Jones v. First Advantage Background Services Corp. (2025)
Winning Party
First Advantage Background Services Corp.
Key Issue
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), due to alleged willful failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information in consumer reports.
Case Type
CIVIL
•
First Advantage is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
•
First Advantage's accuracy rate remains at over 99.9%, even when adjusted for cases specifically involving reports containing criminal history information.
•
For common names (e.g., "Stephen Jones"), First Advantage generally requires that there be a third matching identifier and no exclusionary identifiers.
•
Plaintiff did not contact Costco or First Advantage to dispute any information in his background report until September 26, 2024, well after the commencement of this litigation, when he e-mailed First Advantage to dispute the Stephen Jones Case in his report.
•
First Advantage does not include information about a criminal record in a consumer's report unless there are at least two matching identifiers between the consumer and the criminal defendant, and no contradictory identifiers.
•
First Advantage's system initially conducted an automated search of PACER's name index for cases filed in the District of Connecticut, which returned six hits for parties with the same last name and a similar first name as Plaintiff.
•
First Advantage's existing procedures maintain an accuracy rate of over 99.9%.
•
First Advantage's Criminal Records Reporting Procedure involves searching for criminal records based on a correlation between personal identifiers associated with the consumer and those associated with the subject of the criminal records.
•
Plaintiff's inaccurate report was a direct consequence of Mr. Kumar's failure to follow First Advantage's existing procedures.
•
Mr. Kumar's entry of inaccurate information about the Stephen Jones Case violated First Advantage's procedures, which require that a CRRG associate must ensure that the information entered in PROM for a case accurately reflects the information found in the court records.
•
On October 27, 2021, on behalf of Costco, First Advantage mailed Plaintiff an adverse action letter which indicated that Costco was unable to offer him employment, based in whole or in part on information contained in the background report.
•
There is no record evidence suggesting that Mr. Kumar or other associates regularly ignored First Advantage's procedures to accurately transcribe information in the court record or that First Advantage knew its procedures were being ignored.
•
Plaintiff alleges that First Advantage willfully violated Section 1681e(b), as to Plaintiff and a putative class of individuals, by sending out background reports indicating that the subject consumer was a convicted criminal without first "double-checking" the work of its investigators.
•
On October 10, 2021, Costco ordered a pre-employment background report on Plaintiff Stephen Jones from First Advantage.
•
First Advantage conducts and sells consumer background reports for employment purposes, and is considered a "Consumer Reporting Agency" under 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).
•
Mr. Kumar completed the background report representing that Plaintiff was the same Stephen Jones as the criminal defendant in the Stephen Jones Case.
•
Mr. Kumar reviewed the results of the PACER search and excluded all cases returned therefrom except for Case No. 3:18-CR-81 (SRU), in which one of the named criminal defendants is named Stephen Jones (hereinafter, the "Stephen Jones Case").
•
First Advantage maintains a reporting accuracy rate of over 99.9%, and fewer than 0.5% of background reports prepared by First Advantage are disputed.
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
•
First Advantage's background report procedures, including its lack of a "front end" "double-checking" protocol, are not objectively unreasonable and therefore do not constitute a willful violation of Section 1681e(b).
•
Willfulness cannot be inferred from Mr. Kumar's failure to follow procedures or his allegedly egregious investigation, as there is no support in the record for the assertion that First Advantage acted willfully or recklessly, as opposed to negligently.
The court reasoned that First Advantage's procedures, including the absence of a "double-check" protocol, were not objectively unreasonable under the Safeco factors. The FCRA is silent on the need for such a protocol, and Section 1681i implies that reinvestigation is triggered by consumer disputes. Existing procedures resulted in a high accuracy rate, and Mr. Kumar's error was a single instance of human error, not indicative of a systemic disregard for accuracy. The court distinguished the case from Adams, where the errors were more egregious.
First Advantage's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count One (willful violation of Section 1681e(b)) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIED. The case will proceed to trial on Count Two (negligent violation of Section 1681e(b)).
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required