Skip to main content
Citation Number

In this amicus brief supporting consumers a case under Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the The Commission argues that the district court erred in holding that a mortgage insurance company was not required to provide a consumer with an FCRA adverse action notice even though, as a result of information in a consumer report, the insurance company charged a higher premium for mortgage insurance, and that premium was paid by the consumer. The brief explains that the FCRA requires such a notice because the insurance company's action relates to the consumer, even though the consumer is not the beneficiary of the policy. The brief further explains that a balancing test applied by the district court is contrary to the FCRA's requirements.