1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

ETHAN P. DAVIS 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division 

GUSTAV W. EYLER 

Director 

Consumer Protection Branch 

LISA K. HSIAO 

Senior Litigation Counsel 

PATRICK R. RUNKLE 

ZACHARY A. DIETERT 

Trial Attorneys 

Consumer Protection Branch 

Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

 450 5th Street, NW, Suite 6400-South 

 Washington, D.C. 20530 

 Telephone: (202) 532-4892 (Hsiao) 

 Facsimile: (202) 514-8742 

 E-mail: Lisa.K.Hsiao@usdoj.gov 

Patrick.R.Runkle@usdoj.gov 

Zachary.A.Dietert@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 20-cv-6692 

 

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, OTHER 

v. EQUITABLE RELIEF, AND 

MYLIFE.COM, INC., a corporation, CIVIL PENALTIES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL and 

JEFFREY TINSLEY, individually and as 

an officer of MYLIFE.COM, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and 

authorization to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or

“Commission”), pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

(“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), for its Complaint alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 1345, and 1355.

2. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d), 1395(a),

and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).

3. Defendants engage in trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is

defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff, the United States of America, brings this action under Sections

5(a), 5(m)(1)(a), 13(b), 16(a)(1), and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 

45(m)(1)(a), 53(b), 56(a)(1), and 57b; Section 6 of the Telemarketing and Consumer 

Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105; Section 5 of the Restore Online 

Shoppers’ Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8404; and Section 621(a) of the Fair Credit

Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a), to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission 

or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of illgotten monies, or other equitable relief, in addition to civil penalties for Defendants’ 

violations of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8403, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, and the Fair

Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x.

DEFENDANTS

5. Defendant MyLife.com, Inc. (“MyLife”) is a privately-held Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business at 1100 Glendon Ave, Suite 720, Los 

Angeles, California 90024. 

6. Defendant Jeffrey Tinsley (“Tinsley”) is the founder, Chief Executive 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

COMPLAINT

Officer, and Chairman of MyLife, in which he has a major ownership interest. Since 

the inception of MyLife, Mr. Tinsley has been responsible for MyLife’s overall 

direction and strategies. Among other things, Mr. Tinsley has directed MyLife’s

billing, marketing, advertising, and subscription practices, and he personally markets 

MyLife’s products. He created and developed the “Reputation Score” displayed on 

each consumer’s profile on MyLife’s website. Mr. Tinsley also has personal 

knowledge that MyLife continues to use certain business practices that MyLife agreed 

to cease in order to settle several lawsuits. Mr. Tinsley resides in in this District and 

transacts or has transacted business here and throughout the United States.

NATURE OF THE CASE

7. Defendants sell consumer background reports through their website, 

www.mylife.com (“MyLife.com” or “MyLife”). Since approximately 2009, 

Defendants have sold their consumer background reports primarily by allowing users 

of their website to run free background searches for an individual’s name, and then 

displaying search results that imply, often falsely, that the subject of a search may have 

records of criminal or sexual offenses—records that can be viewed only by buying a 

MyLife subscription. The MyLife search results also include a “Reputation Score”

about a searched-for individual purportedly based on “public information, gathered 

from government, social, and other sources, plus personal reviews written by others.” 

Told that “[r]eputation is more important than credit[,]” and lured by the prospect of 

paying a relatively small fee to uncover the individual’s legal or criminal history and 

other information, American consumers have paid millions of dollars for MyLife 

premium subscriptions. MyLife has also used telemarketing to sell its subscriptions.

8. The subscriptions sold by MyLife to millions of American consumers are 

set up as recurring subscriptions that automatically renew upon expiration unless the 

subscriber takes affirmative steps to cancel. Until 2019, a subscriber who wished to 

cancel or disable automatic renewal of their subscription was required to call MyLife’s 

customer service line. Many subscribers who called could not even reach a customer 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

COMPLAINT

service agent and ended up having their subscriptions renewed against their will. Other 

subscribers who did reach a MyLife agent and tried to cancel were similarly frustrated, 

being met with a sales pitch to renew rather than assistance in cancelling. 

9. Although Defendants have never had a process for determining the 

purpose for which their background reports are being obtained, Defendants are aware 

that MyLife subscribers have used background reports for various purposes, including 

to find out what information about themselves is available online or whether to rent to 

or from someone. 

