Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Circuit split · consumer protection law

Whether a consumer reporting agency may be held liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for reporting inaccurate information contained in public court records when the consumer gave no prior notice of the inaccuracies

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

  1. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · January 19, 1999

    “!’ By subjecting Rental Research to possible liability for reporting information contained in housing court records even though Wilson gave no prior notice of inaccuracies, the court seems to have created a conflict in the circuits.” — Creates a split
    Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

15 U.S.C. § 1681I — Procedure in case of disputed accuracy
“(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information (1) Reinvestigation required (A) In general Subject to subsection (f) and except as provided in subsection (g), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the …”
Read the full section →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:
Henson v. CSC Credit Services29 F.3d 280

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.