On 25 June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, clarifying the nature of the harm sufficient to establish Article III standing to maintain a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim. After Ramirez, plaintiffs seeking to pursue FCRA class litigation must establish concrete harm that is more than just speculative, and they must do so for all class members with the requisite type of evidence called for at each particular stage of litigation. The impact of the holding in Ramirez will likely extend to class standing issues beyond the FCRA context.Read More
The CARES Act’s Impact on Furnisher Liability Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
As part of the federal government’s efforts to provide relief from the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to consumers, Congress took aim at financial services companies that provide consumer account information to credit reporting agencies (CRAs). The reporting activities of those companies, which are known as “furnishers” and include, among others, creditors, mortgage loan servicers and credit card account servicers, are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,  enacted on March 27, 2020, expressly amends FCRA and alters the duties of furnishers when reporting the status of accounts provided with COVID-19-related payment relief.  Despite the potential exposure carried by a violation of FCRA generally—either through private civil litigation, most notably class actions, or government enforcement—key defenses remain in place for furnishers to mitigate FCRA liability.Read More
The Ninth Circuit has opined, again, on whether a statutory violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.—by itself—constitutes a concrete injury for Article III standing purposes. Last year, in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s original opinion on the issue. Although the Ninth Circuit had reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations for existence of a particularized injury, it had not separately analyzed whether they described a sufficiently concrete injury. In Spokeo, the Supreme Court ruled that “a bare procedural violation [of a federal statute], divorced from any concrete harm,” does not suffice to “satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.” But the Court declined to define a “bare procedural violation” in favor of allowing the Ninth Circuit to first consider the question. Now that the Ninth Circuit has done so, the Supreme Court may take up the question once more.
To read the full alert, click here.
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether a statutory violation alone, unaccompanied by any actual harm to the plaintiff, is sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015).
Last week, the CFPB last week finalized its rule permitting certain financial institutions to post their annual privacy notices online, claiming it will benefit consumers and financial institutions alike. The rule became effective on October 28, 2014, and applies to banks and non-banks within the CFPB’s jurisdiction.
This week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) released an addendum to its Supervision and Examination Manual focused on the examination of private student lenders. The Student Lending Examination Procedures, available on the CFPB’s website, provide guidance to CFPB examiners on how to review private student lenders for compliance with consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB has supervisory authority over both very large banks and nonbanks that make private student loans. Read More