Plaintiffs file motion to oppose dismissal of proposed FCRA class action against Petco

The plaintiff's motion states that Petco hid its disclosure regarding the procurement of consumer reports among "reams of extraneous information beyond the required consumer report disclosure," in violation of the FCRA’s "stand-alone" requirement.

Previously, the pet supply chain had argued that the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that its alleged violations were willful or that its disclosure was objectively reasonable.

In their motion the plaintiffs painted a different picture, stating that Petco’s disclosure “includes a broad privacy waiver authorizing third parties to provide any and all information relating to applicants to defendant’s [consumer reporting agency] and its agents; seven paragraphs of state-specific notices; a multipage FCRA rights summary; and a host of other advisements.”

“It is self-evident that such a document does not consist ‘solely’ of the disclosure that a consumer report may be procured and thus violates the FCRA,” the plaintiffs added.

The case is Feist et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Inc. et al., case number 3:16-cv-01369, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Source: Law360.com, 8/30/2016

Posted: September 8, 2016