“Given the language Congress used in the FCRA, state requirements and prohibitions should only be preempted when the matter is capable of classification as identity theft, and then only ‘with respect to the conduct required’ by the FCRA’s identity theft reporting regulations,” U.S. District Judge Lance E. Walker for the District of Maine wrote. “In other words, this is a case of partial preemption. When the federal identity theft regulations apply to an act of economic abuse, then the blocking of identity-theft-related reporting activity must proceed according to federal law. But insofar as a given debt is the product of more than mere identity theft, compliance with both federal and state law may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.”