The Credit Bureaus Defense Strategy of Attrition and Delay
Date: Mon, 02/04/2008 - 11:23
The “Big Three†(CRA’s) defense strategy was criticized by Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit in the bedbug case as "investing in developing a reputation intended to deter plaintiffs", which was an important reason why in that case the 7th Circuit upheld $372,000 in punitive damages with only $10,000 in punitive damages (a 37-to-1 ratio).
Consumers need to urge the courts to follow Judge Posner in deliberately recognizing that that is a game played by the CRAs [and most of their furnishers], and that an appropriate outcome of that game will be high punitive damages.
Here is the actual passage from the decision (which is Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc., 347 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2003), at p. 677:
"Finally, if the total stakes in the case were capped at $50,000 (2 x [$5,000 + $20,000]), the plaintiffs might well have had difficulty financing this lawsuit. It is here that the defendant's aggregate net worth of $1.6 billion becomes relevant. A defendant's wealth is not a sufficient basis for awarding punitive damages. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, supra, 123 S.Ct. at 1525; BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, supra, 517 U.S. at 591, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (concurring opinion); Zazu Designs
v. L'Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499, 508-09 (7th Cir.1992)."
That would be biased and would infringe upon the rule of law by making the punishment depend on class rather than behavior. This is where wealth enables the credit bureaus to mount an extremely aggressive and expensive defense against suits. In turn, this may make it difficult for the consumer to find a lawyer willing to handle their case, involving as it does only modest stakes, for the usual 33-40 percent contingency fee.
In other words, the credit bureaus are investing time and money to develop a system that intends to dissuade plaintiffs from filing suit.
Consumers need to urge the courts to follow Judge Posner in deliberately recognizing that that is a game played by the CRAs [and most of their furnishers], and that an appropriate outcome of that game will be high punitive damages.
Here is the actual passage from the decision (which is Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc., 347 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2003), at p. 677:
"Finally, if the total stakes in the case were capped at $50,000 (2 x [$5,000 + $20,000]), the plaintiffs might well have had difficulty financing this lawsuit. It is here that the defendant's aggregate net worth of $1.6 billion becomes relevant. A defendant's wealth is not a sufficient basis for awarding punitive damages. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, supra, 123 S.Ct. at 1525; BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, supra, 517 U.S. at 591, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (concurring opinion); Zazu Designs
v. L'Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499, 508-09 (7th Cir.1992)."
That would be biased and would infringe upon the rule of law by making the punishment depend on class rather than behavior. This is where wealth enables the credit bureaus to mount an extremely aggressive and expensive defense against suits. In turn, this may make it difficult for the consumer to find a lawyer willing to handle their case, involving as it does only modest stakes, for the usual 33-40 percent contingency fee.
In other words, the credit bureaus are investing time and money to develop a system that intends to dissuade plaintiffs from filing suit.
That is so unfair, but if the "goverment" is on our side, donkt
That is so unfair, but if the "goverment" is on our side, donkt they have the resources to stand up for the little guy who put them in office in the first place?
They have the resources. Methinks it's the desire that's lacking
They have the resources. Methinks it's the desire that's lacking.
