NY Court Rules FCRA Preempts State Furnishing Claims

New York’s courts have held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s express preemption clause bars state‑law causes of action against entities acting in their capacity as furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies. In other words, if the claim is about how a furnisher reported or corrected credit information, FCRA preemption generally knocks out state furnishing‑based claims.

Core ruling and reasoning

• New York trial and federal courts applying Second Circuit precedent read 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) broadly to cover “any requirement or prohibition” under state law relating to the responsibilities of furnishers of information to CRAs.

• Claims repackaged as deceptive practices (for example, under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349), negligence, or other common‑law theories are still treated as FCRA claims “by any other name” when they challenge a furnisher’s duties to report accurately or to investigate disputes, and are therefore preempted.

Practical effect for furnishing claims

• If a plaintiff sues a bank, servicer, or other furnisher in New York for how it reported information to Equifax, Experian, etc., state statutory and common‑law claims tied to that reporting (defamation, negligence, GBL § 349, good‑faith, tortious interference, etc.) are typically dismissed as preempted.

• The remaining avenue is usually a federal FCRA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s‑2(b), which requires that the consumer first dispute the information with a CRA so the CRA can notify the furnisher and trigger the furnisher’s investigation duties.

Scope and limits

• Courts distinguish between claims targeting a furnisher’s reporting conduct (preempted) and claims based on other conduct not “with respect to” furnishing, which may fall outside § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and survive.

• A line of New York decisions also recognizes that post‑notice conduct by a furnisher (after it is told of inaccuracies) is squarely within the preempted zone, while some pre‑notice conduct can, in limited circumstances, support non‑preempted claims.​

Broader context

• The Second Circuit’s approach in cases like Macpherson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank aligns New York with other circuits (Fourth, Sixth, Seventh) that likewise hold FCRA preempts state‑law furnishing claims.

• More recently, federal guidance has emphasized a broad understanding of FCRA preemption over state rules that attempt to regulate the content of credit reporting, reinforcing the trend that many state‑law furnishing claims will be displaced by federal law.