FCRA
Case Analysis
The
decision reverses the governing law in the Seventh Circuit. In Wantz v. Experian
Information Solutions, 386 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2004), a consumer sued a reporting
agency, alleging that it failed to investigate an entry on his credit report.
Discussing
“willful failure,” the court held, “to act willfully, a defendant
must knowingly and intentionally violate the Act, and it ‘must also be conscious
that [its] act impinges on the rights of others.’ (cite omitted).” Wantz,
386 F.3d at 834.
The Seventh
Circuit iterated this standard in Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 610 (7th Cir. 2005).
The
result in Ruffin-Thompkins may have been different, had the court applied the
definition of “willful failure” adopted by the Supreme Court.
Ruffin-Thompkins
did not involve failure to send a notice, as in the cases at bar, but failure
to investigate a claim that a credit report was inaccurate. The court expressed
sympathy with the plaintiff: “we sympathize with Ruffin-Thompkins’s
frustration. It seems that Experian has a systematic problem in its limited categorization
of the inquiries it receives and its cryptic notices and responses.” Id.
The
Supreme Court’s decision thus may lead to many new cases under the FCRA that
would previously have been foreclosed by the Seventh Circuit’s crabbed definition
of “willful” in Wantz.
Click
here for Main Story.
David
Ziemer can be reached by email.
