15 U.S.C. § 1681n

Civil liability for willful noncompliance

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In generalAny person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of—(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court.(b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance

Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater.

Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.

(d) Clarification of willful noncompliance

For the purposes of this section, any person who printed an expiration date on any receipt provided to a consumer cardholder at a point of sale or transaction between December 4, 2004, and June 3, 2008, but otherwise complied with the requirements of section 1681c(g) of this title for such receipt shall not be in willful noncompliance with section 1681c(g) of this title by reason of printing such expiration date on the receipt.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VI, § 616, as added Pub. L. 91–508, title VI, § 601, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1134; amended Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, § 2412(a)–(c), (e)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–446; Pub. L. 110–241, § 3(a), June 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 1566.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2008—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 110–241 added subsec. (d).

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and in introductory provisions substituted “Any person who” for “Any consumer reporting agency or user of information which”.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(b), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows: “any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure;”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(c), added subsec. (b).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–208, § 2412(e)(1), added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–208 effective 365 days after Sept. 30, 1996, with special rule for early compliance, see section 2420 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as a note under section 1681a of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of one hundred and eighty days following Oct. 26, 1970, see section 504(d) of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 91–508, set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.

Construction

Pub. L. 108–159, title III, § 312(f), Dec. 4, 2003, 117 Stat. 1993, provided that: “Nothing in this section, the amendments made by this section, or any other provision of this Act [see Short Title of 2003 Amendment note set out under section 1601 of this title] shall be construed to affect any liability under section 616 or 617 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o) that existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 4, 2003].”

Statement of Findings and Purpose for 2008 Amendment

Pub. L. 110–241, § 2, June 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 1565, provided that:“(a)Findings.—The Congress finds as follows:“(1) The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act [of 2003] (commonly referred to as ‘FACTA’) [Pub. L. 108–159, see Short Title of 2003 Amendment note set out under section 1601 of this title] was enacted into law in 2003 and 1 of the purposes of such Act is to prevent criminals from obtaining access to consumers’ private financial and credit information in order to reduce identity theft and credit card fraud.“(2) As part of that law, the Congress enacted a requirement, through an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act [15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], that no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the card holder at the point of the sale or transaction.“(3) Many merchants understood that this requirement would be satisfied by truncating the account number down to the last 5 digits based in part on the language of the provision as well as the publicity in the aftermath of the passage of the law.“(4) Almost immediately after the deadline for compliance passed, hundreds of lawsuits were filed alleging that the failure to remove the expiration date was a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act even where the account number was properly truncated.“(5) None of these lawsuits contained an allegation of harm to any consumer’s identity.“(6) Experts in the field agree that proper truncation of the card number, by itself as required by the amendment made by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act [of 2003], regardless of the inclusion of the expiration date, prevents a potential fraudster from perpetrating identity theft or credit card fraud.“(7) Despite repeatedly being denied class certification, the continued appealing and filing of these lawsuits represents a significant burden on the hundreds of companies that have been sued and could well raise prices to consumers without corresponding consumer protection benefit.“(b)Purpose.—The purpose of this Act [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1601 of this title] is to ensure that consumers suffering from any actual harm to their credit or identity are protected while simultaneously limiting abusive lawsuits that do not protect consumers but only result in increased cost to business and potentially increased prices to consumers.”

Retroactive Effect of 2008 Amendment

Pub. L. 110–241, § 3(b), June 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 1566, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to any action, other than an action which has become final, that is brought for a violation of [section] 605(g) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act [15 U.S.C. 1681c(g)] to which such amendment applies without regard to whether such action is brought before or after the date of the enactment of this Act [June 3, 2008].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,295 cases (507 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Stillmock v. Weis Markets, Inc., 385 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stillmock v. Weis Markets, Inc., 385 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 25× “Notably, the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “willfully fails to comply,” in the preamble sentence of 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a), as reaching not only knowing violations of FCRA, but reckless ones as well, Safeco Ins.”

John Shaw v. Experian Info. Solutions, 891 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “EXPERIENCE INFORMATION SOLUTIONS for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n fails because they have not shown a willful violation by Experian.”

