FCRA violations don't have to be "willful" to be "reckless" perusing the FTC's site on FCRA Staff Opinions, I noticed this: It has been pretty difficult, from what I've read, to get punative damages awarded in FCRA cases. But I stumbled into a recent Supreme Court decision (Safeco v. Burr, 6/07) earlier today that was initially based on this premise: The Court reversed the 9th Circuit's decision -- I think it's the red part above. What they held was this: This indicates that it might be way easier now to threaten, or even be awarded, punative damages from abusive CAs who try to hide behind sleezy excuses and legal tricks whose only intent is to confuse or intimidate a consumer. Waddyathink, vern?
What I posted WAS about what the Supreme Court held in overturning the 9th Circuit's ruling. They basically ruled that FCRA violations don't have to be "willful" to be considered "reckless".
