Question

Case Facts: Keith Santangelo contacted Comcast Corporation through its online customer service "chat" function and requested Internet service for his new apartment. During the chat session, a Comcast representative asked Santangelo for permission to run a credit inquiry. Santangelo asked if any option was available to avoid the credit inquiry. The Comcast representative told him that the company would forgo the inquiry if he paid a $50 deposit. The option to pay a $50 deposit in order to avoid the credit inquiry was an explicit part of Comcast's official Risk Management Policy. The policy also required a $50 deposit from any prospective customer who agreed to a credit inquiry but whose credit score proved to be unsatisfactory.

Santangelo opted to pay the $50 deposit in lieu of a credit inquiry. Nevertheless, Comcast, without Santangelo permission, pulled his credit report. This unauthorized credit inquiry lowered Santangelo's credit score. Santangelo filed a complaint alleging that Comcast's actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as Illinois state law. Comcast filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Santangelo had not stated a claim under the FCRA.

Issue: Can a company violate the FCRA by running a credit check on a customer who has paid a deposit in lieu of a credit inquiry?

Decision: Yes. The federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois held that Santangelo's complaint sufficiently alleged facts showing that Comcast had obtained his credit report without a permissible purpose in violation of the FCRA. Therefore, the court denied Comcast's motion to dismiss.

Questions to answer:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the decision that was made by the courts? Why or why not?
2. What ethical implications did Comcast cross when they ran the credit check without permission?

Answer 1

Answer: 1

Indeed, I thoroughly agree with the decision of court as Fair Credit Report Act ( FCRA) was shaped with the activity to ensure the shopper lawfully in restricting the entrance to their credit reports. Besides they were additionally dependable to rebuff the organizations if there should arise an occurrence of infringement. In the above case the organization i.e... Comcast Corporation without the permission of Santangelo ran the credit report and diminished her Credit Score which is illegal.

In addition the sum $50 store to the organization was the thought in return of guarantee . The Santangelo was only the potential endorser who has not given the membership agreement. Henceforth for legitimate assurance of enthusiasm of Santangelo the case made were adequate as credit check was not passable for the possible supporter and the decision made to preclude the Comcast's movement from securing excuse was suitable.

Answer: 2

The ethical Implication traverse by Comcast under this demonstrations were :

• Trust and Loyalty : The organization broke the trust of its client by utilizing unapproved intends to run the credit report and pulling down the credit score

• Infringement of Act : The Act is most importantly hence infringement of act is an unethical method to maintain the Business

• Set of principles : Every organizations have their own implicit rules, overstepping the law implies breaking the direct made by them henceforth what the organization did isn't acknowledged in morals

• Deceiving others : Many organizations depend on their credit score and by having unapproved get to this organization is misleading numerous others who depend on their data for giving administrations

• Other little traverse incorporates

• Hampering their own altruism

upsetting business worker connection as the entire situation occurred on visit conceivable the business didn't know about this circumstance

• offering opportunities to contender

PLEASE LIKE MY ANSWER