TRW Inc. v. Andrews

Background

A consumer, Adelaide Andrews, sued a national credit reporting company, TRW, after an impostor used Andrews’ Social Security number and TRW mistakenly disclosed Andrews’ credit file to several companies in 1994 and early 1995. Andrews did not learn of those disclosures until May 31, 1995, and filed suit on October 21, 1996, alleging TRW failed to verify requests and willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), seeking damages and punitive relief. The District Court held some claims were time-barred; the Ninth Circuit applied a broad discovery rule and revived them, prompting Supreme Court review.

Reasoning

The Court considered when the FCRA’s two-year limit in §1681p begins to run. It held that Congress wrote a general rule (the suit must be brought “within two years from the date on which the liability arises”) and a narrow exception for willful misrepresentations discovered later. The Court refused to read a broader discovery rule into the statute, explaining that doing so would render Congress’ explicit exception meaningless and that the statute’s text and structure showed Congress intended only the limited exception.

Real world impact

The decision makes many older claims about past credit-report disclosures vulnerable to time-bar bars: consumers who learn of old disclosures long after they occurred may be unable to sue. It affects consumers and credit reporting agencies nationwide and emphasizes the practical need for prompt review of credit reports. This ruling decides the timing issue; it does not resolve whether TRW was liable on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment, agreeing with the result but urging clearer recognition of the traditional rule that a limitations period runs when a complete cause of action exists rather than an injury-discovery rule.