Nothing in this chapter shall in any way affect the right of any consumer to maintain an action against an investigative consumer reporting agency, a user of an investigative consumer report, or an informant for invasion of privacy or defamation.
An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be brought in any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction within two years from the date of discovery.
(a)Any investigative consumer
reporting agency or user of information against whom an action brought pursuant to Section 1681n or 1681o of Title 15 of the United States Code is pending shall not be subject to suit for the same act or omission under Section 1786.50.
(b)The entry of a final judgment against the investigative consumer reporting agency or user of information in an action brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 1681n or 1681o of Title 15 of the United States Code shall be a bar to the maintenance of any action based on the same act or omission which might be brought under this title.
Notes of Decisions
Gabriel Moran v. the Screening Pros, 923 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2019).
“In its supplemental brief, TSP raises two arguments for the first time to support the district court’s dismissal of the ICRAA claims. First, TSP asserts that Moran’s ICRAA claims are preempted by the FCRA, 15 U.”
Rodriguez v. U.S. Healthworks, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
“" Cal. Civil Code § 1786.52 . Finally, "UCL claims are always subject to a four-year statute of limitations, even when they are based on [a] violation of a statute with a shorter limitations period.”
Cunha v. IntelliCheck, LLC, 254 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
“” Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.52 (a). But a California court of appeal has interpreted an identical provision in the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”) to mean that a plaintiff cannot revive a defeated FCRA claim by subsequently bringing a CCRAA claim based on the same…”
Fowler v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1786.52.) The purpose of the ICRA is to protect consumers who are victims of identity theft from harm, including adverse employment action, based on information attributable to identity theft or that is otherwise erroneous.”
Gabriel Moran v. the Screening Pros (9th Cir. 2019).
“In its supplemental brief, TSP raises two arguments for the first time to support the district court’s dismissal of the ICRAA claims.”
Edwards v. Am. Auto. Assocation etc. CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
“” (Civ. Code, § 1786.52.) In 1972, voter passage of the so-called “Privacy Initiative” embedded the right to privacy in the California Constitution.”
Pauley (N.D. Cal. 2025).
“Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.52 . 18 19 42. As a direct and proximate result of LYFT’s violations of the ICRAA, PLAINTIFF 20 suffered loss of an employment opportunity, lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, 21 reputational harm, and deprivation of his statutory right to receive…”
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.