THE FTC ACT

10. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”

THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE

11. The Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) promulgated under the FTC Act 

prohibits a seller or telemarketer from engaging in certain deceptive acts or practices. 

A “seller” is “any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, 

provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the 

customer in exchange for consideration.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). The TSR defines 

“telemarketer” as “any person who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates or 

receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor.” Id. at § 310.2(ff). 

12. TSR Subsection 310.3(a)(1) prohibits certain types of deceptive conduct 

before obtaining a customer’s consent to pay for goods or services. Specifically, a 

seller or telemarketer is prohibited from failing to disclose truthful material 

information regarding the total costs to purchase, receive, or use the quantity of goods 

or services being sold; material restrictions, limitations, or conditions to purchase, 

receive, or use the goods or services being sold; and the seller’s policies and 

representations regarding refunds, cancellations, exchanges, or repurchases. 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.3(a)(1)(i)-(iii). 

13. The TSR also prohibits certain types of misrepresentations and deceptive 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

COMPLAINT

conduct in the sale of goods or services. Subsection 310.3(a)(2) prohibits a seller or 

telemarketer from misrepresenting, in the sale of goods or services, the total costs to 

purchase, receive, or use, and the quantity of any goods or services offered for sale; 

any material restriction, limitation, or condition to purchase, receive, or use the goods 

or services offered for sale; or any material aspect of the nature or terms of the seller’s 

refund, cancellation, or repurchase policies. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(i)-(ii), (iv).

14. A TSR violation is a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a. 15 U.S.C. § 8404.

THE RESTORE ONLINE SHOPPERS’ CONFIDENCE ACT

15. The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 

8401 et seq., recognizes that “[c]onsumer confidence is essential to the growth of 

online commerce,” and “[t]o continue its development as a marketplace, the Internet 

must provide consumers with clear, accurate information and give sellers an 

opportunity to fairly compete with one another for consumers’ business.” 15 U.S.C. 

§ 8401.

16. Section 4 of ROSCA generally prohibits charging consumers for goods 

or services sold in transactions effected on the Internet through a “negative option” 

feature, defined by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(w), as an offer or agreement to sell or 

provide any goods or services “under which a customer’s silence or failure to take an 

affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted 

by the seller as an acceptance of the offer.” 15 U.S.C. § 8403.

17. To comply with ROSCA, a seller or telemarketer must (1) provide text 

that clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms of the transaction before 

obtaining the consumer’s billing information; (2) obtain the consumer’s express 

informed consent before making the charge; and (3) provide simple mechanisms for a 

consumer to stop recurring charges from being placed on the consumer’s credit card,

debit card, bank account, or other financial account.

18. A ROSCA violation is a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

COMPLAINT

18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a. 15 U.S.C. § 8404.

THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

19. Section 621 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 

1681s, authorizes the FTC to enforce compliance with the FCRA by all persons subject 

thereto except to the extent that enforcement specifically is committed to some other 

governmental agency, irrespective of whether the person is engaged in commerce or 

meets any other jurisdictional tests set forth by the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s (x).

20. The FCRA’s requirements apply to any Credit Reporting Agency 

(“CRA”), which Section 603(f) defines as: 

[A]any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative 

nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of 

assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other 

information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports 

to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate 

commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.

15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). FCRA Section 603(d) defines a “consumer report” as: 

[A]ny written, oral, or other communication of any information by a 

consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, 

credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal 

characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used 

or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in 

establishing the consumer’s eligibility for (A) credit or insurance to be 

used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (B) 

employment purposes; or (C) any other purpose authorized under 

Section 604.

15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d). 

21. CRAs that sell consumer reports must comply with the FCRA. Section 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

COMPLAINT

604 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b, prohibits a CRA from furnishing consumer 

reports to persons whom it does not have a reason to believe have a permissible 

purpose to obtain the consumer report. FCRA Section 604 lists the “permissible 

purposes” for obtaining the report allowed under the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 

1681b(a)(3)(A)-(G).

