Consumer-Law Records

Comparables (ECOA, Price v. Diab, Holmes v. Bax) are only loosely analogous ADA/civil-rights rulings, not accessibility-specific merits decisions; two of three affirmed underlying ADA-type claims, suggesting courts are receptive to well-pled accessibility claims but fee/remedy scope remains contested.

Comparables are thin and not squarely on-point: Price v. Diab shows ADA default judgments plus fee awards are sustainable, and Holmes v. Bax affirms ADA violations can survive summary judgment, but the OLC ECOA opinion is analogous only in showing courts scrutinize statutory text/intent closely.

Comparable rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed a confidentiality claim to survive over tracking-tech disclosures, while Doe v. Integris left similar third-party sharing claims 'unclear' after removal was rejected. Clements v. Gunnar shows courts reluctant to dismiss health-data tracking claims at the pleading stage absent factual development.

Comparables show ADA accessibility claims often survive dismissal and can produce injunctive relief (Price v. Diab; Holmes v. Bax), but these are single-plaintiff Title III 'tester' suits with no statutory damages, only injunctive relief and fee-shifting exposure.

Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims often survive summary judgment but injunctive relief can be vacated on remedy grounds; Price v. Diab confirms fee-shifting risk even on default judgments, raising defendant's exposure regardless of merits outcome.

Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital shows FCRA claims against furnishers/CRAs often dismissed absent a private right of action or sufficient pleading, while Askins v. CRST shows bare statutory violations can still confer standing. Equifax has repeatedly settled similar FCRA disputes ($2.2M range) rather than litigate to judgment, suggesting moderate but not high survival odds.

Minano v. DLJ Mortgage shows courts readily dismiss FCRA claims lacking private right of action or plausible inaccuracy allegations, while Askins v. CRST shows bare statutory FCRA violations can survive standing challenges. Equifax has settled comparable FCRA disputes twice at $2.2M but also faced a $0.0M outcome, showing outcome variance.

Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital shows courts routinely dismiss FCRA furnisher claims lacking specific allegations of inaccurate reporting or reinvestigation failure, while Askins confirms bare statutory violations can still confer standing. Equifax has faced repeated individual FCRA filings (McClary, Dina, Ali, Porter, Jover, Pringle), suggesting a recurring litigation pattern rather than novel exposure.

Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital shows FCRA furnisher claims are frequently dismissed for lack of private right of action or insufficient pleading, while Askins v. CRST shows disclosure-based FCRA claims can survive on bare statutory violation theory. Clarity Services faces a mix of dismissal-prone and viable claim types depending on which FCRA provision is invoked.

PRA has direct adverse precedent in Wright v. PRA where its bill-of-sale/affidavit practice was found insufficient and the debtor's counterclaim should have succeeded, showing documentation vulnerabilities. However, Minano shows many FCRA furnisher claims get dismissed for no private right of action or thin pleading, cutting the other way.