Full opinion text
OPINION McKEE, Chief Judge. Sandra Cortez appeals the district court’s order remitting a jury’s punitive damages award of $750,000 to $100,000 on claims she brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681X. In its cross-appeal, Trans Union, LLC appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law and rejecting Trans Union’s challenge to the jury’s compensatory damages award of $50,000. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the district court’s orders. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual History This dispute began when Cortez encountered problems with a credit report that Trans Union sent to a car dealership where she was trying to purchase a car. It stemmed from a Trans Union product called “OFAC Advisor” that confused Cortez’s identity with the identity of someone with a similar name who was on a list compiled by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). We will discuss the OFAC List and Trans Union’s related product in greater detail below. We note now that OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. Those sanctions are aimed at specific regimes, individuals thought to be terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, as well as persons involved in activities related to the proliferation of “weapons of mass destruction.” http://www.treas.gov/offices/ enforcement/ofac/ (visited on June 17, 2010). OFAC maintains and publishes a list: [a]s part of its enforcement efforts, OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific. Collectively, such individuals and companies are called “Specially Designated Nationals” or “SDNs.” Their assets are blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them. http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcemenV ofac/faq/answer.shtml# 17 (visited on June 17, 2010). The persons and organizations in OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals & Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”) are so designated pursuant to a patchwork of federal laws, regulations, and executive orders. See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. §§ 536.101-36.901 (Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations) & 594.101-94.901 (Global Terrorism Sanctions); Exec. Order No. 13,-399, 71 Fed.Reg. 25,059 (April 25, 2006) (Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria). Individuals and businesses in the United States are generally prohibited from conducting any business with anyone named on OFAC’s SDN List. See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. § 536.201 (“[N]o property or interests in property of a specially designated narcotics trafficker that are in the United States ... may be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn or otherwise dealt in.”). Trans Union describes its product, the OFAC Advisor, which is also discussed in greater detail below, as a “screening solution that provides credit grantors with a simple, automatic method for use in complying with new federal regulations as set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act.” J.A. 808. Sandra Cortez was born in 1944 in Chicago. She was living in Colorado when, in March of 2005, she decided to buy a new car. Before visiting a car dealer, she decided to check her credit report to learn her credit score. Her score was approximately 760, which is a very good credit rating. J.A. 80; see also J.A. 526-27 (listing Cortez’s score as 761 in the credit report obtained by the dealership); htt p://www.myfico.com/myfico/CreditCentral/ LoanRates.aspx (visited on June 17, 2010). The credit report that Cortez downloaded before going to the car dealership was compiled and furnished by Trans Union, one of the three major companies providing credit reports in the United States. That report contained no information about OFAC’s SDN List and did not suggest that Cortez was a “Specially Designated National” or SDN, nor did it contain any information that would suggest that she was suspected of being associated with anyone who was an SDN. Cortez planned to finance her car purchase through the dealership. Armed with knowledge of her strong credit score and a copy of her credit report, Cortez went to John Elway Subaru a car dealership in Colorado, to purchase a car. She arrived at the dealership at approximately 1:00 pm and was ready to proceed with a purchase about thirty minutes later. She began completing the required paper work and furnishing the information required to obtain a car loan through the dealership. The dealership’s finance manager, Tyler Sullivan, used the information Cortez provided to obtain Cortez’s credit report. J.A. 468. It was a Trans Union credit report because the dealership subscribed to Trans Union’s credit reporting services, including the OFAC Advisor. Unlike the credit report Cortez had downloaded before going to the dealership, the Trans Union credit report that the dealership obtained contained what Sullivan later referred to as an “advisor alert,” which was an alert from the OFAC Advisor. J.A. 471. This was the first time that Sullivan had ever seen such an alert. Id. He called the regional finance director to determine how he should respond. J.A. 472-73. He then went to OFAC’s SDN List on the Treasury Department’s website “to check [Cortez’s] name against the actual list.” J.A. 473. In searching the list, he first “look[ed] for a matching name” and if there was a match, he planned to check birth dates. J.A. 474. Sullivan then returned to Cortez and started asking her questions including whether she had “always lived in the United States, if [she] had ever lived outside of the country” and other “really strange questions.” J.A. 83. He then showed Cortez the credit report Trans Union had provided to the dealership. When she looked at it, she saw that “it had all of these OFAC Alerts, talk alerts.” Id. Cortez was very confused, she explained to Sullivan that she had “never been out of the country and that [she] was born in Chicago.” Id. Sullivan responded by telling Cortez that “he was going to have to check with the FBI ... [t]o see if [she] was this person” in the OFAC alert on her credit report. J.A. 84. As this was occurring, Cortez was waiting in the salesperson’s office, and the dealership had her car keys. Id. Finally, at about 5:00 pm, Cortez said she had to leave, but someone asked her to wait. J.A. 84-85. When she asked what the person was going to do, again she was told that the FBI would be called. At this point, hours had passed and the dealership was holding Cortez’s down payment on the car. Id. A short time later, Cortez finally left the dealership. She called the dealership that same evening and was told that they had determined that she “probably” was not the person in the OFAC alert, and that she could pick up the car. J.A. 85. That evening, she did go back to the dealership and she eventually got the car. Before leaving the dealership with her new car, she asked for a copy of the credit report that the dealership had received from Trans Union. The dealership provided a copy, and pointed out the OFAC and HAWK alerts on the report. That credit report was a two-page document entitled: “TRANSUNION CREDIT REPORT.” J.A. 526-27. It contained identifying information about Cortez including her name, Social Security number, birth date, current and former addresses, telephone number, and