## Facts

- During a 1974 congressional campaign and ensuing investigation, George V. Hansen became the subject of complaints alleging improper campaign financing.
- Melvin Morgan, who operated a jewelry business that could access credit bureau files for legitimate business purposes, obtained a credit report concerning George and Connie Hansen.
- The Hansens alleged the Morgans obtained the report for a purpose not permitted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and without a permissible statutory reason.
- Morgan forwarded the report to a congressional office, and it ultimately reached a House committee investigating George Hansen’s campaign finances.
- The Hansens sued, asserting an FCRA-based invasion of privacy claim arising from allegedly impermissible procurement and use of their consumer report.

## Issues

1. Whether the Hansens could argue on appeal that a violation of the FCRA’s criminal “false pretenses” provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681q, supplies a standard for civil liability, despite the district court’s disposition.
2. Whether the document obtained from the credit bureau qualified as a “consumer report” governed by the FCRA even if obtained for political or investigative purposes.
3. Whether the FCRA authorizes civil damages against a user of a consumer report who knowingly and willfully obtains consumer information from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681q.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Morgans and remanded.
- The court held the Hansens’ § 1681q-based civil-liability theory was appropriate for decision on appeal.
- The court held the FCRA governed the conduct alleged because the document at issue was a “consumer report” within the statute’s definition.
- The court held the FCRA authorizes a civil remedy against a user of a credit report who fails to comply with the criminal false-pretenses provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681q.

## Legal Principles

- A “consumer report” under the FCRA includes information from a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s creditworthiness, character, reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, even if the user seeks it for an unauthorized, non-enumerated purpose.
- The FCRA’s civil liability provisions (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o) apply to “any person” who willfully or negligently fails to comply with “any requirement” imposed by the FCRA.
- The criminal false-pretenses provision (15 U.S.C. § 1681q) can function as an actionable “requirement” for purposes of civil liability when a user knowingly and willfully obtains consumer information from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses.
- Where summary judgment rests on an incorrect legal conclusion that users cannot be liable under the FCRA for false pretenses, the case must be remanded for further proceedings on disputed factual questions.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the FCRA may impose civil liability on users who obtain consumer reports under false pretenses in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681q, and that a report remains a covered “consumer report” even when obtained for an unauthorized purpose; summary judgment for the user was therefore reversed and the case remanded.


Hansen v. Morgan, 582 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1978)