WASHINGTON—NAFCU and CUNA have joined with several other organizations in filing 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.
The groups filed the brief in support of Chase Bank in the case of Milgram v. Chase Bank. In the case, an employee of Shelly Milgram’s opened a Chase credit card in her employer’s name and then incurred a debt of over $30,000 that appeared on her credit report.
Under the FCRA, Chase had the duty to investigate whether the credit information on Milgram’s credit report was inaccurate.
In their filing, CUNA, NAFCU and the other organizations said they agree with Chase’s position that “a plaintiff cannot predicate the inaccuracy element of her FCRA claim on a legal dispute.”
‘Un-Administrable’
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 argued that adopting the CFPB’s approach is “un-administrable because furnishers and CRAs are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve legal disputes.”