Vinсent J. IPPOLITO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. WNS, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Equifax Services, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 86-2776, 86-2777
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Argued May 29, 1987. Decided Dec. 5, 1988.
864 F.2d 440
Wayne B. Giampietro, Poltrock & Giampietro, for Ippolito et al. Richard G. Lione, Willian, Brinks, Olds, Hofer, Gilson & Lione, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for WNS, Inc.
Before RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges, and REYNOLDS, Senior District Judge.*
MANION, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs sued WNS, Inc. (WNS) and Equifax Services, Inc. (Equifax), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT COURT
A. The Defendants.
Defendant WNS is a Texas corporation in the business of, among other things, franchising picture frame and print stores under the name “Deck The Walls.” WNS adopted the trademark “Deck The Walls” in May, 1982, after its trademark counsel conducted a search and advised WNS that it was free to use the mark. By the end of the summer of 1983, WNS had approximately fifty “Deck The Walls” franchises throughоut the country.
Defendant Equifax is in the credit reporting business. It supplies credit information for use in both business and consumer transactions. In 1980, an Equifax sales representative, Jerrold White, had discussions with a WNS vice-president, William Boschma, concerning the use of Equifax‘s services by WNS. At that time, White was selling a particular category of what he described as “business credit type reports” called “Financial Control Services.” Boschma told White that WNS was interested in obtaining a service that would assist WNS in screening prospective franchisees. White advised Boschma that the Equifax service suited to his needs was the “Special Service Character/Financial Report (Special Service Report).”1 Equifax‘s Special Service Report is a standardized service that includes information about a person‘s credit standing, credit capacity, character, and reputation in the community. White testified at trial that a typical user of the Special Service Report is “looking at doing business in some capacity or
At that same meeting, White also informed Boschma of other services that Equifax sold. One of the services White mentioned was the “Personnel Selection Report.” This Equifax service is designed for use in screening prospective employees. When Boschma expressed interest in this service, White advised Boschma that the “Personnel Selection Report” was a “consumer report” covered by the FCRA. White told Boschma that WNS would have to comply with the FCRA when ordering those reports and gave Boschma a brochure outlining the FCRA‘s requirements.
Before accepting WNS as a customer, Equifax required WNS to sign a certification agreement that provided in part that “consumer reports, as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, will be ordered only when intended to be used as a factor in establishing a consumer‘s eligibility for new or continued credit, collection of an account, insurance, licensing, employment purposes, or otherwise in connectiоn with a legitimate business transaction involving the consumer.” Boschma signed this certification agreement on WNS‘s behalf.
After WNS signed the certification agreement, Equifax assigned WNS an account number. Thereafter, WNS‘s Franchise Development Department regularly requested Special Service Reports on prospective franchisees. For example, from January, 1984 through May, 1984, WNS ordered approximately 30 to 40 Special Service Reports.
B. The Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are three sisters and their husbands. The sisters, Judy Ippolito, Nancy Gerenstein, and Peggy Goodman, own and operate Deck The Walls, Inc. (DTW). DTW is incorporated in Illinois and is wholly owned by the three sisters. The company, operated out of the Gerenstein‘s residence, is in the business of custom framing, wall decorations, wall groupings, wall hangings, and millinery productions. The sisters’ husbands, Vincent Ippolito, Wayne Gerenstein, and Michael Goodman, are not actively involved in the operation of the business and do not own any of the stock.
C. The Trademark Dispute and WNS‘s Investigation.
In the latter half of 1983, DTW became aware of WNS‘s use of the trademark “Deck The Walls.” DTW then contacted WNS and charged WNS with infringement of DTW‘s rights in that mark. DTW claimed that it had exclusive, nationwide rights to use that mark on picture frame products and services. DTW then offered to relinquish its rights to the mark for $100,000 but no settlement was ever reached. On January 4th, 1984, DTW filed a Notice of Opposition in the Patent & Trademark Office challenging WNS‘s application for registration of that mark.
