What Is an FCRA Case Worth in the Third Circuit? The Real Numbers From the Decisions
Ranges are noise; the published decisions tell you what juries and courts have actually awarded — and what drives the number up.
1. Actual damages
Economic loss plus emotional distress. Cortez's jury awarded $50,000 compensatory to a woman falsely flagged as a terrorist-list match, affirmed in full.
2. Statutory damages
$100–$1,000 per willful violation, no proof of loss required — the platform for more.
3. Punitive damages
Cortez: $750,000 from the jury, remitted to $100,000 and affirmed, for a $150,000 total judgment. Willfulness under Safeco includes reckless disregard, and the Fuges "reasonable reading" defense only stretches so far — it cannot excuse ignoring settled duties (Cushman's no-parroting rule, Ingram's mandatory investigation, Seamans's dispute-notation rule).
4. The New Jersey bonus layer
NJFCRA statutory and punitive damages can travel alongside the federal claims — a second, parallel damages framework in the same lawsuit.
5. Fee-shifting — the quiet engine
Successful FCRA actions shift attorney's fees to the defendant, which is why we can take these cases on contingency and why defendants settle documented cases.
What drives value in practice
Dissemination (who saw the error), consequences (denials, rate hikes, lost jobs or apartments), documentation (the dispute paper trail), and defendant conduct (rubber stamps and seconds-long investigations). Get a free case review at our FCRA attorney page.
FCRA Attorney — Case Law Library
The Third Circuit and Supreme Court decisions that decide FCRA cases in New Jersey.
Learn moreCortez v. Trans Union: branded a terrorist match — and a $150,000 lesson
OFAC 'terrorist list' alerts are part of your consumer report; the Third Circuit affirmed $150,000 against Trans Union.
Case Law LibraryCushman v. Trans Union: why credit bureaus can't just parrot the bank
Third Circuit case holding a §1681i reinvestigation must be more than repeating the furnisher — a cornerstone of NJ identity-theft cases.
Case Law LibraryIngram v. Experian: furnishers can't call a CRA-forwarded dispute frivolous
Third Circuit 2023 — a furnisher receiving an indirect dispute must investigate; reasonableness is a jury question.
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Kane Law Firm, LLC or any of its attorneys. Laws vary by state and change over time, and the application of the law to any specific situation depends on the particular facts. Do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read here without consulting a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Contacting us through this website, by email, or by phone does not create an attorney-client relationship; that relationship is formed only by a signed written engagement agreement. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This material may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of some jurisdictions.