employer. A number of sections appeared directly below that information in the same font and style. The first such section was labeled: “SPECIAL MESSAGES.” That “SPECIAL MESSAGES” section contained the OFAC and HAWK alerts. It was followed by: “MODEL PROFILE,” which contained several numbers including Cortez’s FICO credit score. The report then contained the following four sections: “CREDIT SUMMARY”, “TRADES”, “INQUIRIES”, and “END OF CREDIT REPORT-SERVICED BY.” Id. The “SPECIAL MESSAGES” section on the first page stated: “HAWK ALERT: INPUT ISSUED: 1959-60; STATE: CA; (EST. AGE OBTAINED 00+ TO) ... HAWK ALERT: FILE ISSUED: 1959-60; STATE CA; (EST. AGE OBTAINED + 14 TO +16).” This was followed by eight entries titled: “OFAC ADVISOR ALERT—INPUT NAME MATCHES NAME ON THE OFAC DATABASE.” The information in those eight entries was similar to the information in OFAC’s SDN List, including the name: “Cortes Quintero, Sandra.” J.A. 526-27. That report is not visually the same as the report Trans Union provides to consumers. It also does not have the same exact content. The report that was sent to the dealership contained no additional information about the significance of the OFAC alerts and no information about how to follow up or contact anyone regarding any OFAC alerts that may appear. J.A. 187-89. In the aftermath of her visit to the car dealership, Cortez contacted Trans Union a total of four times in an effort to correct her credit report. J.A. 199. She first telephoned Trans Union on March 31, 2005, soon after she purchased the car. J.A. 93. On that day, she spoke with Trans Union’s customer service representatives who told Cortez that there were no OFAC alerts on her credit report. J.A. 207. Cortez responded by faxing a copy of the report she had obtained from the dealership along with a letter that summarized her experience there. J.A. 93. In that letter, she told the customer service representative that she had spent a total of six and a half hours in the dealership, that she was told the FBI would have to be contacted, and that she was asked not to leave while the dealership looked into the issue. J.A. 94-95; J.A. 533. On April 6, 2005, not having received any response to her letter, Cortez sent another letter to Trans Union. J.A. 96; J.A. 219; J.A. 534. In that letter, she again explained that there were “several terrorist alerts” on her credit report and she asked for “a response from [the] company regarding these alerts.” J.A. 96-97. Cortez received a generic written response to that letter. The letter she received was dated April 18, 2005, and was unsigned. It stated: After reviewing your correspondence, we were unable to determine the nature of your request. To investigate information contained in your credit report, please list the account name and number, and specify why you are disputing it (for example, “this is not my account”, “I have never paid late”, “I have paid this account in full”, etc.). Unless you provide us this information, your request will be considered frivolous under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, and we will be unable to initiate an investigation. J.A. 537. By letter dated April 24, 2005, Cortez responded to Trans Union’s April 18, 2005 letter. J.A. 99. She included copies of her prior correspondence and explained, “[w]ith this letter, this makes my fourth request to have this incorrect information removed from my credit report. If you look at the credit report enclosed you will notice 10 Hawk and OFAC Advisor alerts.... I am disputing these alerts because they do not belong to me. The name is different, the birthdate is different and I do not have a passport. I want these alerts removed from my account.” J.A. 539. Cortez also notified Trans Union a second time that it had the wrong employer listed for her. Id. Cortez received a response from Trans Union dated May 10, 2005. Under the heading “Re: Dispute Status—No Hawk Alerts or OFAC Advisor Alerts,” the letter stated, “[b]ased on the information provided to TransUnion, our records show that the information you disputed does not currently appear on your TransUnion credit report.” J.A. 545. Based on this letter, Cortez believed that Trans Union had removed the HAWK and OFAC alerts from her credit report. J.A. 102. On June 3, 2005, Cortez returned to the dealership and asked for another credit report in order to confirm that the alerts had in fact been removed. Despite Trans Union’s representation to the contrary, the credit report the dealership furnished to Cortez still had OFAC alerts. J.A. 103. There were, however, some changes from the report that had initially been sent to the dealership the day Cortez went to buy a car. The June 3, 2005 report no longer had the phrase: “HAWK ALERT.” Instead, the report now stated: “HIGH RISK FRAUD ALERT: CLEAR FOR ALL SEARCHES PERFORMED.” J.A. 546. It still stated: “OFAC NAME SCREEN ALERT—INPUT NAME MATCHES NAME ON THE OFAC DATABASE.” Id. It then had four entries with information from OFAC’s SDN List (as opposed to eight in the original credit report furnished by the dealership). Cortez next went online to the Treasury Department website to determine whether her name actually appeared on OFAC’s SDN List. She discovered a similar name and emailed the Treasury Department to ask how she might correct the error and remedy her situation. J.A. 104-05. The Treasury Department referred her to information on its website, which she later testified stated the following: If credit bureaus choose to place OFAC information on their credit reports [sic] they should consider the following guidelines. The text on the report should explain that the individual’s information is similar to the information of an individual on OFAC’s SDN list. It should not state ... that the information matches, or that the credit applicant is, in fact, the individual on the SDN list unless the credit bureau has already verified that the person is indeed on the SDN [list]. J.A. 106-07. In June of 2006, a landlord pulled Cortez’s Trans Union credit report when she tried to rent an apartment. Cortez told him about the OFAC alerts before he reviewed the credit report, in an effort to explain and minimize their effect. That credit report, dated June 12, 2006, was substantially similar to the second report Cortez had received from the dealership more than a year earlier. J.A. 549-51. Although it did not contain any “HAWK ALERT” messages, it still stated, “OFAC NAME SCREEN ALERT—INPUT NAME MATCHES NAME ON THE OFAC DATABASE”. Id. It also still had four entries with information from OFAC’s SDN List. Nevertheless, Cortez was able to rent the apartment. J.A. 112. From the first day in Elway Subaru, when Cortez learned about the OFAC alerts on her credit report, Cortez spoke with her daughter, Anna Marie Schen, about her ordeal. J.A. 141. The OFAC alerts came up at least once during every communication between Cortez and Schen after the incident at Elway Subaru, and subsequent trial testimony established that the alerts often reduced Cortez to tears. The alerts also caused Cortez to lose weight and they interfered with her ability to sleep to such an extent that she resorted to medication. J.A. 142. According to Schen, the credit report issue “is the number one stressor in [Cortez’s] life.... [T]his is a big stressor over the past two years.” J.A. 143-44. It has been “very ... devastating.” J.A. 146. B. The Significance of OFAC Alerts and the SDN List The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, better known as the USA PATRIOT Act, further codified the obligations of financial institutions in their dealings with individuals on OFAC’s SDN List. 