As a result of the trademark dispute, WNS began an investigation of DTW and plaintiffs. WNS initially learned that Judy Ippolito, Nancy Gerenstein, and Peggy Goodman were involved in the business. WNS then ordered Special Service Reports on them. The Special Service Report on Judy Ippolito also contained information on her husband, Vincent, and stated that the Ippolitos had been in business together. Thereafter, WNS ordered Special Service Reports on Wayne Gerenstein and Michael Goodman.
Two of WNS‘s in-house attorneys testified that they ordered the Special Service Reports to find out more about the individuals behind a small, closely-held family corporation that was claiming exclusive, nationwide rights to the trademark “Deck the Walls.” One of these attorneys instructed the administrative assistant in WNS‘s Franchise Development Department responsible for ordеring Special Service Reports on prospective franchisees to order the reports on plaintiffs. Neither attorney inquired into WNS‘s relationship with Equifax or reviewed the requirements of the
Amelia Specht, an Equifax employee who prepared some of the Special Service Reports on plaintiffs, testified for plaintiffs as an adverse witness. Specht testified that when a customer calls in to request a report on a particular individual she only asks for the customer‘s account number, the name of the person requesting the report, and the type of report the customer would like prepared. According to Specht, she prepares different types of reports for Equifax‘s customers. For example, she prepares “Personnel Reports” for employers who want information on prospective employees as well as “Individual Reports” which apparently may be used for any purpose. She stated thаt the Special Service Reports are like the “Personnel Reports” and the “Individual Reports” except they delve deeper into information about the subject of the report, including the person‘s reputation in the community. She also testified that she does not ask why the customer wants a Special Service Report, and that, because it is a standardized service, the purpose for which the report is requested does not affect the way she prepares a report.
The Special Service Reports prepared about plaintiffs contained information about plaintiffs’ employment status, reputation in the community, credit history, and credit capacity. The reports also indicated that plaintiffs’ neighbors had been questioned. Besides plaintiffs’ neighbors, sources for the Equifax reports included banks, legal reporting services, and a credit bureau. In addition, the reports showed that Equifax conducted a check of its own files for information on the plaintiffs. Neither WNS nor Equifax notified plaintiffs that the reports had been requested.
D. Proceedings In District Court.
On January 30th, 1986, the three couples sued WNS and Equifax alleging that the defendants violated the FCRA. Plaintiffs’ complaint2 contained three counts against WNS and two counts against Equifax. Plaintiffs alleged that WNS violated the FCRA: by requesting “consumer reports” for a purpose not authorized under
Equifax moved to dismiss both plaintiffs’ claims against it. Equifax contended that it did not violate
Relying on Heath v. Credit Bureau of Sheridan, Inc., 618 F.2d 693 (10th Cir.1980), the district court denied Equifax‘s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ § 1681b claim against it. See Ippolito v. WNS, Inc., 636 F.Supp. 471 (N.D.Ill.1986). The district court held that the purpose for which a person requests a report is not determinative on the issue of whether a partiсular report is a “consumer report” under the FCRA. According to the district court, the inquiry into whether the “Special Service Reports” were “consumer reports” also required inquiry into the reasons why Equifax prepared the reports. The district court did, however, grant Equifax‘s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ § 1681d(a) claim against it. The district court held that § 1681d(a) only required the report‘s user, not the consumer reporting agency, to notify the subject of an “investigative consumer report” that the report had been requested.
