This brief requests that the Court deny the defendant's motion to dismiss this case regarding fair reporting on criminal background checks.
The Panel’s decision is contrary to the plain language of the FCRA and nullifies its requirement to filter out unverifiable information, the panel’s decision establishes a de facto technical accuracy standard, contrary to existing circuit precedent; and the Panel’s decision ignores the grave responsibilities that Congress Imposed on CRAs.
The issues presented in this case implicate the interests of millions of American consumers whose sensitive personal information is regularly shared, often without their knowledge, among financial firms, insurance companies, landlords, employers and others. The question presented here is whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) (“FCRA”) preempts the CMIA in instances in which a health care provider improperly discloses confidential medical information to a third party, where that third party happens to be a consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA.
Congress’s findings and statement of purpose when it enacted the FCRA, its ongoing oversight, and its recent amendments demonstrate the significance it rightly placed on the integrity and confidentiality of the nation’s consumer reporting system. Congress also recognized that public enforcement agencies do not have the capability to enforce the FCRA by themselves. Congress instead gave primary responsibility to the persons with the greatest interest in accomplishing such a task – individual consumers policing their own files, protecting their own privacy and financial interests, and when necessary, enforcing the FCRA’s private statutory remedies. Affirming the opinion would seriously undermine these objectives.
NACA's amicus brief in Safeco v. Burr and Geico v. Edo Fair Credit Reporting cases before the United States Supreme Court.
The District Court erroneously accepted Experian's "accuracy only" argument and improperly dismissed the claim regarding its reinventigation duties. Because the District Court was misled by Experian regarding both the statutory scheme and this Court's case law, the court erred by not discussing the difference in the duties that Congress has required. The District Court's omission is shown by the absence of any citation to § 1681i and the lack of any discussion regarding the law and facts of this reinvestigation claim.
NACA, together with AARP, ACLU of Northern California, California Public Interest Research Group, Consumer Federation of California, Consumers Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Evan Hendricks, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and US PIRG, filed this amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, supporting the California Financial Information Privacy Act, Cal. Fin. Code § 4050 et seq. (2004), popularly known as "SB1." This brief was written by Chris Hoofnagle of Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Amicus Curiae Brief Requesting a Republish of Connor vs First Student.