Can anyone chime in on whether a consumer has a private right of action if a furnisher of information (CA) fails to note their tradeline as disputed? I know that a consumer can only sue a furnisher if disputed through the CRA and can only sue then under 623(b). I've read it's a FCRA violation for the CA not to mark their tradeline as being disputed, all assuming of course a consumer actually disuptes with CA. I know a consumer has a cause of action under the FDCPA. I'm just trying to determine if a FCRA cause of action exists also. I'm trying to find addtional leverage to use against a CA for negotiations purposes. Thanks
It is both an FCRA and FDCPA violation. Contrary to popular opinion, there is authority which provides that even original creditors must mark an account as being in dispute. See DiPrenzo v. MBNA. If they fail to liability arises under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2b. In addition, one does not also have to dispute a matter directly with the furnisher. A requests for re-investigation submitted to the credit reporting agencies is sufficient to ground liability as described above.
Here's my dilemma. It appears opinion is split on this issue. Failure to mark a tradeline as disputed by a consumer when in fact it is, is clearly a violation of 623a(3), which we all know there's no right of private action. Other contend it's also a 623b violation. The language isn't on point in that respect, so I assuming we have to hang our hat in the reinvestigation language of 623b. If that is so, how would one argue that point?
The langauge of DiPrenzio is directly on point with respect to a violation of 1681s-2b. It couldn't be any clearer.
