Case Facts: Keith Santangelo contacted ComcastCorporation through its online customer service "chat" function andrequested Internet service for his new apartment. During the chatsession, a Comcast representative asked Santangelo for permissionto run a credit inquiry. Santangelo asked if any option wasavailable to avoid the credit inquiry. The Comcast representativetold him that the company would forgo the inquiry if he paid a $50deposit. The option to pay a $50 deposit in order to avoid thecredit inquiry was an explicit part of Comcast's official RiskManagement Policy. The policy also required a $50 deposit from anyprospective customer who agreed to a credit inquiry but whosecredit score proved to be unsatisfactory.

Santangelo opted to pay the $50 deposit in lieu of a creditinquiry. Nevertheless, Comcast, without Santangelo permission,pulled his credit report. This unauthorized credit inquiry loweredSantangelo's credit score. Santangelo filed a complaint allegingthat Comcast's actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act(FCRA) as well as Illinois state law. Comcast filed a motion todismiss, arguing that Santangelo had not stated a claim under theFCRA.

Issue: Can a company violate the FCRA by running acredit check on a customer who has paid a deposit in lieu of acredit inquiry?

Decision: Yes. The federal district court for theNorthern District of Illinois held that Santangelo's complaintsufficiently alleged facts showing that Comcast had obtained hiscredit report without a permissible purpose in violation of theFCRA. Therefore, the court denied Comcast's motion to dismiss.

Questions to answer:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the decision that was made by thecourts? Why or why not?
2. What ethical implications did Comcast cross when they ran thecredit check without permission?