Ok, I'm not the best at reading legalese, but this case sounds like it may be well worth following. Its in acrobat, so I don't know how to copy and paste, but "Because inaccurate information results in injury by its mere reporting and further creates a momentum of its own that may continue to tilt the scales against a consumer even after a report is corrected..." That ought to be enough to get your curiosity up. http://www.esjpc.com/Obabueki-Cert-Pet-Final.pdf
Because inaccurate information results in injury by its mere reporting and further creates a momentum of its own that may continue to tilt the scales against a consumer even after a report is corrected..." ================ What does this mean?
This is the best thing I got from it: "Congress has not intended consumer reporting agencies to act merely as conduits of information, but to be responsible for evaluating the correctness of the information they impart." This is a good quote to use when the CRA's say 'it is not our fault we only report what we get'. It appears to me from this statement, they are still responsible for reporting inaccurate information, even if it was provided to them in and inaccurate state from the furnisher.
Bummer! 10/6. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, without opinion, in Obabueki v. Choicepoint. See, Order List [83 pages in PDF], at pages 76-7. Obabueki sought employment from IBM. IBM withdrew a job offer when it learned from a criminal background check performed by ChoicePoint that Obabueki had not disclosed on his employment application a conviction that had been vacated and dismissed. He filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against IBM and ChoicePoint alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and the New York Human Rights Law. The District Court granted judgment as a matter of law to the IBM and ChoicePoint. The Court of Appeals (2ndCir) affirmed. See, opinion. http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2003/10/07.asp
