I've been studying FCRA § 623 and would love to hear some opinions/discussion from the experts. Here's a very common scenario: A consumer sends a dispute/validation to a CA that is reporting inaccurate information. The consumer also disputes the TL with the CRAs. The CA does not validate, but verifies the info with the CRAs. The consumer sends a 2nd validation ltr to the CA and redisputes with the CRAs. The CA still does not validate and again verifies the info with the CRAs. How many violations of § 623 have occurred? When the CA verifies and/or updates the info with the CRA after receiving notice from the consumer that the info is incorrect and before validating, is it a § 623(a)(1)(A) violation, which is "reporting information with actual knowledge of errors," because the CA is reporting information that the CA "consciously avoids knowing" is inaccurate? If so, would it be a violation each time the CA verifies and/or updates with the CRAs? Would the CA's verification prior to validation also be a violation of § 623(a)(1)(B), which is "reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors"? If so, would it be a violation each time the CA verifies with the CRAs? § 623(a)(2), duty to correct and update information. The statute says, "...has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate." If the CA hasn't investigated/validated, then they probably haven't "determined" that the information is, in fact, incomplete or inaccurate. Would this, then, not be a violation? Or would notification and information from the consumer be considered enough? Probably nearly impossible to prove what the CA has "determined." § 623(b)(1)(A), conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information after receiving notice from the CRA that the information has been disputed. Because the CA hasn't validated or responded to the consumer at all, then they obviously have not investigated. Is this a violation? flamva
I am in the same situation. I am going to be bringing about suit in a similar case against a company that did the same thing. However, although I am going to name each and every single violation I can find, based on the FCRA, only § 623(b) violations can be collected upon by an individual. So, if you were bringing a lawsuit, yes, I would definately state that they violated § 623(a)(1)(A), 623(a)(1)(B), 623(a)(2) and 623(b)(1)(A) each time they incorrectly verified. It won't hurt to name all those violations. What is the worse that can happen? The judge say, no, those are not valid? However, really, you can't hold them accountable for all of the violations when you sue them. That doesn't mean however, that, if you name them all, it won't significantly tip the scale in your favor to make it appear like the collection agency / creditor is just willfully choosing not to obey the FCRA.
