495 F.Supp.3d 10
D. Me.2020Background
- CDIA (trade association including Experian, Equifax, TransUnion) challenged two 2019 Maine amendments to the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act that restrict reporting/removal of certain debts.
- "Medical Debt Provision": prohibits reporting medical debt until 180 days after first delinquency, requires removal upon evidence of full settlement, and treats ongoing scheduled medical payments like other credit transactions.
- "Economic Abuse Provision": requires reinvestigation and removal of debt from consumer reports if documentation shows the debt resulted from "economic abuse."
- Parties stipulated CDIA members must change procedures to comply and face administrative enforcement and private liability if they fail to comply; no material factual disputes—case turns on statutory interpretation and preemption.
- CDIA sought declaratory judgment that the Maine Amendments are preempted by the FCRA, principally 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(E) (preemption of state laws "with respect to any subject matter regulated under... § 1681c").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Maine Amendments are expressly preempted by 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(E) (i.e., regulate subject matter of § 1681c) | CDIA: §1681c regulates "information contained in consumer reports" broadly; Maine's rules on medical debt and economic-abuse removals intrude on that uniform federal subject matter and are therefore preempted | State Defs.: §1681c is an itemized, narrow list of subjects; preemption applies only when a state law duplicates those specific subsections, so Maine provisions fall outside preemption | Court: adopted CDIA's broader reading; both Maine Amendments are preempted under § 1681t(b)(1)(E) |
| Standing and ripeness for preemption challenge | CDIA: has associational standing and the dispute is ripe because issues are purely legal and enforcement is imminent | State Defs.: had raised standing and ripeness defenses | Court: found CDIA has associational standing and the claims are ripe |
| Whether Economic Abuse Provision is separately preempted under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(5)(C) (identity-theft/blocking analog) | CDIA: provision effectively requires reinvestigation/blocking akin to identity-theft duties in § 1681c-2, so preempted | State Defs.: disputed that characterization | Court: declined to resolve because it already found preemption under § 1681t(b)(1)(E) |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (describes FCRA purposes)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (describes FCRA-regulated uses of consumer reports)
- Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019) (Supremacy Clause and congressional preemption power)
- Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) (Congress may indicate preemptive intent through statutory structure)
- Wos v. E.M.A., 568 U.S. 627 (2013) (state cannot evade preemption by creative statutory labels)
- Kansas v. Garcia, 140 S. Ct. 791 (2020) (preemption analysis grounded in statutory text and structure)
- Tobin v. Federal Express Corp., 775 F.3d 448 (1st Cir. 2014) (statutory interpretation guides preemption inquiries)
- Capron v. Office of the Att’y Gen. of Mass., 944 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2019) (ripeness/justiciability principles for statutory challenges)