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001). Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Treasury Department must “require financial institutions to implement ... reasonable procedures for ... consulting lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency to determine whether a person seeking to open an account appears on any such list.” 31 U.S.C. § 5318(l)(2); see 31 C.F.R. § 103.121(b)(4) (The Customer Identification Program “must include procedures for determining whether the customer appears on any list of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations issued by any Federal government agency.”). “[Transactions are prohibited ... if either such transactions are by, or on behalf of, or pursuant to the direction of any designated foreign country, or any national thereof.” 31 C.F.R. § 500.201. In most cases, it is unlawful to extend credit to a person whose name is on OFAC’s SDN List. Depending on the applicable law, regulation, or executive order involved, failure to comply with these restrictions may result in civil as well as criminal penalties. Willful violations carry criminal penalties with fines ranging from $50,000 to $10,000,-000 as well as imprisonment ranging from 5, 10 to 30 years, or even life. Civil penalties range from $10,000 to $1,000,000, or twice the amount of each underlying transaction per violation. In a “Q & A” section included on its website, OFAC posts the following question: “What Is This OFAC Information On My Credit Report?” It then offers the following reply: Credit bureaus and agencies in particular have adopted new measures to ensure compliance with OFAC regulations. Before issuing a credit report, they use special “interdiction” software developed by the private sector to determine if a credit applicant is on the SDN list. This software matches the credit applicant’s name and other information to the individuals on the SDN list. If there is a potential match, the credit bureaus are placing a “red flag” or alert on the report. This does not necessarily mean that someone is illegally using your social security number or that you have bad credit. It is merely a reminder to the person checking your credit that he or she should verify whether you are the individual on the SDN list by comparing your information to the OFAC information. If you are not the individual on the SDN list, the person checking your credit should disregard the OFAC alert, and there is no need to contact OFAC. However, if the person checking your credit believes you are the person on the SDN list, then he or she should call the OFAC Hotline to verify and report it. http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ ofac/faq/answer.shtml# consumerl (visited on June 17, 2010). On that same website, OFAC also answers the question: “How Can I Get The OFAC Alert Off My Credit Report?” as follows: A consumer has the right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., to request the removal of incorrect information on his/her credit report. To accomplish this, consumers should contact the credit reporting agency or bureau that issued the credit report. For more information on consumers’ rights under the FCRA, visit the Federal Trade Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcrajump. shtm http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ ofac/faq/answer.shtml#consumer2 (visited on June 17, 2010). C. Trans Union’s OFAC Advisor OFAC recognizes the need to ensure that its reports do not mistakenly associate innocent and unsuspecting persons with persons who are properly labeled “SDN.” Thus, OFAC cautions: “organizations involved in the credit reporting process .... can make an important contribution by identifying sanctioned individuals in order to block their ability to use the U.S. financial system and to do business in the United States, but at the same time they should strive to protect consumers from erroneous or misleading information appearing on credit reports.” Department of Treasury, OFAC REGULATIONS FOR THE CREDIT REPORTING INDUSTRY, Apr. 13, 2004, http://www.treas.gov/ offiees/enforcement/ofac/regulations/faccr. pdf (visited June 17, 2010). In September of 2002, Trans Union announced a “new product for USA Patriot Act Compliance” which it called: “OFAC Advisor.” Trans Union lauded the product as a “screening solution that provides credit grantors with a simple, automatic method for use in complying with new federal regulations as set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act.” J.A. 808. Trans Union refers to the SDN information that it reports from OFAC as an “OFAC Name Screen Alert.” See, e.g., J.A. 549, 570. The OFAC alert on Trans Union credit reports was developed by a team that included individuals from Trans Union’s business and systems units, as well as people from the legal and compliance sections. J.A. 311. In the normal course of developing any such product, a legal and compliance team do preliminary reviews to determine whether the product is “going to require permissible purpose, disclosure, [and/or have] contractual issues.” J.A. 312. After the product is developed, another final review is done by a legal team. Id. The information in Trans Union’s OFAC alert is provided to purchasers through a third party vendor called “Accuity.” J.A. 574, 809. Trans Union decided not to include the underlying information for its OFAC product in Trans Union’s own database. That database is called “CRONUS.” Trans Union decided to do that because “the only common denominator in all the entries [referring to OFAC’s SDN List] was a name.” J.A. 313. Unlike CRONUS, the entries in the SDN List do not always include birth dates, addresses, or Social Security numbers that Trans Union routinely stores and relies on when associating a given consumer with information. Id. Having decided to use Accuity rather than maintain the information itself, Trans Union then marketed the OFAC information as part of a separate product called “OFAC Advisor.” J.A. 313-14, 808-09. Trans Union does not sell the OFAC alert information as a stand alone product; creditors must first purchase a Trans Union product such as credit report services and the OFAC alert is added to that product. Purchasers of Trans Union’s credit reports who wanted to subscribe to the OFAC Advisor were required to sign an addendum to their agreement with Trans Union in order to subscribe to the OFAC Advisor. Those who purchased OFAC Advisor received one credit report from Trans Union with the OFAC information contained in it. However, Trans Union created the report from at least two separate sources: its own CRONUS database and information stored with Accuity. Trans Union requires creditors to provide at least a name and address of a consumer to retrieve information from CRONUS. J.A. 319. However, when retrieving OFAC information, Trans Union sends only a name to Accuity, even though Trans Union may have more information about the person who is the subject of the inquiry. J.A. 318. Trans Union reports a “match” whenever names are “similar.” J.A. 180. Trans Union enters the information it receives from Accuity under the “SPECIAL MESSAGES” section appearing on its credit reports. Trans Union does no other comparison or due diligence with the data it receives from Accuity to attempt to match it to the consumer whose credit report is being furnished. Thus, Trans Union neither compares the OFAC information to other information about a given consumer already in its files, nor does it compare it to any information provided by the creditor/subscriber. J.A. 179. Moreover, once Trans Union receives the OFAC information it does not check or confirm its accuracy; in fact, Trans Union has a policy of never reinvestigating disputes involving OFAC alerts. J.A. 203-04. Trans Union merely “report[s] back that the input information is a match to the OFAC report.” J.A. 204. In a presentation that Trans Union gives to potential subscribers to the OFAC Advisor, Trans Union states, “The U.S. Treasury Department requires that all institutions comply to insure that they are not extending credit or financial services to customers on the Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC list, of known terrorists, drug traffickers, and money launderers.” J.A. 155, 570. The presentation represents that Trans Union acts in “partnership” with Accuity and lauds the advantages of this product. J.A. 574. Trans Union describes Accuity as an “[ijndustry leader in OFAC screening services.” Id. The slide boasts that the product is “[e]ndorsed” by the American Bankers Association and that it has “[bjroader and more comprehensive file coverage.” Id. Trans Union also claims its database has “[ejffective matching logic” that will “[rjeduce [the] number of false positives.” J.A. 574-75. As Cortez discovered, the information in the “SPECIAL MESSAGES” section of Trans Union’s credit reports is not included in credit reports that Trans Union sends to consumers on request. J.A. 157. The credit reports sent to consumers do have a public records section, which contains information such as tax liens, judgments, or bankruptcies. That information is retrieved from CRONUS. J.A. 214. If Trans Union receives a dispute related to information in the public record section of a report, it investigates the dispute by either checking with its public record vendor or checking court records containing the disputed information. J.A. 199-200. Trans Union does not, however, conduct any investigation in response to disputes related to OFAC alerts. J.A. 201. It is not clear what Trans Union’s customer service representatives tell consumers who dispute OFAC alerts. According to one of Trans Union’s group managers who testified at the trial, the company’s policy is to refer consumers who complain about an OFAC alert to the Treasury Department. J.A. 205; 211. However, this did not occur in Cortez’s case. According to Trans Union, when the dealership first reviewed Cortez’s credit report, Trans Union could not block OFAC information from being included if Accuity determined that her name matched a name on OFAC’s SDN List. J.A. 182-88. This continued to be true at least through September of 2006. However, when this case came to trial, Trans Union had blocked several similar names and any “Sandra Cortez” was blocked from having an OFAC alert on her credit report. J.A. 183-84. The Fair Credit Reporting Act will be discussed in detail below. However, it is helpful at this point to note that the Act affords certain protections to consumers by regulating the disclosure and use of “consumer credit reports” as defined by the Act. Trans Union made an internal determination that the OFAC Advisor was not governed by the FCRA. According to Trans Union’s director of solutions and business development, “[a]fter review by our legal and compliance department they determined that this was not FCRA data.” J.A. 169. D. Procedural History Cortez brought this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act after Trans Union failed to correct the problems with her credit report or respond satisfactorily to her inquiries. The suit proceeded to verdict. The jury found that Trans Union failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in producing Cortez’s credit report and was negligent in doing so. The jury concluded that Trans Union willfully failed to reasonably reinvestigate Cortez’s disputes after she informed the company of the erroneous OFAC alert it had included on her credit report. The jury also found that Trans Union willfully failed to note Cortez’s dispute on subsequent reports and that it willfully failed to provide Cortez all of the information in her file despite her requests. The jury awarded Cortez $50,000 in actual damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. Thereafter, Trans Union moved for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative a new trial or remittitur of the damages awards. The district court denied Trans Union’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that the OFAC information was part of Cortez’s credit report and thus, governed by the FCRA. Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, Civ. No. 05-5684, 2007 WL 2702945, at **1-2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 13, 2007). The court also held that there was no basis for granting defendant a new trial, “except with respect to the alleged excessiveness of the jury’s verdict.” Id. at *2. The court confirmed the $50,000 compensatory damages award but found that the $750,000 punitive damages award “exceeded permissible limits.” Id. The district court concluded that “an award of punitive damages ... [of] double the amount of the compensatory award [was the] maximum which this record would support.” Id. The court then entered an order which stated in pertinent part: “Defendant’s motion for a new trial is GRANTED with respect to damages, unless, within 30 days, plaintiff accepts a remittitur, limiting the award to $50,000 compensatory damages and $100,000 punitive damages, for a total award of $150,000.” Id. at *3. Cortez appealed that order on October 12, 2007. The same day that she filed her notice of appeal, she conditionally accepted the district court’s remittitur by appending the following statement: “In the event that the District Court was acting properly within its power and jurisdiction in entering its Order of September 13, 2007, which is a subject of Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal ... Plaintiff hereby accepts the remittitur.” See E.D. Pa. Docket No. 71. We dismissed Cortez’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order she appealed was not a final appealable order. Thereafter, Trans Union moved for final judgment. The district court granted judgment to Trans Union “[bjecause [Cortez] accepted the remittitur.” Cortez v. Trans Union LLC, Civ. No. 05-5684, 2008 WL 1944160, at *1 (E.D.Pa. May 1, 2008). This appeal and cross-appeal followed. Cortez challenges the remittitur that reduced her punitive damages award, and Trans Union challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, as well as the damages award that the court did approve. II. THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT “The ... FCRA ... was crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential and responsible manner.” Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1995) (citations omitted). Congress intended to promote efficiency in the nation’s banking system and to protect consumer privacy. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 24, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)). Congress addressed the latter concern by including provisions intended “to prevent consumers from being unjustly damaged because of inaccurate or arbitrary information in a credit report.” S.Rep. No. 91-517, at 1 (1969). Congress also hoped to address a number of related problems, including “the inability at times of the consumer to know he is being damaged by an adverse credit report,” the lack of “access to the information in [his] file,” the “difficulty in correcting inaccurate information,” and “getting [his] version of a legitimate dispute recorded in ... [his] credit file.” Id. at 3 (1969). “These consumer oriented objectives support a liberal construction of the FCRA,” and any interpretation of this remedial statute must reflect those objectives. Guimond, 45 F.3d at 1333. In its cross-appeal, Trans Union first argues that its OFAC alert is not covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to Trans Union, the FCRA does not apply to OFAC information because the “OFAC Screen” is not part of a “consumer report.” Trans Union Br. at 18. Inasmuch as that claim goes to the validity of the jury’s verdict, we will first discuss Trans Union’s cross-appeal. A. Reasonable Procedures for Maximum Accuracy, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) provides in relevant part: “Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” As noted, the jury concluded that Trans Union had breached the standard of care required by § 1681e(b). However, Trans Union claims that since the OFAC alert is not covered by § 1681e(b), the district court erred in denying Trans Union’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1) defines a consumer report, in relevant part, as: any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for—(A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.... (emphasis added). Trans Union’s argument that the OFAC alert somehow manages to avoid the reach of the FCRA ignores the breadth of the language that Congress used in drafting that statute. It is not contested that the credit report that Trans Union sent to Elway Subaru was otherwise subject to the FCRA. Indeed, such reports are precisely what the FCRA was intended to cover. In order to conclude that the OFAC alert is not subject to that remedial statute even though the rest of the report clearly falls within the definition of “consumer report,” we would have to conclude that Congress did not mean what it said when it unequivocally defined “consumer report” to include “any ... communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1). Trans Union seeks to avoid this result by arguing that the OFAC alerts were not “used or expected to be used ... in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for ... credit” because, according to its agreement with Elway Subaru, the screen was to be used only for USA PATRIOT Act compliance. Id.; see J.A. 568. As noted above, businesses in the United States are generally prohibited from dealing with anyone listed on OFAC’s SDN List. See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. § 536.201 (“[N]o property or interests in property of a specially designated narcotics trafficker that are in the United States ... may be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn or otherwise dealt in.”). Thus, in most cases, it is unlawful to extend credit to a person on OFAC’s SDN List. Trans Union invites us to conclude that information that goes to the very legality of a credit transaction is somehow not “a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility ... for credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1). It is difficult to imagine an inquiry more central to a consumer’s “eligibility” for credit than whether federal law prohibits extending credit to that consumer in the first instance. The applicability of the FCRA is not negated merely because the creditor/dealership could have used the OFAC Screen to comply with the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as deciding whether it was legal to extend credit to the consumer. Trans Union also relies on the subscriber addendum to its agreements with creditors to argue that its terms establish that the OFAC alert is not part of credit reports it prepares under the FCRA. Pursuant to that agreement, the creditor or subscriber agrees to be “solely responsible for taking any action that may be required by federal law as a result of a match to the OFAC File, and shall not deny or otherwise take any adverse action against any consumer based solely on TransUnion’s OFAC Advisor services.” J.A. 568. We are not persuaded that Trans Union’s private contractual arrangements with its clients can alter the application of federal law, absent a statutory provision allowing that rather unique result. As described more fully above, the “SPECIAL MESSAGES” section of Trans Union’s credit reports that contain the OFAC alerts is on the first page between the identifying information and the consumer’s credit score and in the same formatting as that information. Thus, the OFAC alerts allow the creditor to seamlessly determine a consumer’s eligibility for a loan even before looking at the consumer’s credit score. Trans Union also argues that, even if the OFAC alert is covered by the FCRA, the jury’s verdict cannot stand because the evidence did not allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that it was negligent in dealing with Cortez, as required for liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). We disagree. B. Negligence According to Trans Union, its credit report contained the most accurate information possible because Trans Union simply included the information furnished by the government. Hence, it was not reasonable to expect Trans Union to do anything more than it did to insure the accuracy of the information it sold in its credit report. Trans Union argues that it merely informed the dealership that Cortez was a possible match with someone listed on OFAC’s SDN List, and it met § 1681e(b)’s requirement of maximum possible accuracy because “match” connotes “possible match” rather than “exact match.” Negligent noncompliance with § 1681e(b), consists of the following four elements: “(1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer’s credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) the consumer suffered injury; and (4) the consumer’s injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry.” Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957, 963 (3d Cir.1996). In rejecting Trans Union’s claim and upholding the jury’s verdict, the district court correctly concluded that Trans Union’s use of the OFAC alert created the impression that Cortez was actually the person named on OFAC’s SDN List. While the word “match” may be ambiguous in some circumstances, the jury was entitled to view Trans Union’s actions in their proper context. Trans Union provided the credit report with the OFAC alerts to the dealership in response to receiving identifying information about a specific consumer, Cortez. The dealership relied upon the information about Cortez that Trans Union provided to determine whether or not to finance her car purchase. The alert on Cortez’s credit report does not state that the names are “similar” to someone on the SDN List or that a match is “possible.” It reported a “match” with someone on the SDN List. Thus, the jury and district court correctly determined that Trans Union could have taken reasonable measures to assure maximum possible accuracy of its credit report with respect to these alerts. “Reasonable procedures are those that a reasonably prudent person would undertake under the circumstances. Judging the reasonableness of a credit reporting agency’s procedures involves weighing the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy.” Philbin, 101 F.3d at 963 (alterations, quotations, and citations omitted). It is important to note that § 1681e(b) erects a standard of “maximum possible accuracy.” That requires more than merely allowing for the possibility of accuracy. In Philbin, the plaintiffs credit report contained a lien that actually belonged to his father. 