This will have BIG implications - I will transcribe word for word from the front Business page of the SF Chronicle - March 2, 2002! Now we can sue the credit reporting agencies for inaccurate and incomplete reporting!!!!! "COURT OKs suing agencies that spread credit errors." "In a breakthrough for consumers dogged by faulty credit ratings, a federal appeals court yesterday cleared the way for individuals to sue companies that provide inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. Lawyers said the ruling in the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco was the first by an appellate court on a consumer's right to sue a furnisher of credit information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. Allowing private lawsuits serves the law's purpose 'to protect consumers against inaccurate and incomplete reporting,' said Judge John Noonan in the 3-0 ruling. He noted the Federal Trade Commission had sided with the consumer in the case. The law allows a consumer to SEEK DAMAGES against anyone who deliberately OR NEGLIGENTLY provides inaccurate credit bureau information. It also requires regular providers of information to keep it up to date and allows consumers who sue successfully to recover attorneys' fees. Punitive damages may apply only to willful violations." Additional details? Check out all details at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...archive/2002/03/02/BU156272.DTL&type=business Very interesting - the case was about someone who had a BK on his record - inaccurately - and the agencies would not fix it ! GOOD NEWS! YOUR THOUGHTS? arrffff - dogman
dog, it reads like you can sue the provider of the info, not the CRA's for reporting it. This, of course, includes Gulf State, and the CCC's who only report when you have a big balance, and CapOne who does not report limits. I'm all for going after the incomplete reporting aspect!!! My car loan only reports sporadically, Citibank only reports when I have a big balance, CapOne is not reporting limits.......
dogman, I thought we already had the right to sue. I'm not understanding what we gained. Could you explain please. Candi
Actually, we could already sue CRAs and CAs because both of these agencies would fall under the FCRPA and the FDCA...however this case paves the way to sue the original creditor who does NOT fall under the FCRPA, etc. Chase Manhattan was an original creditor. L
Wow! And, the FTC sided with the consumer. If that guy prevails at trial, the playingfield just got leveled with a bulldozer!
Breeze,, I readthe artice several times. Did you notice that that one CRA settled out of court. I wonder what the other 2 CRA's did? Did they delete once they saw the consumer was serious about suing? It'll be interesting to read word for word the decision as well as a transcript of the oral and written arguments. I'm with you on the reporting when you damn well feel like it. I got 2 creditors that haven't reported since Oct. and, it means potential creditors see that I owe about $1300 more than I really do. It does affect my ratios.
Maybe it's just me but the way I read it, it would leave the CRA's open to a lawsuit as well. It also requires regular providers of information to keep it up to date and allows consumers who sue successfully to recover attorneys' fees. Punitive damages may apply only to willful violations." I would think that the CRA's meet the definition of provider.
somebody please post the ruling. it will be so helpful for new people as myself to understand and have something to fight with. this is so much support in helping clean things up on your CR.
Sweettttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. I can guarntee that CA will hire extra staff to just do nothing but compliance. They will make it a quality control priority..... Can you say more Class Action Suits!!!! Watch out Gulf State/OSI/
Do you think this means that the CRAs will make an effort to correctly report things like credit limits? I have been disputing monthly with EQ because they refuse to report my Discover limit correctly. They keep sending back the same reply, verified, and keep reporting the high balance instead.
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies Mike, the "information providers" are the creditors who provide the information to the CRAs. The "information reporters" are the CRAs. CRAs do not consider themselves to be the source of information; rather, they consider themselves to be reporting information that others have provided. We know better, though, don't we? Unfortunately, the FTC often takes that same view -- that CRAs are only reporting (i.e., relaying) information that "providers" send to them. That article has nothing to do with CRAs. Doc
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies I disputed 3 or 4 "SOFT" yesterday...GONE TODAY...(EXPERIAN). Maybe they will TAKE YOUR WORD FOR CHANGES TO KEEP YOU HAPPY???
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies Obviously we all have our individual interpretations of this ruling - BUT - THE GOOD NEWS IS - I am certain if a company just won't remove something, after a few attempts - or one - a letter from an attorney will get them to delete it fast. Very interesting story with Chase Manhattan. PsychDoc - it could well have the implications you describe...but it may also cause the credit company AND the credit agencies to delete it - rather than to go to any extra expense verying old debts. Arrrfff - dogman
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies When I ask for the CREDIT LIMIT to be stated for my AMEX BLUE and EXPERIAN deletes it...my credit report is NOW WRONG!!!
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies I think the broadest ramification is the orginal creditor now assumes risk they never had before {assuming the ruling stands} in the form of punative damages. Now, a cc company or bank is used to risk and they'll just price this in as a cost of doing business. But, what about a doctor or dentist who is not in the business of pricing risk? Were in that profession, I'd be way careful about reporting stuff to CRA's or, getting involved in verifing accounts to a CA. I think a lot of folks in the credit business have some thinking to do.
