A letter from an automobile dealership offering the recipient pre- approved financing qualified as a "firm offer of credit" protected under federal credit reporting law, a U.S. District Court in Texas has ruled in granting summary judgment. The Fair Credit Reporting Act allows companies to use a consumer's credit information to extend "firm offers of credit," but prohibits the use of such information for advertising purposes only.
... E ASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15U.S.C. §1... concluded when denying Shell's motion for summary judgment. 2011 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 110108 (N.D. Ill.... authority to interpret the Fair Credit Reporting Act (§1681c is part of that statute), also have n...
...Fair Credit Reporting Act. AGENCY: Federal Trade Commis...SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commis...
A wireless telephone company was not liable as a "furnisher" of information for alleged inaccuracies in a customer's credit reports, the 1st Circuit has ruled in affirming a summary judgment. Section 1681s-2 of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act generally prohibits a "furnisher" of information from providing inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies.
... action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) reinforces why employe... the individual's consumer report and of A Summary Of Your Rights Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act...
A credit reporting agency isn't required to process a fraud alert issued by an identity theft prevention service on behalf of its customer, a U.S. District Court in California has ruled in granting a summary judgment. The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes a duty on a credit reporting agency to take certain corrective actions when it receives a "fraud alert" concerning a consumer's credit files.
Individual defendant had a reasonable belief that she was a creditor of her former spouse, since he had an unperformed obligation to pay off a mortgage loan upon which both were liable. This gave her a permissible purpose, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq., for accessing his credit information. Trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment for defendant upon plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Act. Since claim stated against individual defendant’s employer was predicated upon theory of vicarious liability, trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment in favor of employer.
A consumer couldn't sue a bank for failing to make conspicuous certain disclosures in a credit card offer, because recent amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act eliminated this kind of private right of action, the 7th Circuit has ruled in affirming a summary judgment. The defendant mailed the plaintiff an offer for a Visa credit card with a $250 limit. The plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the company had violated 15 U.S.C. Sect. 1681m(d) by failing to include a "clear and conspicuous" statement of certain disclosures required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In bringing the suit, she relied on the private right of action provisions in 15 U.S.C. Sects. 1681n and 1681o.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Gary Burtless | cursory | Economic Commission | Shooter Jennings | mcmath states united v | Archivo provincial de jaen | remito concepto | pantallas lcd | Tours
