We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
DirecTV was on the receiving end of a proposed class action in
the Central District of California earlier this week alleging the
direct broadcast satellite service provider violates the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and California state law by pulling credit
reports on consumers without a permissible purpose. A copy of the
complaint is available here.
The complaint, filed by consumer Jon Wulf Amadeus Adler, claims
DirecTV LLC and a number of affiliates "routinely and
systematically" run "hard" credit checks on
consumers who have had no interactions with the company and who
have not consented to the inquiries. Adler claims these
impermissible hard credit pulls are visible to potential creditors
and have negatively affected his and the putative class
members' credit scores.
Adler alleges in his complaint that "Defendants, without
permission, conducted hard credit pulls ... on Plaintiff and
Proposed Class Members' credit histories, without any
authorization, prior relationship or interactions initiated by
Plaintiff or Proposed Class Members, which necessarily adversely
affected their credit scores." Adler claims that he "and
Proposed Class Members did not even know about the hard pulls until
viewing their own credit reports."
The FCRA allows for a "soft pull" of a consumer credit
report under certain specified purposes – including when a
creditor plans to extend a firm offer of credit. Soft pulls are
only visible to the consumer and do not alter a consumer's
credit score. Hard pulls, on the other end, typically occur when a
lender with whom a consumer has applied for credit reviews a credit
report. Hard pulls can impact consumer credit scores and can be
seen by others.
Adler alleges violations under both the FCRA and
California's Consumer Credit Report Agencies Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law. He seeks to represent a
proposed class of individuals who were subject to a hard credit
pull by DirecTV without their permission within the five years
prior to the filing of the complaint. The suit seeks statutory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The claims against DirecTV are similar to other cases we have
previously reported on, including
Patel v. Comcast Corporation and Heaton
v.Social Finance, Inc.,the latter of
which resulted in a $2.4 million class settlement.
The Troutman Sanders' Consumer Financial Services
Law Monitor blog offers timely updates regarding the financial
services industry to inform you of recent changes in the law,
upcoming regulatory deadlines and significant judicial opinions
that may impact your business. To view the blog, click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On February 4, 2019, in Ward v. Tilly's, Inc., the California Court of Appeal found that reporting time pay is owed for certain "on-call" shifts, where the employee must call in to find out if he or she is needed, but is told not to report to work.
Seyfarth Synopsis: On November 6, 2018, the United States Supreme Court signalled that the Article III standing preconditions to federal court litigation ...
