allows consumers to enforce FCRA violations through private rights of action. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. To disallow personal jurisdiction in eases such as the case at hand would frustrate Congressional objectives. Persons wishing to access confidential credit information illegally, could exploit jurisdictional limitations by using investigators located in states other than those where their victims reside. Comparable cases in other states that have denied jurisdiction are distinguishable. See Stover v. O’Connell Associates, Inc., 84 F.3d 132, 134 (4th Cir.1996) (no jurisdiction over a New York private investigation firm which obtained information about a Maryland resident from a credit reporting agency); Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Ward, 696 So.2d 930, 932, (Fla.App. 2 Dist., 1997) (<HOLDING>). Neither jurisdiction shares Massachusetts’
holding that where there is no evidence that during the period in which the credit reporting agency carried the inaccurate information that it provided plaintiffs credit report to any third party no rational trier of fact could infer that any potential creditor or other person in plaintiffs community learned of any helpful information from the defendant credit reporting agency holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant holding that the flsa does not confer jurisdiction over ambulance services holding that although plaintiffs met their burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over their claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress under nc gen stat  17544 the longarm statute did not confer personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims for wrongful death and property damage holding that a similar longarm statute did not confer jurisdiction over a creditor who allegedly made misrepresentations to credit reporting agencies