Fair Credit Reporting Reseller Accuracy Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 1, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to improve the accuracy of consumer report information by imposing new accuracy obligations on resellers, while also providing a liability shield for accurate transmission of upstream data.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to require companies that resell information from consumer reports to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of that information before transmitting it. It also clarifies that resellers are not liable under the FCRA if they accurately communicate information obtained from another consumer reporting agency.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill strengthens consumer protections by closing a potential loophole in the credit reporting ecosystem, ensuring that individuals are not harmed by inaccurate information that is resold. They contend it promotes greater data integrity across the entire credit reporting chain, benefiting both consumers and end-users of the data.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is good, the bill could impose additional compliance burdens and costs on resellers, which may ultimately be passed on to consumers or businesses. Some may also raise concerns about the ambiguity of 'reasonable procedures' and how it will be enforced, potentially leading to increased litigation.
The bill is very short and uses clear language, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2, adding FCRA Section 607(f)(1)
Requirement for Resellers to Ensure Maximum Possible Accuracy
This provision mandates that any company acting as a reseller of information contained in a consumer report must implement and follow 'reasonable procedures' to ensure the highest possible accuracy of the information about the individual concerned. This must be done before the reseller transmits the information to an end user (like a lender or employer) or another reseller.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting consumers from the adverse effects of inaccurate information, ensuring that all entities in the data chain uphold a standard of accuracy. It addresses a potential gap where resellers might not have had explicit accuracy obligations.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that the term 'reasonable procedures' is vague and could lead to inconsistent application or excessive compliance costs for resellers, which may ultimately be passed on to consumers or businesses. They may also argue that existing FCRA provisions already cover accuracy.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the goal of enhanced consumer data accuracy against the potential for increased regulatory burden and operational costs for businesses that act as resellers.
Section 2, adding FCRA Section 607(f)(2)
Limitation of Liability for Resellers
This section provides a specific protection for resellers, stating that they cannot be held liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act if they accurately transmit information that they received from another consumer reporting agency to an end user or another reseller. This means a reseller is not responsible for inaccuracies that originated upstream, as long as they passed on the information exactly as they received it.
This provision defines the term 'reseller' by cross-referencing Section 603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This means the bill does not provide a new definition but rather adopts the existing statutory definition of a reseller within the broader FCRA framework.
Section 2, adding FCRA Section 607(f)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency with existing legal definitions and avoid redundancy or conflicting interpretations within the same body of law.
Case for: Ensures legal consistency and avoids creating new, potentially conflicting definitions within the Fair Credit Reporting Act, streamlining legal interpretation and compliance.
Case against: Requires external legal knowledge to fully understand the scope of entities covered by the bill, potentially making it less accessible for a casual reader to grasp the full implications.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of entities subject to the new accuracy requirements, impacting all businesses that meet the existing definition of a reseller of consumer report information under the FCRA.