22. Section 607(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §1681e(a), requires a CRA to 

maintain reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the

purposes permitted by FCRA Section 604, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. The reasonable 

procedures mandated by Section 607(a) must: 

a. Require the prospective user of the information to identify 

themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is 

sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other 

purposes;

b. Make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective 

user and the uses for the consumer report certified by that 

prospective user before furnishing a consumer report; and

c. Limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed 

under Section 604.

23. FCRA Section 607(b) requires a CRA to follow reasonable procedures to 

assure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer report information. 15 U.S.C. § 

1681e(b).

24. FCRA Section 607(d) requires a CRA to provide a Notice to Users of 

Consumer Reports (“User Notice”) to anyone who receives a consumer report from 

the CRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(d). The User Notice must advise recipients of their legal 

obligations under the FCRA, including that recipients must have a permissible purpose 

for using the report and must have certified to the CRA that they will not use the report 

for any other purpose. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(d)(2); 12 C.F.R. § 1022, Appendix N 

(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau model notice), available at 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

COMPLAINT

consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/1022/N/#ImageN2.

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

25. Since at least 2015, in their marketing and advertising, Defendants have 

promoted the use of MyLife background reports in establishing an individual’s 

eligibility for employment, loans, and housing, displaying testimonials in which 

customers praised MyLife’s background reports as helpful for such purposes. 

26. When a user performed a free search on MyLife.com on themselves or 

someone else, or arrived at MyLife.com via a search engine, the website displayed a 

“teaser” background report (“Teaser Background Report”). The Teaser Background 

Report featured a “Reputation Score,” which Defendants represented was “based on 

public information, gathered from government, social, and other sources, plus personal 

reviews written by others.” Advertisements for MyLife’s Reputation Score claim that 

“[r]eputation is more important than credit.”

27. Even if the searched-for individual had no history of criminal, traffic, or 

sex offenses, the Teaser Background Report suggested that the individual had arrest or 

criminal records, sexual offenses, potential bankruptcies, liens, or legal judgments. 

The Teaser Background Report prominently featured a section titled “Court, Arrest, or 

Criminal Records” that contained a large button inviting the user to “View [searchedfor individual’s] Court, Arrest, or Criminal Records.” The Teaser Background Report 

also displayed a “Sex Offender Status” section, inviting the user to click on the large 

button and “View [searched-for individual’s] Sex Offender Records.”

28. The prominent “View” buttons for “Court, Arrest or Criminal Records” 

and “Sex Offender Records,” together with statements that the search subject “may 

have” such records, lead reasonable users to conclude that the searched-for individual 

in fact has arrest, criminal, or sex offender records, even if they do not.

29. These statements and the MyLife.com user interface induce users to 

purchase MyLife subscriptions to view the referenced records. Indeed, numerous 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

COMPLAINT

consumers have complained that they bought subscriptions based on Defendants’ 

misrepresentations about criminal or sex offender records.

30. MyLife also conducted outbound telemarketing campaigns to prospective

customers. On these outbound calls, MyLife made materially misleading and 

deceptive statements and omissions, including about the benefits of a subscription and 

about MyLife’s cancellation and refund policies and practices.

31. Defendants have sold several types of subscriptions, such as one month 

for $19.95/month, three-month, six-month, or one-year subscriptions. A subscriber 

receives one Detailed Background Report for each month of his or her subscription. 

Defendants have also offered discounted trial subscriptions, in which potential users 

are charged a nominal fee for a period of days, e.g., three or seven days for $1, to give 

the users a chance to try MyLife’s service.

32. The subscription pricing plans displayed to prospective subscribers do not 

clearly or conspicuously disclose all material terms of the transaction before obtaining 

the subscriber’s billing information. For example, for a subscriber buying a 12-month 

subscription for $6.95/month, it was unclear whether, on completing their purchase, 

the subscriber would be charged the monthly rate of $6.95/month or, as was the case,

$83.40—the total lump sum amount for all 12 months.

33. Defendants also fail to make clear to prospective subscribers that everyone 

who bought a MyLife.com subscription is enrolled in an automatically renewing 

subscription, although subscribers in California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Connecticut were given the option to refuse automatic renewal. An automatically 

renewing subscription is a negative option feature, meaning that when a subscriber’s 

subscription period was set to end, Defendants automatically charged them for a 

renewal subscription unless the subscriber affirmatively acted to cancel his or her

subscription. 

