| If you're speaking of a CRA, I've only seen cases proving the opposite...
I thought Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., 199 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir.2000)
disallowed injunctive relief for a consumer:
("[Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the] affirmative grant of power to the FTC to pursue injunctive relief, coupled with the absence of a similar grant to private litigants, when they are expressly granted the right to obtain damages and other relief, persuasively demonstrates that Congress vested the power to obtain injunctive relief solely *342 with the FTC."). Because the statute explicitly provides declaratory and equitable relief only through action by the Federal Trade Commission, we believe the different penalty structure demonstrates Congress's intent to preclude equitable relief in private actions.
And for a data furnisher under the FDCPA, it looks to be a no-go also:
Braun v. Stawiarski,
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 2793150, D.Colo., September 28, 2006
My review of the FDCPA reveals that the Act authorizes money damages in civil actions but does not refer to any additional equitable or injunctive relief. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A). I recommend finding that the clear Congressional intent was to preclude private litigants from obtaining forms of relief other than money damages.
Anyone else find anything different, because all I see is that only the FTC can sue for injunctive relief?
__________________
Quoted from roybean at IC, "you don't need case law...it is written, so let it be done." | 
