Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a credit report that is misleading to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions violates the FCRA
• holding that furnisher reasonably relied on conclusions of internal investigation and had no duty to reinvestigate
• holding that a consumer has a private right of action against a furnisher of credit information for willful or negligent noncompliance with the requirements in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)
• concluding that duties under the FCRA “are triggered ‘upon notice of dispute’—that is, when a person who furnished information to a[n] [agency] receives notice . . . that the consumer disputes the information”
• holding that “a disputed credit file that lacks a notation of dispute may well be ‘incomplete or inaccurate’ within the meaning of the FCRA, and the furnisher has a privately enforceable obligation to correct the information after notice.”
• explaining that a CRA’s reasonable reinvestigation “consists largely of triggering the investigation by the furnisher”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).