34. Until recently, a MyLife.com subscriber trying to cancel a premium 

subscription or disable the auto-renewal of their subscription could not do so online or 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

COMPLAINT

via email; his or her only option was to call Defendants’ customer service line. 

MyLife.com users who called to cancel their subscriptions or to prevent automatic 

renewal of their subscriptions, or to obtain a refund of Defendants’ unauthorized 

charges, often had difficulty doing so. Callers who called Defendants to cancel have 

complained about having to call repeatedly, being put on hold for 30 minutes or more, 

and being terminated or disconnected before they can talk to a MyLife customerservice agent. 

35. Subscribers bound to an automatically renewing subscription, who tried

and failed to connect with MyLife customer-service agents before their subscription 

expired, ended up being charged full price for a premium subscription. 

36. If callers did reach customer-service agents in seeking to cancel their 

MyLife subscriptions or to obtain refunds, those MyLife agents made misleading and 

deceptive statements and omissions to the callers, including false statements about the 

ease with which subscribers could cancel their subscriptions, the existence of an 

automatic-renewal feature, and the availability of refunds. During calls with MyLife 

customer-service agents, subscribers who tried to cancel their premium subscriptions

have faced intense pressure to renew their subscriptions or were simply not permitted 

to cancel their subscriptions or to obtain refunds. 

37. Hundreds of consumers have complained about Defendants’ business 

practices, including that they were misled as to the benefits of a MyLife subscription, 

that they did not realize they would have to pay the total lump sum for the entire length 

of their subscription, that their subscription automatically renewed, and that it was 

difficult or impossible to cancel a subscription or obtain a refund. Such practices have 

resulted in lawsuits against MyLife brought by consumers and regulators. For 

example, MyLife settled a suit by the State of Washington regarding these practices

by entering into a 2012 Assurance of Discontinuance that bound MyLife’s owners and 

officers. In 2015, MyLife settled a similar suit brought by Los Angeles County and 

the City of Santa Monica with terms that also bound Mr. Tinsley and other company 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

COMPLAINT

principals. Mr. Tinsley has submitted declarations in such litigation. He also

maintains a personal blog attesting to his personal knowledge of MyLife’s business 

practices, user agreements, and the purported benefits of a subscription. 

38. Before furnishing a Detailed Background Report to a subscriber, 

Defendants do not maintain any procedures to verify the identity of the subscriber, to 

discern the subscriber’s purpose for obtaining the Detailed Background Reports, or to 

determine whether that purpose was one of the permissible purposes set forth in FCRA 

Section 604. Defendants also do not maintain any procedures for assuring that 

information in the Detailed Background Report was of maximum accuracy or provide 

User Notices to recipients of MyLife Detailed Background Reports.

COUNT 1

SECTION 5(a) DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES

39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated as if set forth herein.

40. Defendants represent to MyLife.com users that searched-for individuals 

had criminal or sexual offender records histories that users could view after paying 

money to MyLife.

41. In fact, in many instances, the searched-for individuals do not have 

criminal or sexual offender records, or they have minor traffic citations only. 

Defendants’ representations to the contrary are false or misleading.

42. Defendants’ practices as described above constitute deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

43. Unless enjoined and restrained by order of the Court, Defendants will 

continue to engage in such violations.

COUNT 2

TELEMARKETING SALES RULE

44. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated as if set forth herein.

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

COMPLAINT

45. Defendants are “sellers” under the TSR who use telemarketing 

transactions to provide or offer to provide background reports and the information in 

those reports to a customer in exchange for consideration. 

46. Defendants are “telemarketers” under the TSR who, in connection with 

telemarketing, initiate or receive telephone calls to or from prospective or existing 

customers. 

47. In the sale of subscriptions, Defendants fail to disclose truthfully, in a 

clear and conspicuous manner, (a) a statement of all material terms and conditions of 

their refund or cancellation policies; and (b) that the Defendants have a policy of not 

making refunds and of discouraging cancellations.

48. In the sale of subscriptions, Defendants misrepresent, directly or by 

implication: (a) material aspects of the benefits of maintaining a MyLife subscription; 

(b) material aspects of the Defendants’ refund and cancellations policies; and (c) 

material aspects of the negative-option features of the subscription.

