(a)A person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.
(b)A person who (1) in the ordinary course of business regularly and on a routine basis furnishes information to one or more consumer credit reporting agencies about the person’s own transactions or experiences with one or more consumers and (2) determines that
information on a specific transaction or experience so provided to a consumer credit reporting agency is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer credit reporting agency of that determination and provide to the consumer credit reporting agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the consumer credit reporting agency complete and accurate.
(c)So long as the completeness or accuracy of any information on a specific transaction or experience furnished by any person to a consumer credit reporting agency is subject to a continuing dispute between the affected consumer and that person, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer credit reporting agency without also including a notice that the information is disputed by the consumer.
(d)A person who
regularly furnishes information to a consumer credit reporting agency regarding a consumer who has an open-end credit account with that person, and which is closed by the consumer, shall notify the consumer credit reporting agency of the closure of that account by the consumer, in the information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed.
(e)A person who places a delinquent account for collection (internally or by referral to a third party), charges the delinquent account to profit or loss, or takes similar action, and subsequently furnishes information to a credit reporting agency regarding that action, shall include within the information furnished the approximate commencement date of the delinquency which gave rise to that action, unless that date was previously reported to the credit reporting agency. Nothing in this provision shall require that a delinquency must be reported to a credit reporting agency.
(f)Upon receiving notice of a dispute noticed pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1785.16 with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided to a consumer credit reporting agency, the person that provided the information shall (1) complete an investigation with respect to the disputed information and report to the consumer credit reporting agency the results of that investigation before the end of the 30-business-day period beginning on the date the consumer credit reporting agency receives the notice of dispute from the consumer in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1785.16 and (2) review relevant information submitted to it.
(g)A person who furnishes information to a consumer credit reporting agency is liable for failure to comply with this section, unless the furnisher establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the failure
to comply with this section, the furnisher maintained reasonable procedures to comply with those provisions.
Notes of Decisions
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 16× “§§ 1681 -1681x, libel, and violations of California Civil Code section 1785.25(a).”
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 552 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 12× “§§ 1681 -1681x, libel, and violations of Cal. Civ.Code section 1785.25(a). The district court dismissed his California statutory claim and granted MBNA summary judgment on the other causes of action.”
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Therefore, we held that “the private right of action to enforce California Civil Code section 1785.25(a) is not preempted by the FCRA.”
Hasvold v. First USA Bank, N.A., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D. Wyo. 2002).
· cites it 5× “Subsection (F) goes on, however, to exclude from its reach California Civil Code section 1785.25(a).”
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
· cites it 8× “) MBNA also argues that the FCRA claims should be dismissed because there is no private right of action and, even if there is, sufficient facts have not been alleged to state a claim.”
Sanai v. Saltz, 170 Cal. App. 4th 746 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “Civil Code sections 1785.25, subdivision (g), and 1785.”
Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
· cites it 3× “While there is an exception to this rule for California Civil Code section 1785.25(a), Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of that provision.”
Brown v. Mortensen, 253 P.3d 522 (Cal. 2011).
· cites it 2× “93, § 54A(a) and Cal. Civ. Code, § 1785.25, subd. (a)].) It follows, Mortensen argues, that under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius other state laws, including the Confidentiality Act (Civ.”
In re Residential Capital, LLC, 501 B.R. 624 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1785.25. The Ninth Circuit has held that this section is not preempted by the FCRA.”
Buraye v. Equifax, 625 F. Supp. 2d 894 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
· cites it 4× “California Civil Code § 1785.25(a) is one of the state statutes saved from preemption.”
Nissou-Rabban v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff brings a claim under California Civil Code Section 1785.25(a), which provides: "A person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1785.25(5) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 1785.25(a) — 52 cases
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 552 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2009).
“§§ 1681 -1681x, libel, and violations of Cal. Civ.Code section 1785.25(a). The district court dismissed his California statutory claim and granted MBNA summary judgment on the other causes of action.”
Hasvold v. First USA Bank, N.A., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D. Wyo. 2002).
“Subsection (F) goes on, however, to exclude from its reach California Civil Code section 1785.25(a).”
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010).
“Therefore, we held that “the private right of action to enforce California Civil Code section 1785.25(a) is not preempted by the FCRA.”
Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
“While there is an exception to this rule for California Civil Code section 1785.25(a), Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of that provision.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1785.25(c) — 2 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 1785.25(f) — 3 cases
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010).
“Therefore, we held that “the private right of action to enforce California Civil Code section 1785.25(a) is not preempted by the FCRA.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1785.25(g) — 7 cases
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 552 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2009).
“§§ 1681 -1681x, libel, and violations of Cal. Civ.Code section 1785.25(a). The district court dismissed his California statutory claim and granted MBNA summary judgment on the other causes of action.”
Hasvold v. First USA Bank, N.A., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D. Wyo. 2002).
“Subsection (F) goes on, however, to exclude from its reach California Civil Code section 1785.25(a).”
Sanai v. Saltz, 170 Cal. App. 4th 746 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“Civil Code sections 1785.25, subdivision (g), and 1785.”
Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
“While there is an exception to this rule for California Civil Code section 1785.25(a), Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of that provision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.