Newsroom

NAFCU, along with several other organizations, Tuesday filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit arguing that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires furnishers and consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to investigate factual inaccuracies, not legal disputes. The group’s amicus brief comes in response to an amicus brief filed by the CFPB in April that argues data furnishers and CRAs should investigate legal disputes in addition to factual disputes.

NAFCU along with seven other trade groups, filed the brief in support of Chase Bank in the case of Milgram v. Chase Bank. In this case, Shelly Milgram’s employee opened a Chase credit card in her name and incurred a debt of over $30,000 that appeared on her credit report, to which, under the FCRA, Chase had the duty to investigate whether the credit information on Milgram’s credit report was inaccurate.

The groups agree with Chase that, “a plaintiff cannot predicate the inaccuracy element of her FCRA claim on a legal dispute.”

In the brief, the groups outlined that the FCRA’s structure, purpose, and history confirm that Congress’s intent for the FCRA was for factual accuracy, not for legal disputes. In addition, the groups highlighted that adopting the CFPB’s approach is un-administrable because furnishers and CRAs are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve legal disputes.

NAFCU last week filed another joint amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit arguing that any expansion of obligations for CRAs under the FCRA to require not only a check for factual accuracy, but also arbitrate legal disputes, should be rejected.

NAFCU will continue to monitor FCRA regulations and litigation and share updates with credit union members.