Preparing my ITS for a non permissable purpose lawsuit, and reading the penalties one more time: (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater; (B) says "natural person" as opposed to person - which by definition can include business entities. Is there a difference? Are those experienced in this, suing businesses for the 1K under sec. (A) rather than (B)?
Jlynn I have been looking for the person and natural person more defined. Can you post the link to Greenblatt? Thanks
Well, let my clarify...I plan to use the Greenblatt letter in my particular instance. He doesn't define natural person, but rather does not make a distinction for permissible purpose purposes. (No. 3 in the letter). Here's the link: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm
Yes, there is a difference. A natural person is a human being while a non-natural person is a corporate entity. There has been a very lengthy discussion about how the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gives the natural person and the corporation the exact same rights under the law. That was never the case and although many in the legal profession use the Supreme Court case as the basis for their argument the Supremes never ruled on the equality of non-natural persons in the California Railroad case referred to. Such was merely the oopinions stated by counsel for the railroads. The argument was about taxation and claimed that it was unjust for the railroad to be taxed for some of it's fences. It was a tax case and not a case dealing with the 14th and the rights of persons, natural or otherwise. There is also a "strawman" argument out there which states that if one's name is spelled in all caps rather than in mixed case the document has no merit because they are serving the papers on a "strawman" a fictitious person. And yet another argument being sold around the country for about #1200 a pop is the idea that one should copyright both his proper name and his ALL CAPS name and then when they send you a letter you don't like you sue them for copyright violation. Guaranteed you will win the case every time. And pigs will fly too, won't they?
That was my point, in Real Estate Law, Business Law, etc., I was taught that a corporate entity is a "person", and if I remember correctly (been a few years since I cracked those books), that was the justification of double taxation as corporation, as well as the protections afforded to individuals within a corporation. The FCRA defines a person, but is quiet on natural person. Greenblatt's opinion letter makes no distinction and throws out the word natural altogether. And I will now be addressed as JLYNN as well. The things people will try!
The legal realm of the corporate entity is contained in the body of law known as UCC and FCRA is a consumer protection statute and does not pertain to the corporate entity or "non-natural person." That is why it does not mention anything other than natural persons.
But the FCRA does mention other than natural persons. In fact, natural only appears twice. Once in the PP sec. I posted above, and again in the definition of excluded communications. Why do you think the FCRA does not pertain to corporate entities, as a large number of the "furnishers of information" are not natural persons, rather they fall under the FCRA description of persons?
Jlynn- I wouldn't worry about the natural person or regular person part. Be prepared for it, but don't worry about it. I feel CA's and OC's aren't well versed in the FCRA, FDCPA etc. When I sued a CA one of the items I was suing for was past the SOL, they NEVER brought it up. In fact the CA's owner is an attorney, it's what he does for a living and he didn't know any better.
Well, FCRA does pertain to the corporate entity when that entity furnishes information about the consumer so in that sense, as you say, it does apply to the corporate entity. But it's protections are not for the corporate entity in the same sense that they are in place to protect the natural person or human being who is acting in the capacity of consumer. So I guess it all depends on whose chicken is getting gored, eh?
LOL The reference to whose chicken is getting gored is my tongue-in-cheek reference to the argument going on in Oklahoma over the cock fighting ban recently passed by vote of the people and stayed from being enforced by the courts of 27 of Oklahoma's 77 counties. They got the ban passed by petition vote of the people and can't enforce it in almost half of the state. So its going to have to be heard by the State Supreme Court if not the U.S. Supreme Court before they finally decide on the cock fighting ban. Next comes Gov. Brad Henry's new proposal to institute a legal lottery in the state in order to fund education. Not only will that probably have to cost the taxpayers millions to get it to a vote of the people but when its all said and done it will probably have to get a hearing before the high court too. And in the end who will likely benefit from the lottery? Not the common citizen of Oklahoma who will end up paying the whole tab while the kiddies get next to nothing. Oh the wonderful world of politics. Make that polyticks.
