## Facts

- Santander Consumer USA Inc. originated and serviced nonprime auto loans and leases and furnished consumer credit information to nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs).
- Santander provided CRA data through recurring monthly data-file submissions.
- From January 2016 through at least August 2019, Santander’s furnishing included systemic inaccuracies and internal inconsistencies across multiple data fields.
- A major problem involved incorrect reporting of the date of first delinquency (DOFD), with more than 23 million instances reported incorrectly during 2016–2019; Santander often reported a monthly “account information” date rather than the true DOFD.
- Santander also furnished facially inconsistent tradeline information (e.g., reporting an account as paid in full yet also showing it open or carrying a balance).
- CRAs notified Santander multiple times (including between 2015 and 2019) about data anomalies and inconsistencies.
- Santander’s internal audits (including in 2016) identified inaccurate DOFD reporting (including DOFDs on accounts not delinquent) and deficiencies in policies and procedures for ensuring the accuracy of information furnished to CRAs.
- Despite CRA feedback and internal audit findings, Santander did not timely correct the inaccuracies and continued furnishing similar inaccurate information for years.
- The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection initiated an administrative enforcement matter and resolved it by consent order; Santander consented without admitting or denying the findings (except as needed for jurisdiction).

## Issues

1. Whether Santander violated FCRA § 623 and Regulation V by furnishing information it knew or had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate.
2. Whether Santander violated FCRA and Regulation V by failing to establish, implement, and maintain reasonable written policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information and to handle disputes and error notices.
3. Whether Santander’s failure to correct known systemic credit-reporting inaccuracies constituted an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

## Decision

- The CFPB determined, through a consent order, that Santander violated FCRA and Regulation V by furnishing inaccurate information and by failing to maintain reasonable accuracy-and-integrity policies, procedures, and controls for furnishing and dispute response.
- The CFPB determined that the conduct also constituted an unfair act or practice under the CFPA due to the risk of substantial consumer injury from inaccurate derogatory reporting.
- Santander was ordered to pay a $4.75 million civil money penalty.
- Santander was required to correct inaccurate furnished information, strengthen furnishing systems and controls, and submit a detailed compliance plan within a specified period.
- The order required governance and oversight measures, including written policies, escalation/oversight mechanisms, and periodic testing or auditing of data quality and dispute-handling performance.

## Legal Principles

- Under FCRA § 623, a furnisher may not provide information to CRAs when it knows or has reasonable cause to believe the information is inaccurate.
- Regulation V requires furnishers to establish and maintain reasonable written policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to CRAs, calibrated to the furnisher’s furnishing activities.
- Repeated CRA error reports and internal audit findings can supply “reasonable cause to believe” information is inaccurate, making continued furnishing without effective correction unlawful.
- A furnisher’s sustained failure to remediate known, systemic credit-reporting inaccuracies may constitute an unfair act or practice under the CFPA when it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.
- CFPB remedial authority in administrative resolutions may include civil money penalties, mandated data corrections, compliance plans, enhanced governance, monitoring, and reporting obligations.

## Conclusion

The CFPB’s consent order treated Santander’s multi-year furnishing of systemic, internally inconsistent credit data—despite repeated external and internal warnings—as violations of FCRA and Regulation V and as unfair conduct under the CFPA, warranting a $4.75 million penalty and comprehensive corrective, compliance, and oversight requirements.


In re Santander Consumer USA Inc., File No. 2020-BCFP-0027 (CFPB Dec. 21, 2020)