CREDIT DATA OF ARIZONA, INC. v. STATE OF ARIZ. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A federal law permitting credit agencies to charge for reports does not preempt a state law that prohibits such fees. The court found the state law offered greater consumer protection and did not conflict with the federal act’s purpose, thus avoiding preemption under the Supremacy Clause.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a state law providing greater consumer protection is not preempted by a federal statute that merely permits, but does not require, a certain action, unless the state law obstructs the federal act’s purpose.
CREDIT DATA OF ARIZONA, INC. v. STATE OF ARIZ. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Credit Data of Arizona, Inc., a credit reporting agency, was subject to both the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Arizona’s consumer credit reporting law. The FCRA, at 15 U.S.C. § 1681j, permits a consumer reporting agency to impose a “reasonable charge” on a consumer for disclosure of their file if more than 30 days have passed since an adverse action notice. In contrast, the Arizona Consumer Credit Reporting Act, A.R.S. § 44-1693(D), completely prohibits agencies from charging any fee for making information available to consumers. Credit Data had been charging a $4.00 fee in situations permitted by the FCRA but ceased after the Arizona Attorney General threatened legal action for violating the state statute. Credit Data filed for a declaratory judgment, arguing that the federal law’s permission to charge created a right that preempted Arizona’s prohibition, creating an irreconcilable conflict under the Supremacy Clause. The district court granted summary judgment for the State of Arizona, and Credit Data appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which permits a credit reporting agency to charge a reasonable fee for certain disclosures, preempt a state law that prohibits charging any fee for such disclosures?
No. The court held that the Arizona law is not preempted by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which permits a credit reporting agency to charge a reasonable fee for certain disclosures, preempt a state law that prohibits charging any fee for such disclosures?
Conclusion
This case clarifies that under a federal statutory scheme with an express Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali
Legal Rule
A state law is not preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint oc
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the FCRA's express preemption clause, 15 U.S.C. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not preempt state laws