How does that address the problem that credit scores solve? If I'm a lender given no data about a potential debtor and my only recourse is to the courts, I'm not going to lend to anyone --- or, if I do, it'll be based on far more arbitrary and discriminatory standards, like whether the right poobah at the local Chamber of Commerce vouches for you personally. That's how it worked before we had credit scores.

Never said we had to go backward, and I definitely don't think that's better. I am saying that the legal system is the demerit based system for this kind of reputation based decision-making, which has completely failed us in the proper function of this task.

You already acknowledged elsewhere the comment where I informed you why the legal system cannot function as a credit reputation service. We had the legal system before credit scores, and we know what the outcome of that system was.

Even today, people (in effect) steal thousands of dollars from creditors, essentially for sport, by exploiting the FCRA and the procedural difficulty of enforcing contracts and collecting delinquencies. The courts are not a realistic option for underwriting consumer credit.

I think we're pretty much on the same page though, the civil courts are not functioning correctly in this regard, but to me that doesn't mean the credit industry is the be-all end-all solution to the problem.

We really should be improving our judicial system rather than letting private industry determine what we as a society should consider when someone wants to take out a loan.