We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
This issue arose in Shamara King v. General Information
Services, Inc., a "consumer class action based upon
Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. ("FCRA")." In her
complaint, Ms. King brought suit "on behalf of thousands
of employment applicants throughout the country who have been the
subject of prejudicial, misleading and illegal background reports
performed by the Defendant and sold to employers. Defendant has
adopted and maintained a policy and practice of knowingly,
intentionally, recklessly and willfully reporting outdated adverse
information that is required to be excluded from the consumer
reports that it sells."
The defendant GIS then moved to dismiss the case, claiming that
FCRA was unconstitutional:
In sum, [the Supreme Court's decision in]
Sorrell [v. IMS Health] marks a dramatic shift in the
protection afforded to content- and speaker-based restrictions on
truthful commercial information. As the dissent in Sorrell noted,
its holding has sweeping effects on many other laws restricting
disclosure of commercial information, including FCRA. Because a
prohibition on disclosure of truthful information regarding an
individual's criminal record falls squarely within
Sorrell's holding, [the FCRA] is unconstitutional. Accordingly,
the Court should enter judgment on the pleadings in favor of GIS on
Plaintiff's [FCRA] claim.
This is certainly a creative defense, although it may be asking
more than a federal district court is willing to do. It could be
very interesting to see this argument get to an appellate
court.
To view Foley Hoag's Security, Privacy and The Law
Blog please click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The 2010 theft of an unencrypted laptop containing confidential health care information made front-page news in 2013, not because a huge number of patients were affected, but for the exact opposite reason.
Identity theft is a serious threat. In 2012, more than 12.6 million adults became victims of identity theft in the U.S.1 And the costs have been astronomical.
On April 22 Verizon released its 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), which has since 2008 become a leading annual survey of data breaches, with participants across the globe.
Increasingly, privacy is a big concern in app development. California and other jurisdictions are ramping up enforcement efforts around existing privacy laws.
Understanding the complexities of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules is often a challenge for health care providers and consumers.
Any company that collects personal data from consumers should take proactive steps to have appropriate legal counsel review its data security practices, as well as its terms of service or privacy practices, to identify any potential problem areas.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published on its website a series of factsheets designed to educate consumers unfamiliar with their rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules.
FTC On The Prowl, And Businesses Looking For Guidance On New COPPA Changes
