Financial and Business Groups Urge House Action on FCRA Liability Reform Bill

A coalition of financial services and business organizations is calling on U.S. House leadership to advance legislation that would change liability provisions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In a September 29 letter, 14 organizations urged House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Majority Whip Tom Emmer to prioritize H.R. 5775, the FCRA Liability Harmonization Act, for a floor vote before the end of the current Congress.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, would modify civil liability provisions under the FCRA, including provisions affecting class actions. It was introduced in October 2025 and advanced by the House Financial Services Committee in June 2026.

Coalition Calls for House Floor Consideration

The September letter was signed by organizations representing banks, credit unions, consumer reporting companies, automobile dealers, insurers, fintech companies and other businesses.

The groups argue that the legislation would address differences between the FCRA and liability provisions found in several other federal consumer financial protection statutes.

The coalition also maintains that current FCRA liability provisions can encourage litigation involving little or no actual injury and create pressure for businesses to settle cases because of potentially substantial damages and attorneys’ fees. Those arguments represent the supporting organizations’ position on the legislation. 

What H.R. 5775 Would Change

H.R. 5775 proposes amendments to the FCRA’s civil liability framework, including changes affecting class-action damages and attorneys’ fees.

Supporters describe the legislation as capping statutory damages in class actions, eliminating punitive damages and placing limits on attorneys’ fees while maintaining consumers’ ability to pursue individual and class-action claims.

The bill was introduced by Loudermilk on October 17, 2025. Its original cosponsors included Reps. Ann Wagner, Scott Fitzgerald, Daniel Meuser, Young Kim and Bill Huizenga.

The legislation would amend sections of the FCRA governing civil liability for willful and negligent noncompliance.

Groups Compare FCRA With Other Consumer Laws

In their letter, the organizations compared the FCRA’s liability structure with several other federal consumer financial protection laws.

They pointed to limits under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Truth in Lending Act as examples of statutes that contain specific limits on certain forms of liability.

For example, the coalition noted that the FDCPA and EFTA limit certain class-action damages to the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the defendant’s net worth. The letter also cited limits under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Truth in Lending Act.

The coalition argues that H.R. 5775 would create greater consistency between the FCRA and those statutes.

Debate Centers on Consumer Remedies and Litigation Exposure

The legislation involves a broader policy debate over the appropriate balance between consumer remedies and litigation exposure under the FCRA.

Supporters contend that limits on class-action liability could reduce litigation costs while leaving avenues available for consumers who experience FCRA violations. America’s Credit Unions, for example, has argued that reducing litigation expenses could allow credit unions to direct additional resources toward lending, member services, fraud prevention and compliance.

Changes to statutory and punitive damages can also affect the remedies available to consumers and the financial consequences businesses face when violations occur. The legislation therefore raises questions about how changes to liability could influence both private FCRA enforcement and business litigation risk.

Bill Advanced by House Financial Services Committee

H.R. 5775 moved forward on June 30, when the House Financial Services Committee considered the measure during a markup.

The committee ordered the bill reported, as amended, and the measure advanced on a 27-23 vote.

The bill has not yet received a vote on the House floor, according to reporting accompanying the September coalition letter.

The September 29 letter asks House leaders to make floor consideration a priority before the current Congress ends. Whether the legislation advances further will depend on congressional scheduling and subsequent action in the House and Senate.