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001). · cites it 6× “See 15 U. S. C. §§ 1681n, 1681 o (1994 ed.). [2] B The facts of this case are for the most part undisputed.”

Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 10× “15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a). In June of 2008, Congress passed the Clarification Act, which modified the civil liability provision to exclude instances between December 4, 2004, and June 3, 2008, where an individual did not remove an expiration date of a credit or debit card from a…”

Stephen G. Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat'l, 437 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 9× “” Concluding that Levine has made'out a prima facie claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for ■ proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Sarmad Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 1681n. B. Syed’s Lawsuit Against M-I.”

Steven Hammer v. Sam's East, Inc., 754 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 15× “Appellants do not allege actual damages, but seek to recover statutory damages under a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, which governs liability for FACTA violations.”

Anthony Robinson v. US Dep't of Educ., 917 F.3d 799 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “The complaint brought claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o, which provide civil causes of action for willful and negligent FCRA violations, respectively.”

Wood v. Credit One Bank, 277 F. Supp. 3d 821 (E.D. Va. 2017). · cites it 8× “9 Wood alleges that each violation was willful, rendering Credit One liable for punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, 10 and pleads alternatively that Credit One’s violations were negligent, entitling him to recover under 15 U.”

Stephanie Daniel v. Nat'l Park Serv., 891 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n (levying potential punitive damages on “any person” who willfully violates the Act).”

Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “(“Mexican Specialty Foods”) and Rave Motion Pictures, Birmingham, LLC, 3 respectively (collectively “the defendants”), alleging that the defendants willfully violated FACTA, and seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to 15…”

Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 905 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 13× “15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a). For statutory damages, FACTA provides for an award of $100 to $1,000 for each violation.”

Show all 1,295 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(1) — 4 cases

Greene v. Rash, Curtis & Assocs., 89 F.R.D. 314 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).

Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (N.D. Ill. 2020).

Sterling v. Experian Credit (N.D. Ohio 2021).

Cheryl Beaudry v. Telecheck Servs., Inc. (6th Cir. 2009).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(1)(A) — 3 cases

Shlahtichman v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., 615 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2010).

Good v. United States Dep't of Educ., The (D. Kan. 2022).

Rossini v. Pnc Fin. Servs., Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(2) — 7 cases

Carmine Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., & Trans Union Corp., 56 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 1995).

Spector v. Experian Info. Servs. Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Conn. 2004).

Thomas v. Pierce, Hamilton, & Stern, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 507 (N.D. Ga. 1997).

Yohay v. City of Alexandria Employees Credit Union, Inc., 827 F.2d 967 (4th Cir. 1987).

Hall v. Harleysville Ins., 164 F.R.D. 172 (E.D. Pa. 1995).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(3) — 5 cases

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985).

Renie Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995).

In re Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC Litig., 240 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (D. Nev. 2017).

Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir. 1991).

Yohay v. City of Alexandria Employees Credit Union, Inc., 827 F.2d 967 (4th Cir. 1987).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a) — 287 cases

Reginald Kirtz v. Trans Union LLC, 46 F.4th 159 (3rd Cir. 2022).

Reibstein v. Rite Aid Corp., 761 F. Supp. 2d 241 (E.D. Pa. 2011).

Stillmock v. Weis Markets, Inc., 385 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2010). “Notably, the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “willfully fails to comply,” in the preamble sentence of 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a), as reaching not only knowing violations of FCRA, but reckless ones as well, Safeco Ins.”

Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 905 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2018). “15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a). For statutory damages, FACTA provides for an award of $100 to $1,000 for each violation.”

United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1) — 21 cases

Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 922 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 2019).

Shaunfield v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Tex. 2014).

Nicholas v. Trans Union, LLC (D. Nev. 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(2) — 1 case

Coulter v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(3) — 1 case

Garrett v. Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A) — 75 cases

Steven Hammer v. Sam's East, Inc., 754 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2014). “Appellants do not allege actual damages, but seek to recover statutory damages under a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, which governs liability for FACTA violations.”

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001). “See 15 U. S. C. §§ 1681n, 1681 o (1994 ed.). [2] B The facts of this case are for the most part undisputed.”

Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of de Pere, LLC, 843 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2016).

