information is at its apogee. See Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37, 42 (D.C.Cir.1984). Congress explicitly established a private cause of action for negligent FCRA violations in 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a). Wilson sued under § 1681o, alleging CARCO negligently failed to use reasonable procedures as required by § 1681e(b). Federal law governs whether the FCRA requires a plaintiff alleging a violation of § 1681e(b) to present expert testimony as to the reasonableness of the defendant’s procedures. This court has previously applied federal law to describe an FCRA plaintiffs burden at summary judgment, and we do so again today. See, e.g., Stewart, 734 F.2d at 51-56 (establishing a plaintiffs burden in a § 1681e(b) case without relying on state law); cf. Koropoulos, 734 F.2d at 42-45 (<HOLDING>). Our analysis begins — and ends— with Stewart,
holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding as a matter of federal law that  1681eb at least sometimes covers  incomplete information as well as technically inaccurate information holding that it may be decided as a matter of law recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation holding that lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded court from awarding injunctive relief as well as damages