Fair Credit Reporting Act
Migliore v Sunlight Financial LLC
Date: June 15, 2026
Issue: Whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) permits a lender to obtain a consumer’s credit report when the consumer neither initiated nor authorized the underlying credit transaction.
Case Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Third Circuit decision that ruled the FCRA permits a lender to obtain a consumer’s credit report when the consumer neither initiated nor authorized the underlying credit transaction.
In May 2023, Eva Migliore sued Vision Solar entities, Vision Solar CEO Jon Seibert, Sunlight Financial LLC, and Cross River Bank (collectively, the Defendants), alleging they violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) and the FCRA. Migliore alleged that Vision Solar falsely promised her free solar panels, obtained nearly $100,000 in financing without her consent, forged her electronic signature on key documents, and accessed her credit report without authorization. Migliore also alleged Vision Solar sent the financing documents to a fraudulent email address created by its salesperson, preventing her from discovering the alleged fraud until after it installed the solar panels. When she later learned her roof failed inspection, and her property was too shaded for the system to work, she tried to cancel the transaction. The Defendants, however, allegedly refused to cancel the agreement.
In March 2024, Judge Christine O’Hearn dismissed the complaint, holding that Migliore failed to plausibly allege the salesperson acted as Vision Solar’s agent or that the Defendants engaged in deceptive conduct. The court also dismissed the FCRA claim after concluding that the salesperson acted as an “imposter” outside the Defendants’ control.
On appeal, a unanimous Third Circuit panel affirmed, holding that Migliore failed to state claims against Sunlight Financial and Cross River Bank under either the NJCFA or the FCRA. The panel concluded Migliore did not plausibly allege an agency relationship between the lenders and Vision Solar’s sales representative, precluding vicarious liability under the NJCFA because the Financing Program Agreement expressly disclaimed any agency relationship and reserved loan approval authority to the lenders. The panel also held that Migliore failed to plead direct NJCFA liability with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), identify any deceptive conduct by the lenders, or otherwise state a viable NJCFA claim. Finally, the panel held that the lenders had a permissible purpose under the FCRA to obtain Migliore’s credit report to evaluate her eligibility for a nearly $100,000 loan.
In its petition, Migliore made three main arguments. First, Migliore argued that the Third Circuit created a circuit split with the Seventh and Ninth Circuits by holding that the FCRA permits lenders to obtain a consumer’s credit report even when the consumer neither initiated nor authorized the underlying credit transaction. According to Migliore, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits require the consumer to initiate the transaction before a lender may rely on the FCRA’s permissible-purpose provision. Second, Migliore argued that the question presented — whether the FCRA permits a lender to obtain a consumer’s credit report when the consumer neither initiated nor authorized the underlying credit transaction — is fundamentally important because the Third Circuit’s decision weakens the FCRA’s core privacy protections by creating a broad “credit transaction” exception. Finally, Migliore argued the case provides an ideal vehicle to resolve the issue because the rapid growth of online and electronic lending has made the question increasingly important. However, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review without providing further commentary.
Bottom Line: The Supreme Court left intact the Third Circuit’s holding that the FCRA permits lenders to obtain a consumer’s credit report for a credit transaction even when the consumer neither initiated nor authorized the transaction.
Document: Third Circuit Opinion; Petition
