As discussed in past Newsletters, courts have split over the application of the two preemption provisions in FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e) permits state tort claims against information furnishers, but imposes a higher burden of proof. Congress later amended FCRA to add 15 U.S.C. § 15t(b) (1)(F), which provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition” may be imposed under state law concerning the responsibilities of information furnishers. A district court in Kentucky weighed in recently, holding the latter provision preempts both state statutory and common law claims. Lufkin v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 10-CV-18, 2010 WL 2813437 (E.D. Tenn. July 16, 2010). Characterizing this as the “majority approach,” the court rejected rulings by other courts attempting to harmonize the two provisions by holding § 1681h(e) concerns common law tort claims and § 1681t(b)(1)(F) concerns state statutory claims.