The case was then tried before a jury from August 18 through August 20, 1986. During the afternoon of Thursday, August 14, Equifax received a proposed jury instruction from plaintiffs setting forth circumstances under which the jury could find Equifax liable to plaintiffs under
In order to prevail on their claims against Defendant WNS, INC., the burden is on the Plaintiffs to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the following elements:
1.a. That Defendant WNS, INC. negligently caused consumer reports to be prepared on them by a Consumer Reporting Agency for a purpose other than that allowed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act...;
or
b. That Defendant WNS, INC. caused investigative consumer reports to be prepared on them and failed to disclose to Plaintiffs that such report was made and further failed to inform Plaintiffs of their right to request additional disclosures of the information;
or
c. Obtained a consumer report or investigative consumer report on them by false pretenses.
and
2. That Plaintiffs were damaged by such actions.
The district court also instructed the jury that:
The term “consumer report” means any written, oral, or оther communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer‘s creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer‘s eligibility for (1) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) employment purposes, or (3) other purposes authorized by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Those other purposes authorized by the Act include any legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction involving the plaintiffs. The parties agree that Equifax is a consumer reporting agency.
WNS objected to this instruction on the ground that it allowed the jury to find that the Special Service Reports ordered on plaintiffs were “consumer reports” even if the reports were used, expected to be used, or collected solely for business transactions that did not involve a “consumer relationship” between WNS аnd the subject of the report.
The jury found in plaintiffs’ favor against WNS and awarded plaintiffs a total of $700 in actual damages and $27,000 in punitive damages. The jury, however, found against plaintiffs on their claims against Equifax. The district court then awarded plaintiffs $27,500 in attorneys’ fees and $1,795.89 in costs from WNS.
After the jurors returned their verdict, WNS moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. WNS contended that the jury‘s verdict could not stand because the undisputed evidence established that the Special Service Reports it ordered on plaintiffs were not “consumer reports” as that term is defined in the FCRA. WNS also argued that, even if the reports were consumer reports, the award of compensatory and punitive damages could not stand because there was no evidence that it acted negligently or willfully. See
II. WNS‘S APPEAL
WNS‘s liability in this case is premised upon three separate statutory violations.
Although plaintiffs asserted that WNS was liable under three very different statutory provisions, the resolution of the issues on this appeal all center around the definition of the term “consumer report.” As the jury was instructed, if the Special Service Reports are not “consumer reports,” then the FCRA does not cover any of WNS‘s actiоns. (An investigative consumer report is simply a particular species of “consumer reports“;9 if a particular report is not a “consumer report,” it is also not an “investigative consumer report.“) Moreover, the question of WNS‘s liability is not limited simply to the question of whether the Special Service Reports ordered on plaintiffs were “consumer re-
The starting point for our consideration of the issues is the statutory definition of the term “consumer report.”
[A]ny written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer‘s creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer‘s eligibility for (1) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) employment purposes, or (3) other purposes authorized under [
15 U.S.C. §] 1681b ....
A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:
...
(3) To a person it has reason to believe—
...
(E) ... has a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction involving the consumer.
As defined in §§ 1681a(d) and 1681b, not all reports containing information on a consumer are “consumer reports.” To constitute a “consumer report,” the information contained in the report must have been “used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part” for one of the purposes set out in the FCRA. Thus, a consumer may establish that a particular credit report is a “consumer report” falling within the coverage of the FCRA if: (1) the person who requests the report actually uses the report for one of the “consumer purposes” set forth in the FCRA; (2) the consumer reporting agency which prepares the report “expects” the report to be used for one of the “consumer purposes” set forth in the FCRA; or (3) the consumer reporting agency which prepared the report originally collected the information contained in the report expecting it to be used for one of the “consumer purposes” set forth in the FCRA. See Heath, 618 F.2d at 695-96; Hansen, 582 F.2d at 1218.10
A. The Purpose For Which Equifax Expected The Report To Be Used.
As explained above, a report on a consumer falls within the definition of a consumer report if a consumer reporting agency expects the report to be used for a consumer purpose. Plaintiffs claim that WNS should be held liable for requesting “consumer reports” because WNS “certified” to Equifax that it would only request “consumer reports” and that it would state the purpose for which a report was requested. If WNS did certify that it would only request “consumer reports,” then it would logically follow that the reports were “consumer reports” because Equifax would expect the reports to be used only for consumer purposes. It would also logically follow that WNS, at the least, should have known that Equifax expected the information to be used for consumer purposes. WNS did not, however, certify that it would request only consumer reports from Equifax. The certification agreement signed by WNS stated in relevant part:
We certify that consumer reports, as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, will be ordered only when intended to be used as a factor in establishing a consumer‘s eligibility for new or continued credit, collection of an account, insurance, licensing, employment purposes, or otherwise in connection with a legitimate business transaction involving the consumer. Each request for a report will further indicate the specific purpose involved in each transaction and such reports will be used for no other purpose.
