Cases involving alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) noncompliance have been on the rise and 10 decisions in 2019 and early 2020 have provided guidance – and raised questions about statutory definitions – for companies who strive to remain compliant. Three cases, Kidd v. Thomson Reuters, Zabriskie v. Federal National Mortgage Association, and Frazier v. First Advantage Background Services, each clarify the definition of a consumer reporting agency (CRA) and the scope of liability for CRAs versus users or furnishers. Significant decisions this year provided clarity that CRAs could not be held liable for providing accurate information on consumer reports in Humphrey v. Trans Union and Cowley v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, et. al. Williams v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, brought forward this year, involves the damages available under the FCRA, including punitive damages, as well as the due process limits of such damages. Those seeking clarity on the topic of background screening should check out Moran v. The Screening Pros, Aldaco v. RentGrow, Inc., and Walker v. RealHome Services and Solutions, Inc. And finally, one court addressed the question of whether, when willfulness is not at issue at trial, if evidence of a company’s profit and earnings is admissible in Dodgson v. First Advantage Background Servs. Corp.