InfoBytes Blog

State AGs, U.S. senators urge CRAs to protect credit scores during Covid-19 crisis

On April 28, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, along with the attorneys general of 19 other states and the District of Columbia sent letters to the three credit reporting agencies (CRAs) stating their intention to protect consumer credit and ensure fair and accurate reporting on consumer credit reports during the Covid-19 crisis. The letter calls attention to the obligations of the CRAs under the FCRA and state credit-reporting laws and further states that the attorneys general intend to enforce compliance of all related requirements. Notwithstanding the CFPB’s announcement that it will ease the FCRA’s 30 or 45-day time restrictions for CRAs to investigate consumer complaints, the letter insists that the attorneys general will enforce the FCRA deadlines. Pursuant to the CARES Act amendment of the FCRA—which requires that consumer accounts be reported by furnishers as current if the consumer was current prior to the grant of a CARES Act accommodation—the letter asserts that its signors will actively monitor for compliance to this amendment. Finally, the letter expresses appreciation for the CRAs’ compliance and cooperation.

On April 27, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) sent letters to the same CRAs also urging the agencies to protect consumer credit reports by complying with the CARES Act amendment to the FCRA. In addition, the Senators request that the CRAs reply to six questions included in the letters to assist the Senators in understanding all efforts the CRAs are taking to protect consumer credit scores during the Covid-19 crisis.

Federal Issues State Attorney General U.S. Senate Credit Furnishing Credit Reporting Agency CARES Act Covid-19

CFPB plans credit reporting supervisory flexibility during Covid-19 pandemic, contingent on accurate reporting

On April 1, the CFPB issued a policy statement directed at consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and furnishers. Taking into consideration the Covid-19 pandemic, the statement explains that the Bureau will take a “flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [(FCRA)] and Regulation V.” The Bureau states that it will be flexible with CRAs and furnishers by refraining from taking enforcement actions and citing during exams in certain situations. Two examples of when the Bureau will be flexible include: (i) furnishers that continue to furnish accurate data to CRAs, including regarding payment relief arrangements (the Bureau notes that the CARES Act obliges furnishers to report consumer accounts as current when furnishers grant payment accommodations requested by consumers impacted by Covid-19); and (ii) CRAs and furnishers that make good faith efforts to investigate consumer disputes but take longer than the FCRA-prescribed 30 days. The statement notes that “the continued operation of the consumer reporting system…will enable consumers, as well as lenders, insurers, employers and other consumer report users, to maintain confidence in the consumer reporting system.”

Federal Issues CFPB Credit Furnishing Fair Credit Reporting Act FCRA Credit Reporting Agency CRA CARES Act Covid-19

Michigan establishes provisions for credit services organizations

On January 27, the Michigan governor signed HB 4411, which establishes provisions for credit service organizations. Among other things, HB 4411 prohibits persons engaged in credit service activities from (i) charging or receiving money from a buyer seeking a loan, extension of credit, or other valuable consideration before closing; (ii) charging a buyer or receiving from a buyer money or other valuable consideration before completing all agreed upon services, or “for referral to a retail seller that will or may extend credit to the buyer if the credit that is or may be extended to the buyer is substantially the same as that available to the general public”; (iii) making or using false or misleading representations, or engaging in a fraudulent or deceptive act or practice connected with the offer or sale of a credit services organization, stating that the organization has the ability to delete adverse credit history, or guaranteeing that the organization can obtain an extension of credit regardless of the buyer’s credit history; (iv) failing to perform the agreed upon services within 90 days after the contract is signed by the buyer; (v) advising a buyer to make untrue or misleading statements to certain entities, including a consumer credit reporting agency; (vi) assisting in the removal of adverse credit information that is accurate and not obsolete, or assisting a buyer in creating a new credit record using alternative personal information; and (vii) submitting buyer disputes to consumer credit reporting agencies without a buyer’s knowledge. The act is effective immediately.

State Issues State Legislation Consumer Finance Credit Furnishing Credit Reporting Agency Credit Repair Credit Report Credit Services Business

6th Circuit: FCRA claims require consumer to notify consumer reporting agency of dispute

On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a bank was not obligated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to investigate a credit reporting error because the consumers failed to ever notify a consumer reporting agency. According to the opinion, after plaintiffs paid off their line of credit, the bank (defendant) continued reporting the plaintiff as delinquent on the account. After plaintiffs contacted the bank regarding the reporting error, the bank employee ensured plaintiffs that the defendant submitted amendments to the credit reporting bureaus to correct the situation. However, the plaintiffs claimed the error was not corrected until almost a year later. Plaintiffs also alleged that they did not contact the credit reporting bureau in reliance on the bank employee’s statements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, concluding that the FCRA requires that notification of a credit dispute be provided to a consumer reporting agency as a prerequisite for a claim that a furnisher failed to investigate the dispute. Since the plaintiffs failed to trigger the defendant’s FCRA obligations because they never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, the defendant’s responsibility to investigate was never activated.

On appeal, the 6th Circuit agreed with the district court that direct notification to the furnisher of the inaccurate credit report does not meet the FCRA’s prerequisite. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ state common law claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual relationships were preempted by the FCRA, and their fraudulent misrepresentation claim was forfeited on appeal.

Courts Appellate Sixth Circuit FCRA Credit Report Credit Furnishing Consumer Reporting Agency

Ohio Court of Appeals reverses trial court in credit card matter

On February 7, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed a state trial court’s decision in favor of a national bank, holding that the bank failed to prove it had the right to charge interest exceeding the statutory limit on a credit card account. At trial, the bank sought payment of the consumer’s store credit card debt it acquired in a merger. The consumer argued that the bank had no standing to sue because it failed to prove ownership of the store credit card account. The trial court denied the consumer’s motion to dismiss and granted the bank’s motion for a directed verdict after trial.

The appeals court agreed that, even though the bank was unable to establish that it acquired the consumer’s account, it had standing to bring its collection action by virtue of its own credit card agreement with the consumer and the consumer’s continued use of the card. But because the bank could only produce periodic statements that included the claimed interest rate, it failed to establish that the consumer “assented to any explicitly set forth interest rate over the statutory limit.” Thus, the trial court “erred in granting [the bank’s] motion for a directed verdict as to the precise amount of damages awarded,” and the appeals court remanded with instructions to determine whether Ohio law, as argued by the consumer, or South Dakota law, as argued by the bank, should be applied to verify the applicable statutory interest rates.

Courts FCRA State Issues Credit Furnishing Interest Rate