The certification agreement states only that WNS would order “consumer reports” when it intended to use them for the consumer purposes set forth in the FCRA. It does not state that WNS would order only “consumer reports.”
Moreover, the fact that WNS did not tell Equifax the purpose for which it ordered the Special Service Reports on plaintiffs does not magically transform the reports into consumer reports. That WNS did not tell Equifax why it requested the reports does not have any bearing on the purposes for which the report was actually “used or expected to be used or collected.” Failing to disclose that a report is requested for a non-consumer purpose might help to establish that a report was obtained under false pretenses if a person certified that it would only use reports for consumer purposes. Cf. Hansen, 582 F.2d at 1218-20 & n. 3 (holding that retailer, who certified that he would only use consumer reports for permissible purposes under the FCRA, obtained reports under false pretenses when it ordered a consumer report on an individual for an impermissible purpose without informing credit bureаu of that purpose). Such evidence is irrelevant, however, in determining whether a report is a “consumer report” in the first place.
The only provision of the FCRA that has any apparent applicability to the report made for the purpose of evaluating prospective franchisees is § 1681b(3)(E). Section 1681b(3)(E), which contains the Act‘s final permissible purpose for which a consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report, states that a consumer reporting agency may provide a consumer report to a person it believes “otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction involving the consumer.” The Act simply defines “consumer” аs an “individual.”
The courts have all too frequently been called on to interpret the broad “business transaction” language of § 1681b(3)(E). The significant problem § 1681b(3)(E) causes is that if its broad “business transaction” language is incorporated without qualification into the definition of “consumer report,” most of the other provisions of §§ 1681a(d) and
If such a catch-all reading of [§ 1681b(3)(E)‘s “business transaction” provisions] is derived, the specifics of the preceding sections and subsections are rendered meaningless. There is no reason to enumerate covered reports if ultimately all reports are included. An allowance of any other imaginable reports involving consumers would logically conflict with the precision and specifics of § 1681a.
To resolve the apparent conflict between § 1681a(d) and § 1681b(3)(E), the courts have consistently recognized § 1681a as the “primary” definitional section and, in cases of conflict between § 1681a and § 1681b, have conformed the breadth of § 1681b to the more precisely drawn language in § 1681a. See Houghton, 795 F.2d at 1149-50; see also Hovater v. Equifax, Inc., 823 F.2d 413, 419 (11th Cir.1987); Cochran, 472 F.Supp. at 830-31. Contra Beresh v. Retail Credit Co., 358 F.Supp. 260 (C.D.Cal.1973). In other words, the definition of “consumer report” has essentially been limited to information that is “used or expected to be used or collected” in connection with a “business transaction” involving one of the “consumer purposes” set out in the statute, that is, eligibility for personal credit or insurance, employment purposes, and licensing. See Houghton, 795 F.2d at 1149-50; see generally Hovater v. Equifax, Inc., 823 F.2d at 419.11
The purpose of the fair credit reporting bill is to protect consumers from inaccurate or arbitrary information in a consumer report, which is used as a factor in determining an individual‘s eligibility for credit, insurance or employment. It does not apply to reports utilized for business, commercial, or professional purposes.
116 Cong.Rec. 36,572 (1970) (remarks of Representative Sullivan). (Emphasis added.) See generally, Note Judicial Construction of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 76 Colum.L.Rev. 458 (1978) (discussing lеgislative history of FCRA). Incorporating § 1681b(3)(E) literally into the definition of consumer report would violate the clearly expressed legislative intent that reports collected for “business, commercial, and professional purposes” do not fall under the FCRA.
