�鶹��ý

Brief of the �鶹��ý Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and North Carolina supporting reversal. The brief addresses the district court’s erroneous application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to find the defendant consumer reporting agency immune from claims that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The brief argues that Section 230 does not provide immunity because the plaintiffs’ FCRA claims do not seek to impose liability on the consumer reporting agency as the publisher or speaker of another person’s content, as Section 230 requires. The brief argues further that the district court incorrectly applied Section 230 when it found the defendant is not an “information content provider” with respect its consumer reports, because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the company was responsible for the creation or development of the reports.