Braun v. United Recovery Systems, LP, 14 F. Supp. 3d 159

Braun, pro se, sues URS for alleged improper access to his Experian credit report under the FCRA.
Braun discovered URS obtained his report on March 14, 2011, and demanded proof of a permissible purpose and removal of inquiries.
Experian also failed to respond to Braun's request regarding permissible purpose for URS's access.
Braun asserts no contract, debt, or authorized relationship with URS; no permissible account or debt existed to justify access.
The Amended Complaint alleges willful or negligent FCRA violations and a duty under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) to ascertain permissible purpose, with related damages sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether URS had a permissible purpose to obtain Braun's credit report	Braun contends no account or permissible purpose existed.	URS argues a debt-collection assignment to URS provides a permissible purpose.	Denied for willful access; permissible purpose issue dismissed for lack of sufficient record evidence at this stage.
Whether Braun adequately pleads willfulness or negligence under 1681b(f)	Braun asserts URS willfully or negligently accessed the report without a permissible purpose.	Braun's allegations are conclusory and insufficient to plead state of mind.	Willfulness dismissed; negligence survives on pleadings, with caveats and potential amendment advised.
Whether Braun can pursue a claim under 1681s-2(b) given its proper scope	Braun contends a duty to properly ascertain permissible purpose before obtaining the report.	1681s-2(b) pertains to furnishers after disputes and does not create a pre-dispute duty for access.	Court clarifies misapplication of 1681s-2(b) and allows reframing if pursued in a proper 1681b context.

Edgehealth S. Sys. v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 115 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (discusses permissible purpose and debt-collection context under FCRA)