The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a)Investigative consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in collecting, assembling, evaluating, compiling, reporting, transmitting, transferring, or communicating information on consumers for employment and insurance purposes, and for purposes relating to the hiring of dwelling units, subpoenas and court orders, licensure, and other lawful purposes.
(b)There is a need to
insure that investigative consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.
(c)The crime of identity theft in this new computer era has exploded to become the fastest growing white collar crime in America.
(d)The unique nature of this crime means it can often go undetected for years without the victim being aware his identity has been misused.
(e)Because notice of identity theft is critical before the victim can take steps to stop and prosecute this crime, consumers are best protected if they are automatically given copies of any investigative consumer reports made on them.
(f)It is the purpose of this title to require that investigative consumer
reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for employment, insurance information, and information relating to the hiring of dwelling units in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of the information in accordance with the requirements of this title.
(g)The Legislature hereby intends to regulate investigative consumer reporting agencies pursuant to this title in a manner which will best protect the interests of the people of the State of California.
Notes of Decisions
Connor v. First Student, Inc., 423 P.3d 953 (Cal. 2018).
“*828 *1030 We granted review to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeal over whether the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) ( Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq. ) 1 is unconstitutionally vague, in violation of due process, as applied to employer background checks…”
Gabriel Moran v. the Screening Pros, 923 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2019).
“§ 1681 , California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1786 , and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal.”
Mendoza v. ADP Screening & Selection Servs., Inc., 182 Cal. App. 4th 1644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“20, subdivision (c), of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA; Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq.), and a cause of action for declaratory relief of his rights under Penal Code sections 290.”
Ortiz v. Lyon Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
“These appeals raise an issue of first impression involving California’s credit reporting statutes—the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) (Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq.) 1 2and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) (§ 1785.”
Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8240 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
“) (CCRAA), and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq.) (ICRA) by: failing to maintain a public office where in-person disclosures of consumer files could be made, refusing to respond to requests for disclosure, failing to disclose all…”
Panno v. Russo, 186 P.2d 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947).
“There was ample evidence to show that respondent was unable to procure other desert Valencia oranges; that while there were other crops in the Coachella Valley, such crops had all been sold or were under contract of sale to other parties at the time appellants breached the…”
Limson v. Bridge Prop. Mgmt. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 3× “, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”), 17 Cal. Civ. Code § 1786 , and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.”
Shikha v. Lyft, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1786.) Civil Code section 1786.”
Garcia v. Quest Grp. Consulting LLC (S.D. Cal. 2022).
· cites it 2× “) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that when she was a job applicant, Defendants 21 procured an investigative consumer report regarding Plaintiff after requiring her to sign a 22 deficient disclosure form in violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting 23 Agencies…”
Edwards v. Am. Auto. Assocation etc. CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Edwards filed this action against defendant American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah, claiming defendant violated the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”) (Civ. Code, § 1786, et al.) and invaded his privacy by illegally obtaining…”
Fowler v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “7), violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq.) (ICRA), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
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.