101 F.3d at 960. He wrote to the credit reporting agency, which corrected the error and added a notation to the credit report stating, “Do not confuse with father James Philbin Sr different address different social security number.” Id. Two and a half years later, the plaintiff applied for and was denied credit a number of times. Id. at 960-61. The plaintiff then requested his credit report from Trans Union Corp. (“TUC”) and TRW Credentials, Inc. Id. at 961. The TRW report had no errors. Id. When he finally obtained the report from TUC, it still noted the tax lien. Id. After filing suit, the plaintiff was again denied credit and learned that the tax lien was still on his credit report, along with other erroneous information. Id. In reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of TUC on Philbin’s § 1681e(b) claim, we held that an unspecified “quantum of evidence” beyond a mere inaccuracy is sufficient for a jury to find negligent failure to assure maximum possible accuracy unless a credit reporting agency convinces the jury otherwise. Id. at 965. We also reiterated that inconsistencies between two different reports concerning a single consumer are sufficient to meet this standard. Id. at 964, 966. Cortez’s evidence is even stronger. Here, the jury could consider evidence of an inconsistency between identifying information provided by Trans Union, for example, Cortez’s birth date, and the information on the SDN List. The jury could reasonably conclude that Trans Union could have taken steps to minimize the possibility that it would erroneously place an OFAC alert on a credit report, such as checking the birth date of the consumer against the birth date of the person on the SDN List. Moreover, the distinction between “accuracy” and “maximum possible accuracy” is not nearly as subtle as may at first appear, it is in fact quite dramatic. For example, in Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir.1986), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit described that distinction as the difference between reporting that “a person was ‘involved’ in a credit card scam” and reporting that the consumer “was in fact one of the victims of the scam.” Id. at 1263. The former statement was undoubtedly true as the consumer had been “involved” in the scam. It was also woefully misleading because it did not inform people that she was involved as a victim of the scam, and not as the perpetrator. Moreover, the reasonableness of a credit reporting agency’s procedures is “normally a question for trial unless the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the procedures is beyond question.” Sarver v. Experian Info. Solutions, 390 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir.2004). In Philbin, we listed three different approaches that various courts have taken in determining if a plaintiff has introduced sufficient evidence to reach the jury under § 1681e(b). Those approaches are: “that a plaintiff must produce some evidence beyond a mere inaccuracy in order to demonstrate the failure to follow reasonable procedures; that the jury may infer the failure to follow reasonable procedures from the mere fact of an inaccuracy; or that upon demonstrating an inaccuracy, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that reasonable procedures were followed.” Philbin, 101 F.3d at 965. We did not have to decide upon any one approach in Philbin because the plaintiff had produced evidence sufficient to meet any of the three standards. Id. at 966. The same is true here. Trans Union’s own records showed that Cortez was born in May of 1944 and her middle name was “Jean.” J.A. 526-527. The person on OFAC’s SDN List was named Sandra Quintero Cortes and was born in June of 1971. Id. Within Trans Union’s own records there existed a large discrepancy in regard to Cortez’s last name, middle name, and even her date of birth. There were other discrepancies as well, including citizenship. Despite those distinctions, the credit report Trans Union sent to the dealership stated: “INPUT NAME MATCHES NAME ON THE OFAC DATABASE.” Trans Union included that “warning” even though it had information that should have made it apparent that the OFAC alert had no place in Cortez’s credit report. There are, of course, inherent dangers in including any information in a credit report that a credit reporting agency cannot confirm is related to a particular consumer. Such information is nearly always “used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for ... credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1). Allowing a credit agency to include misleading information as cavalierly as Trans Union did here negates the protections Congress was trying to afford consumers and lending institutions involved in credit transactions when it enacted the FCRA. Congress surely did not intentionally weave an exception into the fabric of the FCRA that would destroy its remedial scheme by allowing a credit reporting agency to escape responsibility for its carelessness whenever misleading information finds its way into a credit report through the agency of a third party. Thus, Trans Union’s argument that it does not control the accuracy of the SDN List is as misleading as the information it provided about Cortez. Trans Union does not know for sure that a consumer has habitually been delinquent in paying his/her credit cards bills, or that s/he does not promptly pay obligations to merchants or taxing authorities. Rather, it collects such information from the primary sources, summarizes it, and reports it to those who will subsequently rely on the resulting reports in making consumer credit decisions. Therefore, the OFAC information is not substantially different from all other information in a credit report, including information taken from public records. Trans Union remains responsible for the accuracy in its reports under the FCRA and it cannot escape that responsibility as easily as it suggests here. Congress clearly intended to ensure that credit reporting agencies exercise care when deciding to associate information with a given consumer, and the record clearly supports the jury’s determination that Trans Union did not exercise sufficient care here. See Philbin, 101 F.3d at 966; see also Stewart v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 47, 52 (D.C.Cir.1984) (“Certainly, inconsistencies within a single file or report involving an inaccuracy as fundamental as a falsely reported wage earner plan, as well as inconsistencies between two files or reports involving less fundamental