Is California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”) constitutional? The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is poised to hear oral argument on the question on February 2, 2015.
California created two separate laws when enacting a state analogue to the FCRA. The Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”) governs “consumer credit reports,” defined as “any written, oral or other communication of any information by a consumer credit reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity.”
The second statute, ICRAA, covers “investigative consumer reports,” defined to include “information on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living … obtained through any means.”
The statutes provide consumers with different rights and as a general rule, ICRAA contains stricter duties and more severe penalties than the CCRAA.
The federal court dismissed the suit in two orders (the first order tossed the state law claims while the second did away with the FCRA allegations). Addressing the ICRAA claims, the court found the statute unconstitutionally vague as it applied to tenant screening reports containing criminal history information because a person of reasonable intelligence could not discern whether criminal information constituted “character” information under the ICRAA or “creditworthiness” governed by the CCRAA.
To read the first dismissal order on the ICRAA issues, click here .
To read the second order on the FCRA issues, click here .