50.1K

Verified Solution

Link Copied!

a. Social: Why might Comcast have immediately changed its official Risk Management Policy after this decision?

b. Legal Environment: What damages might Santangelo be able to prove based on the depletion of his credit score?

Case Allaly S15 27. Santangelo v. Comcast Corp. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 162 F.Supp. 3d 691 (2016). In the Language of the Court John Z. LEE, United States District Judge Santangelo's authorization, pulled his credit report ***. This credit inquiry depleted [lowered] Santangelo's credit score. *** Comcast now moves to dismiss the *** complaint. II. Analysis must show *** the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant According to Comcast, Santangelo has not alleged an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the FCRA violation he claims. Santangelo responds that he has sustained three injuries-in-fact: the loss of the $50 he paid as a deposit, the violation of his legal right not to have his credit report pulled without a permissible purpose, and the resulting depletion of his credit score, I. Factual and Procedural Background [Keith Santangelo filed a complaint in a federal district court against Comcast Corporation, alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).] Santangelo alleges *** that he contacted Comcast through the company's online customer service "Chat" function *** and requested Internet service for his new apartment. During the chat session, a Comcast representative asked Santangelo for permission to run a credit inquiry. Santangelo asked if any option was available to avoid the credit inquiry. The Comcast representative told him that the company would forgo the inquiry if he paid a $50 deposit. The option to pay a $50 deposit in order to avoid a credit inquiry was an explicit part of Comcast's official Risk Management Policy *** The policy also required a $50 deposit from any prospective customer who agreed to a credit inquiry but whose credit score proved to be unsatisfactory. According to Santangelo, the deposit policy reflects Comcast's calculated business decision and belief that the collection of a $50 deposit is sufficient to cover the risk presented by a person with bad credit and is sufficient to cover the risk presented by a person who refuses a credit pull." Santangelo opted to pay the $50 deposit in lieu of a credit inquiry. *** Nevertheless, Comcast, without FCRA prohibits the obtaining of a "consumer report," commonly known as a credit report, except for purposes authorized by that statute. The statute lists specific permissible purposes, such as *** any *** "legitimate business need*** in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer. "These limitations are intended to produce a balance between consumer privacy and the needs of a modern, credit-driven economy. [Emphasis added.] Santangelo contends that Comcast did not have a permissible purpose for obtaining his credit report after he paid the $50 deposit in exchange for the company's promise not to check his credit. If he is correct and the company's violation was willful, he would be entitled to recover attorney's fees and either actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000. If the company's violation was merely negligent, Santangelo would be permitted to recover only attorney's fees and actual damages. 1. Standing Comcast first argues that Santangelo lacks standing to bring his FCRA claim. To establish standing *** a plaintiff *** It was the very fact that Comcast received the $50 from Santangelo before it performed the credit check that made it illegal. *** And once Comcast checked Santangelo's credit, it should have refunded the deposit immediately, rather than keeping it. Comcast's receipt and withholding of the $50, therefore, is inextricable [inseparable) from the FCRA violation and can be said to be fairly traceable to the FCRA violation. *** Even if the $50.00 deposit were fully refundable, Santangelo still has standing based on the lost time-value of the money. *** Santangelo also has sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact by alleging that Comcast obtained his credit report without a permissible purpose in violation of the FCRA. Because the FCRA grants consumers a legally protected interest in limiting access to their credit reports and provides redress for violations, *** Santangelo's allegations about Comcast's interference with that legally protected interest are sufficient was collected, much like the tenants in [the landlord example). CIC to establish *** standing. [Emphasis added.] *** Santangelo also alleges that the FCRA violation in this case depleted his credit score. In response, Comcast contends that a reduced credit score, without resulting damages, does not constitute an injury. *** The Court agrees with Santangelo that a depleted credit score is sufficient to constitute an injury ***, Credit scores are of great importance in our economy, and a depleted credit score could affect a consumer in numerous ways, inflicting harm that often may be difficult to prove or quantify. Congress has the power to discourage the needless depletion of consumers' credit scores even when the depleted score cannot be neatly tied to a financial harm. 2. Sufficiency of Santangelo's allegations Comcast next argues that Santangelo's allegations do not state an FCRA claim. **** In his *** complaint, Santangelo *** alleges that Comcast's deposit policies demonstrate its lack of a legitimate need to run credit checks with respect to consumers who paid a $50 deposit. According to the *** complaint, Comcast's established policy is to forgo a credit check in exchange for a $50 deposit. The company also has a policy of accepting a $50 deposit from consumers who opt for a credit check but prove to have poor credit. Santangelo compares this situation to that of a car dealer who accepts a cash payment for the full purchase price of a car. *** The car dealer *** does not have a legitimate need to obtain the purchaser's credit report. Similarly, a landlord does not have a legitimate need to obtain a tenant's credit report if the tenant is entitled to a lease renewal without regard to creditworthiness. In response, Comcast *** argues that it had a legitimate business need to establish Santangelo's creditworthiness despite his deposit becauseunlike in the car dealer examplehis $50 deposit would cover less than two months of service in a long-term contract. *** [Santangelo) contends that, under company policy, his creditworthiness was irrelevant to Comcast's determination of his eligibility for service once the deposit *** Comcast's mere violation of its alleged agreement not to pull Santangelo's credit report does not support an FCRA claim. But the possibility that the company itself believed that its customers creditworthiness was irrelevant if they paid a deposit is enough. Comcast's final argument for dismissing Santangelo's FCRA claim is that he neither explicitly alleges that the company's actions were willful, which is necessary to trigger statutory damages, nor identifies any actual damages that he could recover if Comcast acted only negligently. Although (Santangelo) does not use the word willful in his complaint, he alleges that the company obtained his credit report despite that it knew that it did not have a legitimate business need." This allegation implies recklessness at the very least, and reckless conduct qualifies as willful conduct under the FCRA. III. Conclusion *** The Court denies Comcast's motion to dismiss

Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert

See Answer