If that is what they said then yes but that's not the case here. They said "as required by law" which is an inaccurate statement because once the creditor has given notice to the debtor then there is no more requirement by law to give such notice. I did some research and found that the "as required by law" statement is from FACTA which is an amendment to the FCRA:
``(A) Notice to consumer required.--
``(i) In general.--If any financial
institution that extends credit and regularly and
in the ordinary course of business furnishes
information to a consumer reporting agency
described in section 603(p) furnishes negative
information to such an agency regarding credit
extended to a customer, the financial institution
shall provide a notice of such furnishing of
negative information, in writing, to the customer.
``(ii) Notice effective for subsequent
submissions.--After providing such notice, the
financial institution may submit additional
negative information to a consumer reporting
agency described in section 603(p) with respect to
the same transaction, extension of credit,
account, or customer without providing additional
notice to the customer.
Creditors are required by law to inform consumers the first time they report derogatory information on the consumer's account. After that, no such notice is required by law.
I found a case which is helpful in explaining the "as required by law" statement. In Cruz v MRC Receivables the court said:
Cruz argues that because the original creditor, HSBC, and Defendants had both previously submitted negative credit reports to credit reporting agencies, the notice contained in the letters was not required. Therefore, Cruz concludes, it is false to say that the notice was "required by law," so Defendants violated sections 1692e and 1692e(10).
Defendants argue that the notice they included was permitted under both federal and California law. Mot. at 8. Whether the notice was permitted and whether it
was required are distinct questions. Generally speaking, both state and federal law require that when a creditor submits negative information to a credit-reporting agency, it must provide notice to the debtor. See Cal. Civ.Code § 1785.26(b); 15 U.S.C. § 1681S-2(a)(7)(A)(i). However, both the California and federal statutes have provisions making subsequent notice unnecessary once the initial notice has been sent. See Cal. Civ.Code § 1785.26(b) ("After providing this notice, a creditor may submit additional information to a credit reporting agency respecting the same transaction or extension of credit that gave rise to the original negative credit information without providing additional notice.") (emphasis added); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1681S-2 (a)(7)(A)(ii) (same).
Cruz did not prevail on her claim because she did not establish that notice was previously sent. Even if she had, this court would have still made an unfavorable judgment because the court saw "required by law" as "permitted by law" which would make the notice legal because future notices of derogatory reporting are "permitted by law".
However, this case had verbatim language as my dunning letter except that my collector added a few sentences which is entirely another subject. I have not had the time to research the cases which cited the Cruz's case but I'll wager that there is some consumer friendly court somewhere which did find that subsequent notices of negative reporting are not required by law and to say they are is false.
I'm preoccupied in other areas of research and simply don't have the time to follow up. If someone else comes across an instructive case then I'm all ears.
Starting Score: EQ 732 October 2007; Current Score: EQ 839; TU 865, July 2022;