inaccuracies, can provide sufficient grounds for inferring that an agency acted negligently in failing to verify information.”). C. Trans Union’s Liability Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a) states in relevant part that “[e]very consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, ... clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer: (1) All information in the consumer’s file at the time of the request.” (emphasis added). Here, the jury found that Trans Union willfully violated § 1681g, and Trans Union appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on Cortez’s § 1681g claim. Trans Union concedes that Cortez requested her credit report on multiple occasions; nevertheless, it failed to provide her with the HAWK and OFAC alert information on her report. However, Trans Union again makes an argument similar to that discussed above. It argues that the OFAC and HAWK information is not part of the consumer’s “file” under the FCRA and that, it was not required to disclose the information to Cortez. The FCRA defines “file” when used in connection with information on any consumer, as “all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(g). Trans Union attempts to avoid the obvious reach of that language by relying on the fact that the SDN List information was not part of its database; rather, as explained earlier, that information was separately maintained by Accuity. According to Trans Union, the information should not be considered part of the consumer’s file for purposes of the FCRA. Not surprisingly, Trans Union cites no cases to support this argument. The argument requires us to ignore that the FCRA specifically provides that the duty of disclosure applies to “information on [a] consumer ... regardless of how the information is stored.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(g). We do not believe that Congress intended to allow credit reporting companies to escape the disclosure requirement in § 1681a(g) by simply contracting with a third party to store and maintain information that would otherwise clearly be part of the consumer’s file and is included in a credit report. Congress clearly intended the protections of the FCRA to apply to all information furnished or that might be furnished in a consumer report. Gillespie v. Trans Union Corp., 482 F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir.2007). Moreover, as the court in Gillespie noted, “ ‘file’ denotes all information on the consumer that is recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency that might be furnished, or has been furnished, in a consumer report on that consumer.” Id. (quoting 16 C.F.R. pt. 600, app. § 603). In Gillespie, the court considered whether a credit reporting agency was obligated to furnish the date of delinquency of a credit account to a consumer who makes a request under § 1681g. Congress sought to prohibit consumers from being hounded by stale information by limiting the amount of time old debts can be reported under the FCRA. Creditors, therefore, have to include a “date of delinquency or purge date” when reporting account information to a credit agency. Gillespie, 482 F.3d at 908. The credit reporting agency uses that date for internal purposes to determine when the information should be purged from the data that will appear on the consumer’s credit report. Id. However, credit reporting agencies do not usually include that date on the credit reports provided to potential creditors or to consumers. Id. The plaintiffs in Gillespie argued that the “file” they received from Trans Union violated the disclosure requirements of the FCRA because it did not include the “purge date.” Id. They claimed that the delinquency date was included in the definition of “file” contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(g). In rejecting that claim, the court reasoned that “Congress wanted consumers to receive exactly what [the plaintiffs] got from Trans Union—complete copies of them consumer reports, not their entire files in whatever form maintained by the [credit reporting agency].” Id. at 909. Since the purge date was an internal record-keeping item, used only to determine when transactions in a consumer’s history should no longer be reported to those requesting credit reports, the court held that Congress did not intend to include it within the definition of “file.” Id. at 910. That is not the situation here because the OFAC alerts were far more than a mere internal record-keeping mechanism. We hold that information relating to the OFAC alert is part of the consumer’s “file” as defined in the FCRA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Trans Union’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Cortez’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g based upon Trans Union’s contention that the OFAC alert is not part of a consumer’s file and not subject to the reporting requirements of the FCRA. D. Reinvestigation, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i 1. Reasonable Reinvestigation, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A), credit reporting agencies must promptly reinvestigate any information in a consumer’s file that is disputed by a consumer and either record the current status of the information in dispute or delete it. In order for Cortez to establish that Trans Union is liable for failing to reinvestigate a dispute under that provision, she must establish that Trans Union had a duty to do so, and that it would have discovered a discrepancy had it undertaken a reasonable investigation. Therefore, we must determine whether the jury could reasonably have concluded that Trans Union would have discovered the inaccuracy in Cortez’s report—i.e., the OFAC alert—“if it had reasonably investigated the matter.” Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 226 (3d Cir.1997). Although the parameters of a reasonable investigation will often depend on the circumstances of a particular dispute, it is clear that a reasonable reinvestigation must mean more than simply including public documents in a consumer report or making only a cursory investigation into the reliability of information that is reported to potential creditors. Id. at 225. Rather, if the agency determines that the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, it must delete or modify the information and notify the provider of the information that the information has been modified or deleted from the consumer’s file. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A). Congress thought this protection so vital to the statutory scheme of the FCRA that it included a specific provision requiring credit reporting agencies to maintain procedures to prevent the reappearance of information that is deleted because it is misleading or inaccurate. