Volume 10, Edition 10, October 2014

This Month’s Challenge is sponsored by:



Answer: (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.

CRA 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?

A. It should not have relied on an intermediary vendor company for the initial information.

B. It should have identified the county court where the lien was filed in its disclosure as the source of the information.

C. It should have identified the intermediary vendor company in its disclosure as the source of the information.

D. (b) and (c).


Disclaimer Statement: All information presented is for information purposes only and is not intended to provide professional or legal advise regarding actions to take in any situation. Advertisements are presented for information and marketing purposes only and the National Institute for Prevention of Workplace Violence, Inc. makes no representations for any products or services that are promoted and accepts no responsibility for any actions or consequences that occur as a result of any purchases from advertisers.