Thus, because evaluating prospective franchisees does not fall within one of the consumer purposes set forth in the FCRA, there is no substantial evidence in the record to support plaintiffs’ position that Equifax “expected” the consumer report to be used for one of the consumer purposes set forth in the FCRA. This obviates any need for us to inquire whether liability could be properly imposed against WNS because it knew or should have known of any such expectation on the part of Equifax.
B. The Purposes For Which Equifax Originally Collected The Information.
As discussed above, WNS cannot be held liable for failing to comply with a provision of the FCRA based simply upon the purposes for which the Special Service Reports on plaintiffs were used or expected to be used. The fact that the reports are
Plaintiffs argue that WNS must have known that the Special Service Reports were “consumer reports” because they were “laden” with “consumer information.” The FCRA does not, however, regulate all information on consumers. It regulates information that is “used or expected to be used or collected” for one of the “consumer purposes” set forth in the definition of a “consumer report.” Admittedly, the statute might make more sense and would certainly be easier to apply if the term “consumer report” was defined in terms of a communication of what might generally be considered “consumer information.” But that is not how the statute reads or how Congress intended the statute to read.
In a related vein, plaintiffs appear to argue that WNS must have known that the reports on plaintiffs were “consumer reports” because the reports stated that they contained information from Equifax‘s files. Again, this is simply insufficient to show that WNS knew or should have known that the information was originally collected for one of the purposes set out in the definition of a consumer report. See Houghton, 795 F.2d at 1148-49 (request for “general financial information” from Equifax in connection with investigative reports held not to be a request for an “investigative consumer report” and the fact that the requested report stated that “available credit files” were checked not sufficient to alert defendant that reports were “investigative consumer reports“); cf. Heath, 618 F.2d at 697 (in remanding case for determination of consumer reporting agency‘s liability, court states that “[c]rucial to this [issue] will be an examination of the bureau‘s purpose when it collected the information, and what it knew and expected concerning the use of the information supplied to” the persons who requested the reports). (Emphasis added.) Equifax is in the business of supplying information for both consumer and non-consumer purposes. WNS entered into a continuing relationship with Equifax to receive Special Service Reports to evaluate prospective franchisees. Because WNS intended to use the reports for business purposes, they could only be considered “consumer reports” if Equifax collected the information contained in the reports for consumer purposes or expected it to be used for such purposes. Equifax, the party who collected the information, however, advised WNS that the FCRA applied to the Personnel Reports, not the Special Service Reports. Thus, when WNS ordered the Spe-
In short, even if the reports were “consumer reports” because Equifax may have originally collected or expected information in the report to be used for “consumer purposes,” WNS cannot be held liable for requesting consumer reports. The purpose for which the Special Service Reports on plaintiffs were requested and the purposes for which WNS received reports in the past were both non-consumer purposes. The mere fact that the reports contained what might commonly be regarded as consumer information is simply insufficient evidence to impose liability upon WNS for negligently violating the FCRA. Accordingly, the judgment against WNS must be reversеd.
III. PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-APPEAL
Plaintiffs claim in their cross-appeal that they are entitled to a new trial against Equifax because the district court abused its discretion by denying them leave to amend their complaint to assert a claim under
At the beginning of trial, Equifax immеdiately presented the district court with a motion in limine to exclude any evidence plaintiffs might present to establish a § 1681e(a) violation. Equifax claimed that plaintiffs’ last-minute attempt to pursue a § 1681e(a) claim against it greatly expanded the scope of its defense without giving it time to prepare. Only at that point did plaintiffs move to amend their complaint. According to plaintiffs, they were entitled to amend their complaint because they were not aware of any facts indicating that Equifax violated § 1681e(a) until July 16, 1986, when they deposed Amelia Specht, an Equifax employee who had prepared some of the Special Service Reports on plaintiffs. It was not until then, plaintiffs contended, that they were aware that Specht did not ask customers the purposes for which they sought to use the reports she prepared. The district court granted Equifax‘s motion in limine and denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint.
