Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
FCRA Liability Harmonization Act
A Republican bill with 7 Republican cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 23.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "FCRA Liability Harmonization Act," aims to amend the civil liability requirements within the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It specifically introduces new regulations regarding class action lawsuits. The legislation changes how damages are determined for willful and negligent noncompliance. It also establishes new limits on total recoveries and legal costs for class action suits.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The legislation limits the financial exposure of businesses facing consumer class action lawsuits under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- Scored +5
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
The bill protects the wealth of high-net-worth entities by capping total class action recoveries at a percentage of their net worth or a fixed dollar amount.
- Scored +5
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
The cap of 1 percent of net worth on total recoveries provides a significant ceiling on liability for the wealthiest entities.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill reduces consumer protection by capping total class action recoveries and limiting damages for willful and negligent noncompliance.
- Scored -5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
By capping class action recoveries and attorney's fees, the bill makes it more difficult for low-income consumers to aggregate small damages via litigation.
- Scored -3
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill limits the ability of consumers to seek full redress through class action lawsuits by imposing various caps on damages and legal fees.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Limiting liability for willful noncompliance: Under Section 2(a)(1)(D), the bill limits the amount a person can be held liable for to the lesser of $100,000 or 40 percent of damages awarded under paragraph (1)(A).
-
Limiting liability for negligent noncompliance: Under Section 2(b)(1), the bill limits liability for negligent noncompliance to the lesser of $100,000 or 40 percent of actual damages.
-
Setting caps on class action total recoveries: Under Section 2(a)(3) and Section 2(b)(2), the bill establishes that total recovery for a class may not exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the person's net worth.
-
Capping legal costs and attorney's fees: Under Section 2(a)(3) and Section 2(b)(2), the bill limits the costs of action and reasonable attorney's fees to the lesser of $100,000 or a specific percentage of damages.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Prohibiting minimum damages in class actions: Under Section 2(a)(3), the court is prohibited from applying a minimum amount of damages for each member of a class in a lawsuit involving willful noncompliance.
-
Restricting total recovery amounts in class actions: Under Section 2(a)(3) and Section 2(b)(2), the total recovery for class action lawsuits is capped at the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the person's net worth, which may limit the amount available to consumers.
-
Limiting attorney's fees and costs: Under Section 2(a)(3) and Section 2(b)(2), the bill places limits on the total amount that can be used for the costs of an action and reasonable attorney's fees.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill restricts the amount of money that can be recovered from high-net-worth individuals through consumer class actions. Would business owners be better off under this? — The legislation limits the financial exposure of businesses facing consumer class action lawsuits under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill protects the wealth of high-net-worth entities by capping total class action recoveries at a percentage of their net worth or a fixed dollar amount. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The cap of 1 percent of net worth on total recoveries provides a significant ceiling on liability for the wealthiest entities. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill provides financial predictability for high-net-worth individuals and corporations by capping their potential liability in class action lawsuits. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — By capping class action recoveries and attorney's fees, the bill makes it more difficult for low-income consumers to aggregate small damages via litigation. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The reduction in class action efficacy may negatively impact large groups of urban residents who often rely on such suits for consumer rights enforcement.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill reduces consumer protection by capping total class action recoveries and limiting damages for willful and negligent noncompliance.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill limits the ability of consumers to seek full redress through class action lawsuits by imposing various caps on damages and legal fees.
- 6/30/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 23.
- 6/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/17/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Scott FitzgeraldRepublican · Wisconsin
Bill HuizengaRepublican · Michigan
Young KimRepublican · California
Daniel MeuserRepublican · Pennsylvania
Tim MooreRepublican · North Carolina
Ann WagnerRepublican · Missouri
Roger WilliamsRepublican · Texas