Cite as 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003)
whether the potential defendant could satisfy a judgment was not a permissible purpose under the statute); see also Duncan, 149 F.3d at 427 (“While a lawsuit occasionally may give rise to a ‘legitimate business need’ for a consumer report … trial preparation generally does not fall within the scope of § 1681b.”). Thus, subsection (a)(4) broadens, not limits, the power of child support enforcement agencies to obtain consumer credit reports.[1]
III
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a child support enforcement agency may obtain the consumer credit report of a person owing or potentially owing child support. When requesting a consumer credit report to establish an individual’s capacity to pay support or to determine the appropriate amount of payment, the child support enforcement agency must comply with the certification requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(4). But when, as in this case, the agency seeks to enforce an already existing order of child support, the certification requirements of § 1681b(a)(4) are inapplicable.
Here, the BFSO properly obtained Hasbun’s consumer credit report to enforce an existing order of child support. In so doing, the BFSO was engaged in the “collection of an account” under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) and therefore had a permissible purpose for obtaining it. The law requires no more.
Affirmed.[2]
Richard SATAVA, an individual; Satava Art Glass, a sole proprietorship, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Christopher LOWRY, an individual; Christopher Richards, an Opinion individual; Makawao Glassworks, LLC, dba Hot Island Glass, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 02-16347.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.
Filed March 20, 2003.
- ↑ The FTC shares this view. According to a Staff Opinion Letter, the “additional provisions [of subsection (a)(4) ]—permitting child support authorities to obtain consumer reports in connection with the assessment of child support obligations—in no way detract from the existing right of such authorities under [§ 1681b(a)(3)(A) ] to obtain reports to assist in enforcement of final orders.” Letter to Llewellyn Woolford, August 6, 1999 (emphasis in original).
- ↑ Our holding does not require us to decide whether Experian would have been liable if the BFSO did not have a permissible purpose in obtaining the report. Nor do we address whether the defendants might be liable under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act because Hasbun abandoned that claim on appeal.