The decision whether to grant a motion to amend a complaint under
In arguing that the district court abused its discretion, plaintiffs rely primarily upon their contention that they did not learn of the facts indicating that Equifax violated § 1681e(a) until one month before trial. In most cases, merely waiting a month after allegedly discovering new facts before moving to amend would certainly not be grounds for denying leave to amend a complaint. But here the month was the month immediately preceding the trial. As Equifax points out, its objection to plaintiffs’ last-minute attempt to amend their complaint was not based on the relatively short time period between the deposition of Amelia Specht and the trial. Rather, it was based on the fact that plaintiffs waited until immediately before the trial itself to attempt to slip a § 1681e(a) claim into the case. Plaintiffs seek to have us empathize with the fact that they only had one month to move to amend their complaint. However, any such motion would have been a simple task requiring a minimal amount of legal research and drafting. At the same time, they seek to have us ignore the fact that they essentially sought to give Equifax one business day to investigate the facts, locate approрriate witnesses, ensure their availability to testify, locate and review any relevant documents, prepare the witnesses and documents for trial, develop a defense, research the relevant legal issues, and develop possible arguments in support of or in response to directed verdict motions or tendered jury instructions. To take advantage of the liberal amendment policies of
Plaintiffs also claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial. At trial, Amelia Specht testified to the procedures she generally follows in preparing Special Service Reports. Specht testified that she does not ask customers the purpose for which the reports are being requested and that the purpose for which a report is requested does not affect the way in which she prepares a report. This testimony was introduced by plaintiffs without objection by Equifax. According to plaintiffs, Equifax‘s failure to object to this testimony constituted an implied consent to the trial of plaintiffs’ § 1681e(a) claim.
Under
“[A] court will not imply consent to try a claim merely because evidence relevant to a properly pleaded issue incidentally tends to establish an unpleaded claim.” Quillen v. International Playtex, Inc., 789 F.2d 1041, 1044 (4th Cir.1986); see also Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir.); cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844, 106 S.Ct. 131, 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985). Here, Amelia Specht‘s testimony concerning how she prepares the Special Service Reports was entirely relevant to plaintiffs’ § 1681b claim. To establish the circumstances surrounding preparation of the Special Service Reports on plaintiffs, plaintiffs were entitled to show the general procedures by which she prepares all Special Service Reports.
Fed.R.Evid. 406 provides: Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
Thus, Equifax‘s failure to object to this evidence that was relevant to plaintiffs’ § 1681b claim cannot be viewed as an express or implied consent of the case under a § 1681e(a) theory. This is particularly so given that Equifax vigorously objected at the beginning of the trial to plaintiffs’ attempt to pursue that claim against it. Accordingly, the district court‘s determination that plaintiffs’ § 1681e(a) claim was not tried by the consent of the parties was not an abuse of discretion.
IV. CONCLUSION
We reverse the district court‘s judgmеnt against WNS and affirm the district court‘s decision denying plaintiffs a new trial against Equifax.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
REYNOLDS, Senior District Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“Act“) was designed to protect the rights of consumers when engaged in consumer-related transactions such as transactions concerning an individual‘s eligibility for credit, insurance or employment. The plaintiffs and WNS were not engaged, and did not expect to be engaged, in a consumer-related transaction. Therefore, the plaintiffs are outside the scope of the act.
The phrase “consumer report” must be read so as to give the Act as a whole a rational construction. The type of transaction for which the information was in fact
In this case, the plaintiffs and WNS agree as a fact that information in the report was collected for and was expected to be used for litigation, which was not a consumer purpose under the Act. Therefore, the report was not a “consumer report.” It is irrelevant what the reporting agency expected the report to be used for. Because the plaintiffs were not engaged in a consumer-related transaction with WNS, the plaintiffs are outside the scope of the Act and may not use the Act to recover damages against WNS.