U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II–A— CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATIONS

15 U.S.C. § 1679

Findings and purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress makes the following findings:(1) Consumers have a vital interest in establishing and maintaining their credit worthiness and credit standing in order to obtain and use credit. As a result, consumers who have experienced credit problems may seek assistance from credit repair organizations which offer to improve the credit standing of such consumers.(2) Certain advertising and business practices of some companies engaged in the business of credit repair services have worked a financial hardship upon consumers, particularly those of limited economic means and who are inexperienced in credit matters.(b) PurposesThe purposes of this subchapter are—(1) to ensure that prospective buyers of the services of credit repair organizations are provided with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the purchase of such services; and(2) to protect the public from unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices by credit repair organizations.(Pub. L. 90–321, title IV, § 402, as added Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, § 2451, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–455.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior title IV of Pub. L. 90–321, May 29, 1968, 82 Stat. 164, as amended by Pub. L. 91–344, July 20, 1970, 84 Stat. 440; Pub. L. 92–321, June 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 382, which was set out as a note under section 1601 of this title, established a bipartisan National Commission on Consumer Finance to study the functioning and structure of the consumer finance industry as well as consumer credit transactions generally. The Commission was to submit a final report by Dec. 31, 1972, and was to cease to exist thereafter.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 90–321, title IV, § 413, as added by Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, § 2451, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–462, provided that: “This title [enacting this subchapter] shall apply after the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Credit Repair Organizations Act [Sept. 30, 1996], except with respect to contracts entered into by a credit repair organization before the end of such period.”

Short Title

This subchapter known as the “Credit Repair Organizations Act”, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 138 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012). · cites it 8× “We consider whether the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U. S. C. §1679 et seq., precludes enforce- ment of an arbitration agreement in a lawsuit alleging violations of that Act.”
Zimmerman v. Puccio, 613 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010). · cites it 5× “Appellants John and Richard Puccio appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, Andrew and Kelly Zimmerman, on behalf of a class of clients of Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation (“Cambridge”), one of the Puccios’ business enterprises,…”
Zimmermann v. Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp., 529 F. Supp. 2d 254 (D. Mass. 2008). · cites it 6× “The Zimmermans charged Defendants with violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679 et seq., and the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Keith H. Gill Richard Murkey, 265 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “On September 30, 1996, Congress enacted the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CRO Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679 — 1679j, to ensure that the clinics provide potential customers with the information needed to decide whether to employ the services of such an organization and “to protect…”
Stephen Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “3 Thus in CompuCredit, the Court considered a purported “contrary congressional command” in the Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., which the plaintiffs claimed precluded consumers from entering an arbitration agreement that waived their right to…”
Baker v. Fam. Credit Counseling Copr., 440 F. Supp. 2d 392 (E.D. Pa. 2006). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 1679 (b). The CROA defines a “credit repair organization” as: (A) .”
Gay v. CreditInform, 511 F.3d 369 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Gay claims that in selling its services Intersections violated its obligations under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679 , et seq. (“CROA”), and the Pennsylvania Credit Services Act, 73 Pa.”
Hillis v. Equifax Consum. Servs., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 491 (N.D. Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “Instead, Plaintiff alleges that in selling Score Power, Defendants failed to comply with various technical requirements that are enumerated in the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 , et seq. (“CROA”), and for relief seeks a refund of the amount paid for Score…”
Plattner v. Edge Solutions, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Ill. 2006). · cites it 5× “(“Edge”) for violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 , et seq. (Counts I-IV) and for breach of fiduciary duty (Count V).”
Philip Rannis v. Peter Recchia, 380 F. App'x 646 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Recchia, an attorney licensed to practice law in California, appeals from a judgment of the district court granting final approval of a class settlement from a lawsuit which, inter alia, alleged violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Gill, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (C.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 4× “s agreed, inter alia, that Murkey and Gill would not represent that anyone can substantially improve most consumer’s credit reports or profile by permanently removing bankruptcies, tax liens, late payments, collection accounts, or other evidence of delinquencies from the…”
Chorley Enter., Inc. v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., 807 F.3d 553 (4th Cir. 2015). “In CompuCredit, the Supreme Court considered whether a federal statute — the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq. — precludes arbitration of claims alleging violations of that statute.”
Show all 138 citing cases →
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.