49. Defendants’ acts or practices violate the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(1)-

(2), and are therefore violations of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a.

50. Defendants’ violations are willful and knowing. 

51. Unless enjoined and restrained by order of the Court, Defendants will 

continue to engage in such violations.

COUNT 3

ROSCA

52. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated as if set forth herein.

53. Defendants sell MyLife.com subscriptions through a negative-option 

feature, and they have failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose before obtaining 

subscribers’ billing information all material transaction terms, including that: 

a. The total cost of the multi-month premium subscription will be due 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

COMPLAINT

immediately in a lump sum rather than in monthly installments;

b. MyLife will automatically enroll subscribers in subscriptions that 

automatically renewed unless the subscriber affirmatively acted to 

cancel his or her subscription; 

c. Subscribers who wished to affirmatively cancel their subscriptions

could do so only by calling MyLife before the end of the 

subscription period to avoid recurring charges; and 

d. Subscribers who call MyLife’s customer service line to cancel their 

subscriptions will be prevented or discouraged from doing so by 

unavailable or uncooperative customer service agents. 

54. Defendants fail to provide simple mechanisms for a subscriber to stop 

recurring charges from being placed on his or her credit card, debit card, bank account, 

or other financial account.

55. Defendants’ acts or practices violate Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 

8403, and are therefore a violation of a rule promulgated under Section 18 of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a.

56. Defendants’ violations are willful and knowing. 

57. Unless enjoined and restrained by order of the Court, Defendants will 

continue to engage in such violations. 

COUNT 4

FCRA

58. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated as if set forth herein.

59. MyLife is a “consumer reporting agency” (“CRA”) that regularly 

assembles and evaluates information on consumers into consumer reports that, for a 

fee, it then provides to customers online through interstate commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 

1681a(f). CRAs that sell consumer reports must comply with the FCRA.

60. The Teaser and Detailed Background Reports (collectively, “Background 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

COMPLAINT

Reports”) that Defendants provide to MyLife subscribers are “consumer reports” that 

include information, such as court or arrest records, sex offender records, and 

bankruptcies, that bears on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal 

characteristics, or mode of living and/or other attributes. 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).

61. Defendants promoted MyLife.com’s Background Reports to the public 

for use in employment, tenant screening, or other uses covered by the FCRA and 

expected the Background Reports to be used for those purposes. 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).

62. Section 604 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b, prohibits a CRA from 

furnishing consumer reports to persons that it does not have a reason to believe have a 

permissible purpose to obtain the consumer report.

63. Defendants have furnished consumer reports, in the form of their 

Background Reports, to MyLife subscribers without reason to believe those 

subscribers have permissible purposes to obtain such reports. Defendants regularly 

provide such consumer reports without knowing subscribers’ purposes for obtaining 

the reports and without employing procedures for requesting and identifying each 

subscriber’s purpose.

64. Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(1), 

these acts and practices constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

65. Defendants’ violations are willful and knowing. 

66. Unless enjoined and restrained by order of the Court, Defendants will 

continue to engage in such violations.

COUNT 5

FCRA

67. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated as if set forth herein.

68. Defendants fail to maintain the reasonable procedures required by FCRA 

Sections 607(a) and 607(b), because Defendants do not maintain reasonable 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #:14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

COMPLAINT

procedures that 

a. Require MyLife subscribers obtaining Background Reports to 

identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the Background 

Reports are sought, or certify that they will not use information in 

the Background Reports for other purposes;

b. Make reasonable efforts to verify the identity of a new subscriber

and to obtain certification by each subscriber about his or intended 

use for the Background Reports;

c. Limit the furnishing of Background Reports to the purposes 

allowed by Section 604; and

d. Assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in the 

Background Reports about the subjects of those Background 

Reports.

69. Defendants also fail to provide the User Notice to persons to whom it 

provides Background Reports, as required by FCRA Section 607(d).

70. Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(1), the 

acts and practices violative of Sections 607(a), 607(b), and 607(d) constitute unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

45(a).

71. Defendants’ violations are willful and knowing. 

72. Unless enjoined and restrained by order of the Court, Defendants will 

continue to engage in such violations.

