b'examiners found that consumers had been harmed inIn August, the CFPB and Fair Collections & Outsourcing connection with companies pandemic-related credit(FCO) agreed to a stipulated final judgment and order, reporting practices. First, the CFPB found that someresolving a 2019 lawsuit filed by the CFPB in the U.S. companies had furnished new and/or advancingDistrict Court for the District of Maryland alleging that delinquency information to CRAs despite providing theFCOs debt collection and furnishing practices had consumer an accommodation. Due to staffing delays,violated the CFPA, FCRA, and FDCPA. Specifically, the some companies were unable to immediately processCFPB alleged that FCO lacked reasonable policies and an accommodation despite telling a customer that theprocedures with respect to handling of indirect credit accommodation had been made, which resulted inreporting disputes, that it failed to conduct reasonable reporting some consumers as delinquent even thoughinvestigations of those disputes, and that it continued they were current. Second, the CFPB found that someto furnish information about accounts even where the auto furnishers had insufficient furnishing policies andconsumer had submitted an identity theft report to the procedures because, as a result of the pandemic, autocompany. The Bureau also alleged that FCO violated furnishers reported that customers were delinquent onthe FDCPA when it represented to consumers that they leased vehicles that the dealership had picked up fromowed debts that FCO had no reasonable basis to believe the customers homes, but where there was a delay inthe consumer owed. Under the settlement agreement, processing the lease termination. Third, the Bureau foundFCO has agreed to pay an $850,000 civil money that staffing challenges due to the pandemic causedpenalty, to implement reasonable furnishing policies some furnishers and CRAs not to conduct a timelyand procedures, and to review identity theft reports investigation of disputed tradelines.submitted to the company.Supreme Court Reinforces Limits on Federal Court 2021 Highlights Standing, But Important Questions RemainFTC Finalizes Changes to Five FCRA Rules In June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion In last years review, we discussed the FTCsLLC v. Ramirez, revisiting some of the Article III standing announcement of a notice of proposed rulemaking andprinciples it had set forth in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 request for public comment on changes to the rules thatU.S. 330 (2016), and addressing their application to implement the FCRA. In September, the FTC approvedRule 23 class actions. Ramirez, like Spokeo, arose from final revisions to five FCRA rules: the Address DiscrepancyFCRA claims alleging that the defendant failed to follow Rule, the Affiliate Marketing Rule, the Furnisher Rule, thereasonable procedures to assure maximum possible Pre-screen Opt-Out Notice Rule, and the Risk-Basedaccuracy of its consumer background data, as the Pricing Rule. Because the CFPA transferred FCRAstatute requires. 15 U.S.C.1681e(b). In Ramirez, unlike rulemaking authority to the CFPB, the primary purposeSpokeo, the plaintiff had concededly suffered palpable of the FTCs amendments to these rules is to clarify thatharm when an alert that he was a potential match to a the FCRA rules enforced by the FTC apply only to motorname on a government list of sanctioned terrorists and vehicle dealers, and not to consumer finance companies.drug traffickers cost him an auto loan. His class included The other amendments to the five FCRA rules are1,853 others who had the same alert on their credit technical amendments rather than amendments thatreports and 6,332 additional members who had it in their change the substance of the rules. credit file without it ever appearing on a report sent to a third party. The Court held that the 1,853 class members CFPB Settles with Fair Collections & Outsourcing Overwhose reports were disseminated suffered actual injury Failure to Investigate Consumer Disputes in the form of concrete reputational harm, but the 6,332 class members whose reports were never disseminated 41'