Are there any FCRA grounds to sue for soft inquiries with regards to non permissible purpose? After all, it wold seem to me that the pull itself is the violation, and whether it's hard or soft should make no difference. Any thoughts out there?
Anyone who pays the CRA can pull a soft to give you an offer or see if they want to give you an offer. They don't need your permission. They basically have it until you opt out. The biggest difference in hard and soft is that the soft is only visible to you and not others nor creditors; which will make it hard to prove any damages if you want to sue them for a soft inquiry. It would be like someone looking at your car and some one scratching it--it would be hard to prove they did damage by looking. 30ft
Plenty of info on this site about it. FCRA does not distinguish between hards and softs. Only between full report pulls and PRMs (promotional) which is header information. You can't sue for PRM pulls.
Thats absolutely incorrect. They don't need your permission to pull PRMs--correct. But creditors also pull AR's (account reviews), they see your entire report, and unless you have an account with them (such as a cc), or you owe them money--they cannot pull. You should read the FCRA - non permissable purpose pulls do not require proof of damages. (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;
For PRM's, you have already given permission if you haven't opted out. But for PRM inqs, the creditor gives a list of specifics to the cra and the cra then gives back a list of all persons that fit those specifics. All they get is name and address. And as for ARs, they do not see your entire report. They see your score and new derogs that may have shown up and the reason codes for your score. That's it. Call any of your creditors and ask what they see when they do an AR. 30ftshadow - your comment about anyone being able to pay a cra to pull a soft is completely off the wall.
Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Snapping up on Shadows mistake is a good catch Jodi. LKH is right. You give permission by default.
Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Ooooh. I've been misinformed for some time, and misinforming people! I was under the impression that an AR pretty much equaled the info in a hard pull. Shh, don't tell Home Depot.
Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Basically, that comment describes a PRM. Perhaps a better way for me to describe it is someone paid to get your information resulting in the soft with your implied permission. Implied by not opting out. I never said that you couldn't sue, just proposed that it would be hard to prove any damages. I realize, now, that you do not have to prove damages. Thanks jlynn for explaining. This all leads me to a question: Why would one sue for a soft pull? Maybe I should have just asked that question to start with. 30ft
Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Another question I have is who are you suing? The person who pulled or the CRA who gave the information? 30ft
Re: Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Because they have invaded your privacy, with no pp as described in the federal statutes. To answer your other post - you would go after the company that pulled your report. The thought being they "lied" by certifying to the CRA that they did have a pp for which they didn't. Actually, if you read thru the FCRA again, the CRA can seek damages as well from the person pulling.
Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? LKH, would you then cite that they have no legitimate business need to even see what they see as the argument for no pp? Or do you think this part of the Buchman opinion answers my question? Section 603(d)(1) of the FCRA defines a "consumer report" to include information that is "used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility" for the purposes listed in Section 603 and Section 604. The purposes for which information may be obtained under Section 603 and Section 604 include credit, insurance, and employment-related purposes, and business transactions initiated by the consumer. In addition, Section 604 permits a business to obtain a consumer report at any time when the consumer provides written permission. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/buchman.htm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Ooooooh, Jodi's right again. I had always been under the impression that there is little or no difference in the amount of info. made available between a subscriber disclosure (full disclosure (hard inq.)) and an annual review (AR (soft inq.)). LKH is probably right though Jodi. Shadow. The point would be tho, that in either case, more info., than just a promotional has been made available and therefore your privacy violated. I do know that a PRM is merely the header info., ya know, name, address, maybe phone number. The requester simply lists the criteria he wishes to meet and asks the CRA to do a search and come up with the header info. for those people who meet that criteria. Since header info. is all they get we shouldn't be too concerned about our private info. because they're not getting it anyway. But for the purposes of No PP, it makes no difference between soft pull or hard. However, the NO PP assertion is predicated upon whether or not your privacy has been violated, NOT, as many believe, and the CA will tell you, whether or not the pull was soft or hard. See?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? I started this thread for a reason, so now I'll ask the million dollar question: I hav ethe following unauthorized soft-pulls on my EXP and EQU files (havent't gotten to TU yet): Citibank FSB 5/15/03 Orchard Bank (9 times in 10 months) Mutual of Omaha Insurance 3/18/03 Upland Mortgage 2/24/03 Countrywide Home Mortgage 2/24/03 WFNNB/Lane Bryant 3/12/03 (I had acct with them., CRA reports it zero balance and closed as of 12/2000 - never used the card) Providian Finnacial 1/31/03 (they sold my GetSmart card 10/02 and I paid it off and closed it immediately) Premier Bancard 2/24/03 1/14/03 6/20/02 FAC/Mightly Net Inc 12/31/02 Chase Bank Card 12/2/02 (account closed, zero balance 5/1996) Direct Merchants Credit card Bank NA 5/7/03 Do I have the right tosue them all for all these as non-PP pulls? I did not authorize or initiate any of them.
Re: Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Fair question. Here's my answer: Because if I can I will. I've tasted blood successfully suing under FDCPA and FCRA and I want more.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? Seeing the Orchard Bank listing, I suspect you are looking at EX. Evil Ex does not distinguish between PRMs and other types of softs (only one that doesn't). You should verify first with EX what types of pulls they are (good luck!). Butch - I don't doubt that LKH is right I feel badly that I've misinformed people. I really thought they got your whole report!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? That's what I mean. Although you're not perfectly correct, you're correct enough to avoid being wrong. Therefore, you didn't misadvise anyone. HUH? LOLOL In both cases (subscriber inq - hard pull) or (account review - soft pull) enough information is given out to be sufficient to have your privacy violated, even though more info. is contained in the subscriber inq. than the AR. Under either instance they both violate if permission is not given and are actionable. See?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sue for Soft Inquiries? That's what I mean. Although you're not perfectly correct, you're correct enough to avoid being wrong. Therefore, you didn't misadvise anyone. HUH? LOLOL In both cases (subscriber inq - hard pull) or (account review - soft pull) enough information is given out to be sufficient to have your privacy violated, even though more info. is contained in the subscriber inq. than the AR. At least that's what I interpret LKH as saying. Under either instance they both violate if permission is not given and are actionable. See?
