law-cases where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant unlawfully invaded the plaintiffs privacy by obtaining information deemed confidential. We implied so in Hansen v. Morgan, 582 F.2d 1214, 1217 (9th Cir.1978) (finding that the plaintiffs’ complaint, which alleged willful and negligent failure to comply with the FCRA and thus unlawfully violated the plaintiffs’ right to privacy, stated a valid claim), and at least three of our sister circuits have agreed with that characterization. See Bakker v. McKinnon, 152 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir.1998) (upholding a damage award in an action brought under the FCRA based on the emotional distress caused by the defendant’s invasion of privacy into the plaintiffs credit report); Yang v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 146 F.3d 1320, 1322 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Zamora v. Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 811
recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents recognizing fcras dual purpose of facilitating accurate reporting and of protecting privacy holding that governments asserted interest in protecting the privacy of arrestees is substantial under central hudson holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute