by § 1681a(r)(5), and there was no “credit transaction” within the meaning of § 1681b(a)(3)(A). PCA, therefore, had no purpose specified as permissible under the statute to obtain Pintos’s credit report. In reaching the opposite conclusion, the district court relied on our decision in Has-bun. Hasbun presented the question of whether a government agency looking to enforce a child support judgment could obtain a credit report on a judgment debt- or under § 1681b(a)(3)(A). 323 F.3d at 802-03. The court determined that debt collection was generally a permissible purpose for obtaining credit reports under § 1681b(a)(3)(A), and that the government, which stood in the shoes of the judgment creditor, could, like any other creditor, obtain credit reports for debt collection. Id. at 803-04, 805 (<HOLDING>). Relying on Hasbun, the district court
holding that  1681ba3a applies only if the con sumer initiates a credit transaction holding that amtrak is an agency of the government  for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government holding that the government agency was engaged in the collection of an account under 15 usc  1681ba3a and therefore had a permissible purpose for obtaining the credit report holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude an agency finding of no discrimination on the ground that the report would suggest to the jury that it should reach the same conclusion as the agency holding in the context of a fcra violation that a jury could find that a consumers credit score was negatively influenced by the failure to list a debt as disputed because evidence was presented that when a credit reporting agency received notice of a dispute it records the dispute in the credit report and does not include the derogatory information in assessing the credit score