; and (iv) create a new consumer right to appeal reviews by CRAs and furnishers of the initial disputes. (3) Injunctive relief (A) Despite the fact that the FCRA currently provides implicit authority for injunctive relief, consumers have been prevented from exercising this right. Legislation explicitly clarifying this right is intended to underscore congressional intent that injunctive relief should be viewed as a remedy available to consumers. (B) Myriad findings by the courts, regulators, consumers, and consumer advocates make clear that CRAs have failed to establish adequate standards for the accuracy and completeness of consumer reports, yet the nationwide CRAs have demonstrated little willingness to voluntarily retool their policies and procedures to fix the problems. (C) Providing courts with explicit authority to issue injunctive relief, by telling the CRAs to remedy unlawful practices and procedures, would further CRAs’ mandate under the FCRA to assure the maximum possible accuracy and completeness of information contained on credit reports. (D) Absent explicit authority to issue injunctions, history suggests that the nationwide CRAs are likely to continue conducting business as usual in treating any monetary settlements with individual consumers and fines imposed by State attorneys general and Federal regulators, simply as the cost of doing business . (4) Use of credit reports for employment purposes (A) The use of credit reports as a factor in making hiring decisions has been found to be prevalent in a diverse array of occupations, and is not limited to certain high-level management or executive positions. (B) According to the California Labor Federation, only 25 percent of employers researched the credit history of job applicants in 1998. However, this practice had increased to 43 percent by 2006 and to 60 percent by 2011. (C) A study titled Do Job Applicant Credit Histories Predict Job Performance Appraisal Ratings or Termination Decisions? , published in 2012, found that, while credit history might