In the 2006 case of Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Charles Burr, the United States Supreme Court ruled on issues related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The plaintiffs claimed that Safeco and GEICO had violated FCRA by not informing them they were being charged higher rates due to their credit scores. However, both insurance companies argued that they did not have to provide notice because it was an initial rate rather than an increase in premium. The court held a unanimous decision in favor of Safeco and GEICO stating that unless there is willful noncompliance with FCRA's requirements, no liability can be imposed upon these companies. It further clarified that "willful" includes recklessly disregarding whether one's conduct comes under FCRA rules or not; however, mere violation without knowledge does not constitute as willfulness.

In the dissenting opinion for SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al. v. CHARLES BURR, et al., Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of "willfully" in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) was too narrow and failed to adequately protect consumers' rights. She contended that a company should be held liable if it recklessly disregards its obligations under FCRA, not just when it knowingly violates them as per the majority’s ruling. In her view, this would better align with Congress's intent to provide robust protections for consumers against unfair credit practices and ensure companies are sufficiently incentivized to comply with their legal duties under FCRA.