One reason is because the Supreme Court held in late 2020 that unless you can prove you were actually--not theoretically--harmed by an exact instance of an enti

One reason is because the Supreme Court held in late 2020 that unless you can prove you were actually--not theoretically--harmed by an exact instance of an entity covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you do not have standing to sue. > Held: Only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act has Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court. Per the Court, this means something like you were provably denied credit on the basis of the incorrect reporting, and you either didn't have an opportunity to explain yourself or your explanation was not accepted in favor of the information from the credit reporting agency's information. This is a very, very high bar to clear and is made even more difficult by the fact that almost any agreement of substance includes a mandatory binding arbitration clause. Thus, you don't even get the chance to go to court. (Many businesses lauded here on Hacker News have such clauses, so even the "good" entrepreneurs can't resist taking away rights to the courthouse from their users.) More coverage and links to the decision at SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/transunion-llc-v-ramirez/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/transunion-llc-v...