Plaintiffs file motion to oppose dismissal of proposed FCRA class action against Petco
Tags : FCRA Compliance
The plaintiff’s motion states that Petco hid its disclosure regarding the procurement of consumer reports among “reams of extraneous information beyond the required consumer report disclosure,” in violation of the FCRA’s “stand-alone” requirement.
Previously, the pet supply chain had argued that the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that Petco’s violations were willful or that its disclosure was objectively reasonable.
In their motion the plaintiffs painted a different picture, stating that Petco’s disclosure “includes a broad privacy waiver authorizing third parties to provide any and all information relating to applicants to defendant’s [consumer reporting agency] and its agents; seven paragraphs of state-specific notices; a multipage FCRA rights summary; and a host of other advisements.”
“It is self-evident that such a document does not consist ‘solely’ of the disclosure that a consumer report may be procured and thus violates the FCRA,” the plaintiffs added.
The case is Feist et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Inc. et al., case number 3:16-cv-01369, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Source: Law360.com, 8/30/2016
We cannot express enough how much we have enjoyed working with BIG! It has really benefitted our processing and ease of doing business!
I enjoy collaborating with BIG, and know that if I have to reach out with a question/concern, a positive attitude with a willingness to find resolve is on the other side of an email or a phone call.
You have been the most professional and most helpful business partner that I have ever been associated with — always there to assist us and with rapid turnaround times.
I am confident whenever we add a product with your company that I will have a good experience.
We have received superior service and we know this is what you and your team strive for. We are grateful for the dedication, level of professionalism and effort shown.