Via Consumer Law & Policy, another day, another loss for abusers of credit reporting:

The main question in the case was whether Radian had a duty to provide an adverse action notice even though it did not have a contractual relationship with the Whitfields.  Relying on both FCRA’s text and purpose, Judge Dolores Sloviter agreed with the Whitfields that FCRA requires a notice despite the absence of privity.  Judge Sloviter’s opinion indicates that prior authority on this issue was scant but consumer-favorable.

In plain english: it doesn’t matter if you have a contract with that specific business or not, every business that charges you more or denies you credit because of your credit report has to let you know. Period.

Good for the Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands). It comes on the heels of the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Northern Mariana) making quite clear a credit reporting agency can’t keep mistakes on your report when they know they’re wrong.