Articles from Meir Rubinov

Deactivated by Spark without warning? This guide explains why it happens, how to fix background check mistakes, and what your rights are under the FCRA.

An in-depth examination of the statutory architecture of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), focusing on the notice trigger, the role of consumer reporting agencies, and the mandatory duties imposed on furnishers. By Consumer Attorneys.

This article examines the FCRA’s “complete and up to date” requirement under §1681k(a)(2), tracing its legislative history, statutory meaning, and heightened accuracy obligations for public record information used in employment decisions.

In Reyes v. Equifax, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Equifax, ruling that a consumer reporting agency isn’t required to delete accurate tradelines even when identity theft is alleged. This article examines the court’s logic, statutory framework in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the implications for consumer rights and identity-theft protections.

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) empowers consumers to recover “actual damages” for violations of its provisions. Because “actual damages” isn’t limited by statute to just economic loss, courts have recognized that non-economic harms like emotional distress may be compensable. Learn how this interpretation strengthens consumer rights and what it could mean for your case with Consumer Attorneys.

Credit reports quietly shape access to loans, housing, jobs, and insurance. Drawing on decades of government and consumer research, this article examines how common credit report errors really are, why they persist, and how inaccurate data continues to harm consumers’ lives.

What makes information a “consumer report” under the FCRA? This article breaks down the statute step by step, showing how purpose and use transform data into a regulated consumer report.

Learn about how the FCRA defines consumer reporting agencies and why function, not labels or disclaimers, determines coverage.

The Fourth Circuit’s Take on FCRA Investigations: Why the “Objectively and Readily Verifiable” Standard Should Not Undermine § 1681s-2(b)