Source One Associates, Inc., is based in Poughquag, New York. Peter Easton, Source One’s president, is responsible for its daily operations. Between 1995 and 1997, Source One received requests from persons in Massachusetts seeking financial information about individuals and businesses. To obtain this information, Easton first obtained the targeted individuals’ credit reports through Equifax Consumer Information Services by claiming that the reports would be used only in connection with credit transactions involving the consumers. From the reports, Easton identified financial institutions at which individuals held accounts and then called the institutions to learn the account balances by impersonating either officers of the institutions or the account holders. The information was then provided to Source One’s customers for a fee. Easton did not know why the customers wanted the information. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a suit in a Massachusetts state court against Source One and Easton, alleging violations of the FCRA. Any thoughts about the decision? Or the practical application of the FCRA by businesses? Is there any argument that Source One and/or Easton could make in order to avoid liability? For example, could Source One and Easton avoid liability by claiming they did not know why the clients buying the credit information wanted it and they didn’t know what the clients were doing with the information? What do you think? Even if it is true that they really don’t know, will this claim protect them from liability? Why or why not?