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(c). Trans Union first argues that it should not have been liable under § 1681i because the OFAC alert is not part of Cortez’s “file.” We have already explained why that contention must be rejected. Trans Union admits that it performed no reinvestigation to determine whether Cortez was the person named in OFAC’s SDN List. Trans Union concedes that it did not look beyond the name on that List before reporting a “match” on Cortez’s consumer report. However, it attempts to escape liability by arguing that even if § 1681i does apply, any reinvestigation would have been meaningless because it cannot change OFAC’s SDN List. See Trans Union Br. at 27. That argument is disingenuous at best. Trans Union controls the information it places on a consumer’s credit report. Cortez did not ask Trans Union to alter OFAC’s SDN List. Rather, she merely asked Trans Union not to associate that information with her and informed the company that she was not the person the OFAC alert referred to. She made that request four times—once by telephone and three times in writing. Trans Union responded by denying that the information was on her credit report. Furthermore, one of Trans Union’s customer service managers testified at trial that it is Trans Union’s policy never to investigate OFAC alerts, at least not until forced to do so by the consumer bringing a law suit. Cortez, 2007 WL 2702945 at *2; see also J.A. 203. That is what happened here. After Cortez sued, Trans Union blocked the OFAC Alert from appearing on her credit report. J.A. 183-84. Similarly, Trans Union argues that it should not be liable under the FCRA because the responsibility for USA PATRIOT Act compliance falls on potential creditors and not credit reporting agencies. We are well aware that anyone involved in financial transactions has significant responsibilities under the USA PATRIOT Act, as noted above. However, nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act suggests that Congress intended the obligations arising under that Act to immunize credit reporting agencies from duties they would otherwise have under the FCRA. Once Cortez disputed the accuracy of the information in Trans Union’s credit report, Trans Union was obligated to reinvestigate that information. The car dealer’s responsibilities under the USA PATRIOT Act are simply irrelevant to Trans Union’s duty under the FCRA; the district court recognized that when it denied Trans Union’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. 2. Failure to Note Dispute, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(b) and (c). 15 U.S.C. § 1681i sets forth a fairly specific process for disputing information in a credit report. As discussed above, a consumer must first inform the credit agency that s/he disputes the information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(l). The credit reporting agency must reinvestigate promptly based on that dispute. The agency must then appropriately respond to the dispute based on the results of its reinvestigation. This includes deleting or modifying disputed information when appropriate. Id. § 1681i(a)(5). The credit reporting agency must also notify the consumer promptly of the results of the reinvestigation in writing. Id. § 1681i(a)(6). The minimum contents of that notice are prescribed by the statute. As relevant here, the notice must include: “(i) a statement that the reinvestigation is completed; (ii) a consumer report that is based upon the consumer’s file as that file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation; [and] ... (iv) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer’s file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the information.... ” Id. § 1681i(a)(6)(B). “If the reinvestigation does not resolve the dispute,” the consumer may file a statement of his or her dispute with the credit reporting agency. Id. § 1681i(b). “Whenever a statement of dispute is filed,” the credit reporting agency “in any subsequent consumer report containing the information in question, [must] clearly note that it is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer’s statement or a clear and accurate codification or summary thereof.” Id. § 1681i(c). This allows “potential creditors [to] have both sides of the story [so that they] can reach an independent determination of how to treat ... specific, disputed” information. Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1160 n. 23 (11th Cir.1991). Cortez claims that Trans Union was obligated to include notice of her dispute about the OFAC alerts in her credit report under § 1681i(c). As noted earlier, in a letter dated May 10, 2005, Trans Union told Cortez, “[0]ur records show that the information you disputed does not currently appear on your TransUnion credit report.” J.A. 545. Thereafter, Trans Union twice issued Cortez’s credit report with the misleading/erroneous OFAC alerts and without noting that Cortez was disputing those alerts. Trans Union does not deny this. Its only argument is that Cortez never explicitly filed a statement of dispute under § 1681i(b) and thus, it had no obligation to include a statement in those subsequent credit reports under § 1681i(c). The argument once again is unconvincing. In Guimond, the court explained that a § 1681i(c) claim requires a showing that (1) the plaintiff disputed an item in her file; (2) any reinvestigation conducted by the consumer reporting agency did not resolve the dispute; (3) the plaintiff filed, a statement of dispute; and (4) the statement was not included with subsequent copies of her credit report. 45 F.3d at 1335. The court ultimately held that Guimond’s § 1681i(c) claim failed because, although she met the first two elements of the claim, she failed to present evidence that she filed a statement of dispute. Id. Though we do not disagree with the above standard, this case is distinguishable and frankly, extraordinary. Trans Union admits not only that it never reinvestigated Cortez’s dispute, it concedes that it never intended to do so because of its fixed policy regarding OFAC alerts. Moreover, after Cortez had submitted one verbal and two written requests, Trans Union responded to her with a letter that stated, “After reviewing your correspondence, we were unable to determine the nature of your request.” After Cortez wrote to Trans Union a third time, Trans Union responded to her that “the information you disputed does not currently appear on your Trans Union credit report.” This final response by Trans Union to Cortez was patently false. Trans Union thwarted Cortez’s ability to request that a statement of dispute be included in subsequent credit reports by telling Cortez that the disputed information was not in her report in the first place. Still, Cortez persisted. She restated her dispute even after she was falsely told that information was removed from her credit report, i.e., even after the reinvestigation was complete and she was misinformed by the credit reporting agency that the issue she had raised was resolved. Given that evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Cortez had adequately informed Trans Union that its reinvestigation did not resolve her dispute and that Trans Union failed to note that on her credit report, as required by the FCRA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision denying Trans Union’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Cortez’s § 1681i(c) claim. Having concluded that the district court did not err in denying Trans Union’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and thus affirming the district court’s refusal to overturn the jury’s liability determination, we turn to Cortez’s claim that the district court erred in reducing her punitive damage award. Although, as we will explain, we conclude that we must affirm that reduction, we are nevertheless troubled by it. III. DAMAGES In her appeal, Cortez argues that she is entitled to reinsta