Migliore v. Vision Solar: A Hard Lesson for Identity-Theft Victims on "Permissible Purpose" Claims

The setup

A door-to-door solar salesman forged an elderly consumer's signature on a $99,749.82, 25-year loan. The financing companies pulled her credit report without her knowledge. She sued, arguing they had no permissible purpose to access her file for a transaction she never initiated.

The holding

Migliore v. Vision Solar LLC, No. 24-1679 (3d Cir. Oct. 22, 2025) (precedential). The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the FCRA claims against the lenders, holding the "credit transaction involving the consumer" purpose applied:

"A creditor is permitted to obtain a consumer's credit report 'to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer.'"

"[U]nlike other provisions of the Credit Reporting Act, the 'credit transaction' provision contains no requirement that it be 'initiated by the consumer.'"

The Supreme Court declined review in July 2026.

Why it matters — the honest strategic read

Migliore is a consumer-unfavorable decision, and pretending otherwise would be malpractice-adjacent. Its lesson is about case architecture. After Migliore, the strongest identity-theft claims in this circuit usually aren't "you pulled my credit" claims against the defrauded lender — they are:

• Accuracy and reinvestigation claims against the bureaus (see Cushman).
• Investigation claims against furnishers who keep reporting the fraud after dispute (see Ingram, § 1681s-2(b)).
• State-law claims against the actual fraudster and, where it fits, the seller.

Victims should still send police reports and FTC identity-theft affidavits with every dispute. If a forged account is on your report, the case is winnable — it just has to be aimed at the right defendants, which is precisely what an FCRA litigator does. Start at our FCRA attorney page for a free case review.