFF SETTLEMENT OFFER, This offer expires within 24 hours of when the green card was signed for as having been received by your company. Why not use all their own weapons against them... Or to quote the VeePee... Well, I can't quote the VeePee here...