Sergio Ramirez v. Transunion LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A)(2) — 1 case

Broughton v. Payroll Made Easy, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(B) — 6 cases

Bach v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 149 F. App'x 354 (6th Cir. 2005).

Burghy v. Dayton Recquet Club, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 689 (S.D. Ohio 2010).

Omar Santos v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (11th Cir. 2023).

Omar Santos v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (11th Cir. 2024).

Sullivan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D. Ala. 2019).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(B)(3) — 1 case

Marchisio v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC (S.D. Fla. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2) — 67 cases

Fallen v. GREP Sw., LLC, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (D.N.M. 2017).

Daniel Rivera v. Allstate Ins. Co., 913 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2018).

Johnnie Teresa Marchisio v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC., 919 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2019).

Terry Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2001).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2)(3) — 1 case

Van Straaten v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (N.D. Ill. 2011).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3) — 59 cases

Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009).

Denton v. PennyMac Loan Servs., LLC, 252 F. Supp. 3d 504 (E.D. Va. 2017).

Sloane v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 510 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2007).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(B) — 1 case

Brunken v. Par. (D. Neb. 2022).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(i)(A) — 1 case

In Re Miller, 335 B.R. 335 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2005).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(l) — 10 cases

Fed. Aviation Admin. v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1441 (2012).

Santangelo v. Comcast Corp., 162 F. Supp. 3d 691 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Ritchie v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., 14 F. Supp. 3d 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Luckey v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(l)(A) — 45 cases

Nancy R. Murray, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. Gmac Mortg. Corp., Doing Bus. as ditech.com, Defendant-Respondent, 434 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2006).

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001). “See 15 U. S. C. §§ 1681n, 1681 o (1994 ed.). [2] B The facts of this case are for the most part undisputed.”

Korman v. Walking Co., 503 F. Supp. 2d 755 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(l)(B) — 4 cases

Santangelo v. Comcast Corp., 162 F. Supp. 3d 691 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Reed v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Minnesota 2004).

Wiles v. Worldwide Info., Inc., 809 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (W.D. Mo. 2011).

Lecaj v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 130 F. Supp. 3d 469 (D. Mass. 2015).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(l)(a) — 1 case

Bouton v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2016).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(b) — 23 cases

Miller v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 326 F. Supp. 3d 51 (E.D. Va. 2018).

Edge v. Prof'l Claims Bureau, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 2d 115 (E.D.N.Y 1999).

Santangelo v. Comcast Corp., 162 F. Supp. 3d 691 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Ritchie v. Taylor, 701 F. App'x 45 (2d Cir. 2017).

Trikas v. Universal Card Servs. Corp., 351 F. Supp. 2d 37 (E.D.N.Y 2005).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(b)(1998) — 1 case

Thibodeaux v. Rupers, 196 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D. Ohio 2001).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(c) — 40 cases

Rogers v. Johnson-Norman, 514 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2007).

Schueller v. Wells Fargo & Co., 559 F. App'x 733 (10th Cir. 2014).

Edge v. Prof'l Claims Bureau, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 2d 115 (E.D.N.Y 1999).

Christopher James Peer v. Daniel Warfield Lewis, 571 F. App'x 840 (11th Cir. 2014).

Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark, 603 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2010).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(d) — 21 cases

Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590 (3rd Cir. 2010). “15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a). In June of 2008, Congress passed the Clarification Act, which modified the civil liability provision to exclude instances between December 4, 2004, and June 3, 2008, where an individual did not remove an expiration date of a credit or debit card from a…”

Ahmed Kamal v. J. Crew Grp., Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3rd Cir. 2019).

Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2010).

Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009). “(“Mexican Specialty Foods”) and Rave Motion Pictures, Birmingham, LLC, 3 respectively (collectively “the defendants”), alleging that the defendants willfully violated FACTA, and seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to 15…”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(e) — 1 case

Burns v. Bank of Am., 655 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(l) — 5 cases

Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2009).

Bradshaw v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, Lp, 816 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (D. Or. 2011).

Hall v. Harleysville Ins., 943 F. Supp. 536 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

Drury v. TNT Holland Motor Express, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 161 (W.D. Mich. 1994).

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.