3 ms·

>> then the consumer can sue them > For what? For sending a bad report about the consumer they claim to have entered into a contract with to the credit bureau

by u801e 7y ago

>> then the consumer can sue them > For what? For sending a bad report about the consumer they claim to have entered into a contract with to the credit bureaus. > The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. That's true, but the lender is responsible for what they report to the credit bureaus. > Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? If they don't involve the actual consumer in their lack of due diligence, then sure. > It isn’t. The lender enters into a contract with a fraudster and gets fucked. The lender is the victim, not the consumer. If the lender involves the consumer by sending a bad report to the bureaus, then they have harmed the consumer.

mindslight 7y ago
While you're right from basic legal principles, I've had it pointed out to me that the FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. So that kind of direct action has already been regulatory-captured away.
- u801e 7y ago
  > FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. That's true, but I was proposing holding the creditor/lender liable for filing a bad report with the credit bureaus, not the bureaus themselves. The basic problem is that lenders/creditors are not exercising due diligence when extending credit or loaning money to an individual. While this is currently referred to as "identity theft", it's really a problem with the lender/creditor and they should be held accountable if they cause harm to the actual consumer by filing a bad report with the bureaus.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Nope, they have been excused from legal liability as well. The regulatory capture runs deep. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681h https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681h (e). I wouldn't be surprised if this immunity were the primary cause of the current situation. Getting immunity from negligence means it makes sense to take advantage of being negligent.
    - u801e 7y ago
      That is unfortunate. I wonder how long has this been the case.

by u801e 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago

While you're right from basic legal principles, I've had it pointed out to me that the FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. So that kind of direct action has already been regulatory-captured away.

u801e 7y ago
> FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. That's true, but I was proposing holding the creditor/lender liable for filing a bad report with the credit bureaus, not the bureaus themselves. The basic problem is that lenders/creditors are not exercising due diligence when extending credit or loaning money to an individual. While this is currently referred to as "identity theft", it's really a problem with the lender/creditor and they should be held accountable if they cause harm to the actual consumer by filing a bad report with the bureaus.
- mindslight 7y ago
  Nope, they have been excused from legal liability as well. The regulatory capture runs deep. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681h https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681h (e). I wouldn't be surprised if this immunity were the primary cause of the current situation. Getting immunity from negligence means it makes sense to take advantage of being negligent.
  - u801e 7y ago
    That is unfortunate. I wonder how long has this been the case.