[g051051]

> The moment credit agencies started running their own monitoring services, it seemed like they were openly admitting that they were defaming people. I still do not understand why this is legal.

If you're signed up for credit monitoring, you get notified when your credit info gets changed, so you have a chance to react if it's an error (or fraud). How is that defamation? Why would it be illegal?

[olliej]

No.

It's defamation because they know their information is frequently incorrect, that it is trivial for people to get outright fraudulent transactions attached to people's "credit report". Knowing that, they then present that information as fact to others, despite knowing that the information they provided is used specifically for purposes where false information will add significant costs to the people they're reporting on.

Now you're right, I can get credit monitoring, in which I pay money so that I can spend my time verifying they're not publishing fraudulent information. So now it goes from defamation to extortion: we'll defame you unless you pay us and do the work of ensuring we don't defame you.

[g051051]

They do not publish fraudulent data. They publish data provided by the credit grantors. If the credit grantors don't do their due diligence, that's on them, not the CRA. And if credit grantors fail to due that due diligence often enough, they get kicked out.

[handoflixue]

g051051? The guy who keeps trying to post porn all over this site? I can't believe you've got the guts to go posting here. I've told everyone about your disgusting behavior.

What's that? You never did that? Well, for just $5/month you can sign up for my monitoring service and we can investigate your claims. In the mean time, I'm going to keep warning everyone about your behavior.

I feel like most people would consider the above behavior unacceptable, but it's okay because I'm a big company dedicated to stopping perverts like you.

(hopefully it is clear that I'm not actually serious. Unlike the credit agencies)

[g051051]

You told a reporter that story. The reporter, _without verifying it_, then tells his newspaper that the story you told is true and he's verified it (which is a lie). Now the newspaper publishes it. Who's responsible?