(c) In the October 20, 2014 case of Dennis v. Trans Union,
LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148753 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2014),
the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and
allowed Plaintiff to proceed to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s
disclosure, the Section 609 claim, because Trans Union never
disclosed the commercial data provider as the source of
the information. The Court held that the data provider was
a “source” under Section 609 and had to be disclosed.
XYZ, Inc. provided its lender client a report on Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones disputed a tax lien that was contained on that
report and contacted XYZ for a file disclosure under Section
609. XYZ had obtained this information from an intermediary
vendor company and had not directly obtained the information
from the county clerk. What should XYZ have done?
It should not have relied on an intermediary vendor company
for the initial information.
It should have identified the county court where the lien
was filed in its disclosure as the source of the information.
It should have identified the intermediary vendor company
in its disclosure as the source of the information.
(b) and (c).