February 29, 2020

February 28, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 27, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 26, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Using FCRA’s Expansiveness as a Shield: CFPB Gets Pushback on FCRA Subpoena

The expansiveness of FCRA has long been used by plaintiffs as a sword against consumer reporting agencies, furnishers of consumer information, and users of consumer information. Here, a company successfully used FCRA as a shield.

In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit ruled on the permissibility of broad based investigative subpoenas by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Source for Public Data, L.P., 2018 WL 4258966 (5th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018). As background, the Dodd-Frank act gave the CFPB broad enforcement authority with respect to several statutes, including FCRA. When the CFPB suspects a violation, it issues Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) requiring that a regulated company provide documents relevant to the CFPB’s investigation. However, the CFPB is required to provide a “notification of purpose” to inform the company of “the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation which is under investigation and the provision of law applicable to such violation.” 12 U.S.C. § 5562(c)(2).

Here, the CFPB issued a CID seeking to collect documents from the Source for Public Data, a search engine for compiling publicly available information. The CID’s Notification of Purpose stated that it was investigating potential violations of FCRA “or any other federal consumer financial law.” The Source for Public Data objected, asserting that the CID was impermissibly broad and that it was not a consumer reporting agency under FCRA.

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in overruling the company’s objections. In doing so, the Court observed that FCRA is “an expansive law” and held that a reference to FCRA did not provide the kind of specificity required in a notification of purpose. Rejecting the CID on notification grounds, the Fifth Circuit did not reach the question of whether the company qualified as a consumer reporting agency.

Copyright © 2020 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

Lela Ames Commercial Real Estate Lawyer Womble Dickinson

Recognized as a Rising Star by Washington DC Super Lawyers, Lela has a proven track record of successfully and zealously representing her clients. Lela is a versatile and trial-tested litigator, having served as lead counsel and trial counsel in a wide range of disputes involving commercial real estate, financial services, manufacturing, contracts, and business torts. Lela counsels clients at all stages of litigation and practices before a variety of tribunals. Her diverse experience includes successful bench and jury trials, complex electronic discovery, depositions,...