the consumer’s privacy interests, for it will ‘involve’ the plaintiff directly.”). Here, Pintos did not voluntarily seek credit. Rather, the debt arose by statute when the lien sale price of her vehicle failed to cover the towing and impound charges. See Cal Civ.Code § 3068.2. Pintos never sought to have her vehicle towed, and she incurred the resulting debt involuntarily. Consequently, no one granted her “credit” as define that PCA had a permissible purpose to obtain Pintos’s credit report because it, too, was engaged in debt collection. This reading of Hasbun was not unreasonable at the time. Hasbun was decided prior to the 2003 FACTA amendments, however, and it must be reevaluated in light of the 12956 amended FCRA. See United States v. McNeil, 362 F.3d 570, 574 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). By defining “credit” for purposes of the
holding that when congress amends statutes our decisions that rely on the older versions of the statutes must be reevaluated in light of the amended statute holding that the statutes abrogated the common law holding such statutes are not analogous statutes of limitation for erisa purposes holding that the statutes could be harmonized holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls