- Case
- Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink, Inc.
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Citation
- No. 24-6413 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2026) (per curiam)
- Decided
- September 22, 2026
- Bottom line
- Companies that pull credit early in an online sign-up flow may avoid willful liability while the law on 'initiated' transactions stays unsettled.
Background
The FCRA lets a business obtain a consumer’s credit report only for a permissible purpose. One of them, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i), covers a “legitimate business need for the information” in connection with “a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer.”
Lydia Bultemeyer went through four steps of CenturyLink’s five-step online ordering process for internet service. After step four, CenturyLink pulled her credit report. At step five she decided not to order. She brought a class action arguing that a shopper who never clicks “submit” has not initiated a transaction, so CenturyLink had no permissible purpose.
The case was filed in 2014 and has a long history. The district court denied CenturyLink a defense under Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007), and the case went to trial. The jury found a willful violation and awarded each class member $500 in statutory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages, more than $140 million in total.
What the court held
The per curiam panel (Judges Clifton, Bybee, and Miller) reversed. Statutory and punitive damages under § 1681n require a willful violation. Under Safeco, a company does not act willfully if its reading of the statute, even if wrong, was not “objectively unreasonable.”
The court found CenturyLink cleared that bar for three reasons. Its reading of “initiated” had a foundation in the statutory text. No court of appeals had construed the provision in this setting. And no agency had given authoritative guidance that would have warned it away. The court rejected the argument that FTC guidance about car dealers was enough: that guidance addressed face-to-face discussions in a showroom and said nothing about online ordering.
Notably, the panel did not decide what “initiated by the consumer” means online. It held only that CenturyLink’s interpretation was reasonable enough to defeat willfulness.
The two concurrences split on the merits. Judge Clifton would hold that a shopper who completes all but the last step of an online purchase has initiated a transaction. Judge Bybee would hold the opposite: no transaction is initiated until the consumer knows the full cost, including any deposit, and clicks submit. He wrote that the result leaves CenturyLink free to “continue to act in presumptive violation of the Act.”
Our take
We share Judge Bybee’s frustration. The panel assumed a violation might have occurred, wiped out a jury verdict, and declined to say what the law requires. Because Safeco asks whether any court or agency has warned a company away from its reading, refusing to decide the question means the next company can make the same argument.
That is the structural problem with Safeco as courts apply it. When the statute is unclear and appellate courts keep resolving cases on willfulness alone, the law never becomes clear. Judge Bybee’s concurrence quoted the Ninth Circuit’s own earlier encouragement that courts decide disputed statutory questions before disposing of cases on willfulness, when feasible.
Defendants will cite this decision broadly to argue that any novel FCRA theory cannot support statutory or punitive damages. We think the opinion is narrower. It relied on the specific absence of appellate rulings and agency guidance about online transactions. Where courts or the CFPB have spoken, Safeco gives less cover.
The split between the two concurrences is useful in itself. It shows that two judges on the same panel read the statute in opposite ways, which supports the view that this question needs a definitive answer from a court or Congress.
What it means if your report is wrong
If you see a hard inquiry from a company you never did business with, it may still be a violation. This decision is about willfulness, not about whether the pull was lawful. A consumer with actual damages, such as a credit denial or a lower score that cost money, may still pursue a negligence claim under § 1681o. Save screenshots of any online application you abandoned and pull your reports to see who accessed them. A free case review can assess how this ruling affects your claim, with no fee unless we win.
Sources
Primary
Commentary we reviewed
Updated November 1, 2026. "Our take" is the firm's opinion. This page is general information, not legal advice, and later decisions may change the law.