from the experience." 87 Wn.2d at 531. We explained that Congress's intent in
enacting "this remedial legislation" was "'to protect the reputation of a consumer"'
from the improper preparation and use of inaccurate or arbitrary information in credit
reports, including protection from false rumors. !d. at 529, 520-21 (quoting Ackerley
v. Credit Bureau of Sheridan, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 658, 659 (D. Wyo. 1974)).
Comparing the plaintiff's injury to the actual injury suffered in a defamation action,
we recognized in Rasor the "generally accepted legal meaning" of"actual damages"
for defamatory falsehood:
In reference to the type of harm suffered, the term "actual
damages" has a generally accepted legal meaning. Although it declined
to define "actual injury," the United States Supreme Court recently
noted the variety of harm which may result when damage is actually
sustained.
6
Segura v. Cabrera, No. 90088-4
(Gordon McCloud, J., Concurring in Result)
Suffice it to say that actual injury is not limited to out-of-pocket
loss. Indeed, the more customary types of actual harm inflicted
by defamatory falsehood include impairment of reputation and
standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental
anguish and suffering. Of course, juries must be limited by
appropriate instructions, and all awards must be supported by
competent evidence concerning the injury, although there need
be no evidence which assigns an actual dollar value to the injury.
!d. at 529 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,
350, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974)). Noting that "actual damages" denotes
both the type of damage award and the nature of injury for which a plaintiff may