CONSUMER INJURY

73. Consumers have suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial injury 

as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the TSR, ROSCA, and the FCRA. 

In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts 

or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue 

to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest.

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

COMPLAINT

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

74. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers the Court to 

grant injunctive and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and 

redress violations of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the 

exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission 

or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of any 

provision of law enforced by the FTC.

75. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and Section 5 of ROSCA, 

15 U.S.C. § 8404, authorizes the Court to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary 

to redress injury to consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of ROSCA, 

including the rescission or reformation of contracts and the refund of money.

76. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as modified 

by Section 4 of the Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, 

and Section 1.98(c) of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 1.98(c), authorizes this 

Court to award monetary civil penalties of up to $42,530 for each violation of the TSR. 

Defendants violated the TSR with the knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A).

77. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as modified 

by Section 4 of the Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, 

and Section 1.98(c) of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 1.98(c), authorizes this 

Court to award monetary civil penalties of up to $42,530 for each violation of ROSCA. 

Defendants violated ROSCA with the knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A).

78. Section 621(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a), authorizes the Court 

to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating the FCRA.

79. Section 621(a)(2)(A) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(2)(A), allows 

the Court to award monetary civil penalties in the event of a knowing violation of the 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

COMPLAINT

FCRA, which constitutes a pattern or practice. Defendants’ violations of the FCRA, 

as alleged in this Complaint, have been knowing and have constituted a pattern or 

practice of violations. As specified by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment 

Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act 

of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, § 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321-373, the Court is authorized 

to award a civil penalty of up to $3,993 per violation.

80. Each instance in which Defendants have failed to comply with the FCRA 

constitutes a separate violation of the FCRA for the purpose of assessing monetary 

civil penalties under Section 621 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s.

81. Each instance in which Defendants have failed to comply with ROSCA 

constitutes a separate violation for the purpose of assessing monetary civil penalties.

82. Each instance in which Defendants have failed to comply with the TSR

constitutes a separate violation for the purpose of assessing monetary civil penalties.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court, pursuant to Sections

5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 57b; the 

TSR, 16 C.F.R. 310.3(a)(1)-(2); Section 5 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8404; and Section 

621 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s, and pursuant to the Court’s own equitable 

powers:

A. Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff for each 

violation alleged in this Complaint;

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act, 

the TSR, ROSCA, and the FCRA by Defendants;

C. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties against Defendants for each 

violation of the TSR, ROSCA, and the FCRA alleged in this Complaint; 

D. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the 

TSR, and ROSCA, including but not limited to, rescission or reformation 

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 -

COMPLAINT

of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement 

of ill-gotten monies; and

E. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 

38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: July 27, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION:

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel

MANEESHA MITHAL

Associate Director

Division of Privacy and Identity 

Protection

ROBERT SCHOSHINSKI 

Assistant Director 

Division of Privacy and Identity 

Protection

ANDREA V. ARIAS

WHITNEY A. MOORE

JAMIE E. HINE

BRIAN C. BERGGREN

Attorneys

Division of Privacy and Identity

Protection

Federal Trade Commission

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA:

ETHAN P. DAVIS

Acting Assistant Attorney General

GUSTAV W. EYLER

Director

Consumer Protection Branch

/s/ Patrick R. Runkle 

LISA K. HSIAO

Senior Litigation Counsel

PATRICK R. RUNKLE

ZACHARY A. DIETERT

Trial Attorneys

Consumer Protection Branch

U.S. Department of Justice

450 5th Street, N.W. Ste. 6400-South

Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel.: (202) 532-4892 (Hsiao)

(202) 532-4723 (Runkle)

(202) 616-9027 (Dietert)

Fax: (202) 514-8742

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 18 -

COMPLAINT

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20580

Tel.: (202) 326-2715 (Arias)

(202) 326-2645 (Moore)

(202) 326-2188 (Hine)

(202) 326-3232 (Berggren)

Fax: (202) 326-3062

Email: Lisa.K.Hsiao@usdoj.gov

Patrick.R.Runkle@usdoj.gov

Zachary.A.Dietert@usdoj.gov

Case 2:20-cv-06692 Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:19