▁Cred it ▁Report ing ▁Act ’ s ▁requirement ▁that ▁credit ▁reporting ▁ag encies ▁maintain ▁reasonable ▁procedures ▁to ▁avoid ▁impro per ▁dis clos ures . ▁Not ▁relevant ▁to ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ’ s ▁opinion ▁was ▁an ▁additional ▁claim ▁by ▁Andrew s ▁that ▁TR W ▁failed ▁to ▁“ follow ▁reasonable ▁procedures ▁to ▁ass ure ▁maximum ▁possible ▁accuracy ▁of ▁the ▁information ” ▁in ▁the ▁reports , ▁in ▁viol ation ▁of ▁ 1 5 ▁U . S . C . ▁ 1 6 8 1 e ( b ). ▁This ▁claim ▁was ▁resolved ▁by ▁a ▁j ury ▁in ▁favor ▁of ▁TR W . ▁By ▁failing ▁to ▁verify ▁that ▁Andrew s ▁was ▁the ▁initi ator ▁of ▁the ▁requests , ▁Andrew s ▁alleg ed ▁that ▁TR W ▁facil itated ▁the ▁identity ▁the ft . ▁She ▁sought ▁inj unct ive ▁relief , ▁pun itive ▁dam ages ▁and ▁other ▁compens ation . ▁ ▁TR W ▁argued ▁that ▁Andrew s ’ ▁claims ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁two ▁earliest ▁dis clos ures ▁were ▁bar red ▁because ▁the ▁Fair ▁Cred it ▁Report ing ▁Act ’ s ▁two ▁year ▁stat ute ▁of ▁limitations ▁had ▁exp ired . ▁Andrew s ▁counter ed ▁that ▁all ▁of ▁her ▁claims ▁were ▁tim ely ▁because ▁the ▁stat ute ▁of ▁limitations ▁did ▁not ▁to ll ▁until ▁the ▁date ▁she ▁learned ▁of ▁the ▁in ac cur ate ▁dis clos ures . ▁This ▁argument ▁was ▁based ▁upon ▁Andrew s ’ ▁cont ention ▁that ▁the ▁FC RA ▁incorpor ated ▁a ▁general ▁federal ▁rule ▁which ▁to ll s ▁the ▁stat ute ▁of ▁limitations ▁at ▁the ▁time