; 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) Deceptive and misleading marketing practices (A) The Consumer Bureau’s February 2015 report titled Consumer Voices on Credit Reports and Scores found that some consumers did not obtain a copy of their consumer report due to concerns about security or of being trapped into purchasing unwanted products like an additional report or a credit monitoring service. (B) In January 2017, the Consumer Bureau fined TransUnion and Equifax for deceptively marketing credit scores for purchase by consumers as the same credit scores typically used by lenders to determine creditworthiness and for luring consumers into costly subscription services that were advertised as