1 

[Case No.]

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

Katherine E. McCarron (D.C. Bar No. 486335) 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20680 

(202) 326-2333

Robin L. Wetherill (CA Bar No. 323912) 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20680 

(202) 326-2220

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INSTANT CHECKMATE, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

TRUTHFINDER, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

THE CONTROL GROUP 

MEDIA COMPANY, LLC, 

a corporation, 

INTELICARE DIRECT, LLC, 

a limited liability company, and 

PUBREC, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: [Case No.]

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, MONETARY 

RELIEF, OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF, AND CIVIL PENALTIES 
2 

[Case No.]

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

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for its Complaint alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 5(a) and 13(b) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b); and Section 621(a) of 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a), which together authorize the FTC to 

seek, and the Court to order, permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, civil penalties, 

and other relief for the numerous acts and practices of Defendants in violation of Section 

5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. 

SUMMARY OF CASE 

2. Defendants sell consumer background reports through subscriptions on their 

websites InstantCheckmate.com and TruthFinder.com, which allow users of the websites 

to run background searches using an individual’s name and, optionally, city and state of 

residence. 

3. Through their operation of the Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder services, 

Defendants have violated the FTC Act and the FCRA by: 

a. Deceptively claiming their background reports are the most accurate 

reports available to the public, without substantiation; 

b. Deceptively claiming an individual has criminal or arrest records 

when the individual does not have criminal or arrest records or only has traffic violations; 

c. Deceptively claiming that consumers can “Remove” or “Flag as 

Inaccurate” information in background reports; 

d. Deceptively failing to disclose that third-party reviews were 

incentivized and that the reviewers had a material connection to TruthFinder; and 

e. Failing to comply with the FCRA. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

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

5. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d), 1395(a), and 
3 

[Case No.]

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 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFF

6. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created 

by the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court action by its 

own attorneys. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, and the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. The FTC 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC also enforces the FCRA, 

15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x, which imposes duties upon consumer reporting agencies. 

DEFENDANTS 

7. Defendant Instant Checkmate, LLC (“Instant Checkmate”) is a Delaware 

limited liability company, registered in California, with its principal office or place of 

business at 375 Camino de la Reina, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 90218. Instant 

Checkmate transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United 

States. In 2014, Instant Checkmate entered into a consent order to settle Plaintiff’s 

allegations that Instant Checkmate failed to comply with requirements of the FCRA while 

promoting its background screening products for use in employment and tenant 

screening. United States v. Instant Checkmate, Case No. 3:14-cv-0675 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 

2014). 

8. Defendant TruthFinder, LLC (“TruthFinder”) is a Delaware limited liability 

company, registered in California, with its principal office or place of business at 375 

Camino de la Reina, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 90218. TruthFinder transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 

9. Defendant Intelicare Direct, LLC (“Intelicare Direct”) is a Delaware limited 

liability company, registered in California, with its principal place of business at 9596 

Chesapeake Avenue, Suite A, San Diego, CA 92123, and its manager or member address 

at 375 Camino de la Reina, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 90218. Intelicare Direct transacts 

or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 
4 

[Case No.]

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. Defendant The Control Group Media Company, LLC (“The Control 

Group”) is a Delaware limited liability company, registered in California, with its 

principal office or place of business at 375 Camino de la Reina, Suite 400, San Diego, 

CA 90218. The Control Group transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

11. Defendant PubRec, LLC (“PubRec”) is a Delaware limited liability 

company, registered in California, with its principal office or place of business at 375 

Camino de la Reina, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 90218. PubRec transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 

COMMON ENTERPRISE 

12. In 2017, TruthFinder, Instant Checkmate, The Control Group, and Intelicare 

Direct were owned by the same holding company. In 2018, that holding company 

created PubRec and transferred to it the ownership of TruthFinder, Instant Checkmate, 

The Control Group, and Intelicare Direct. Since 2018, PubRec has wholly owned 

TruthFinder, Instant Checkmate, The Control Group, and Intelicare Direct. 

13. Each of these companies—PubRec, Instant Checkmate, TruthFinder, The 

Control Group, and Intelicare Direct (collectively “Defendants”)—have operated as a 

common enterprise while engaging in the unlawful acts and practices alleged below. 

Neither Instant Checkmate nor TruthFinder have any employees. Rather, The Control 

Group’s employees provide product, engineering, information technology, marketing, 

legal, human resources, and finance and accounting services, among others, for the 

benefit of Instant Checkmate, TruthFinder, and Intelicare Direct. Under the supervision 

of The Control Group, Intelicare Direct’s employees provide customer support services to 

Defendants’ customers. Defendants have conducted the business practices described 

below through an interrelated network of companies that have common ownership, 

officers, managers, financial arrangements, business functions, employees, and office 

locations. Because these Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of 

them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. 
5 

[Case No.]

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

COMMERCE

14. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 

4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

15. InstantCheckmate.com and TruthFinder.com feature search boxes allowing a 

user to submit information pertaining to an individual about whom the user would like to 

obtain a background report. A user initiates a search by submitting an individual’s first 

and last name or initials, and, optionally, a city and state (collectively, a “User Query”). 

16. Defendants use proprietary software to create, develop, and assemble 

background reports by querying or “calling” third-party data providers. The third-party 

data providers are called and recalled based on the existence of new criteria from other 

providers. Once all third-party data providers have been exhausted, Defendants’ software 

automatically runs a series of pre-programmed de-duplication, filtering, and sorting 

processes on the results. The end-result of this process is a unique product—a 

TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate background report. Instant Checkmate and 

Truthfinder background reports generally include, among other things, name, date of 

birth, home and cell phone numbers, address history, relatives, arrest and criminal 

records, government license information, social media or dating profiles, and email 

addresses. 

17. Though the TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate websites allow users to 

initiate searches and view and select from initial results for free, users cannot access full 

background reports without subscribing to TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate. 

18. Exact prices have varied between 2017 and the present, but Defendants have 

generally sold Instant Checkmate recurring subscriptions for approximately $34.00 per 

month and TruthFinder recurring subscriptions for approximately $27.00 per month. 

Subscribers can conduct unlimited User Queries. Subscriptions to Instant Checkmate and 

TruthFinder automatically renew each month unless the subscriber takes affirmative steps 
6 

[Case No.]

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

to cancel. From 2017–2020, TruthFinder averaged approximately 523,000 subscribers in 

any given month, with average net revenue of approximately $120 million per year. 

Instant Checkmate averaged approximately 368,000 subscribers in any given month, with 

average net revenue of approximately $75 million per year. 

I. THE FTC ACT 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

Deceptive Claims of Accuracy 

20. Defendants have disseminated or have caused to be disseminated 

advertisements and promotional materials, including online banner and search engine 

advertisements and statements on the TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate websites, 

touting the accuracy of TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate background reports. For 

example, Defendants claim in advertisements that Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder 

reports contain “the MOST ACCURATE information available to the public” (emphasis 

in original) or “the Most Accurate Data Available to Civilians Online.” 

21. Defendants’ accuracy claims have been displayed to consumers millions of 

times, and in hundreds of thousands of instances consumers have clicked on these ads 

and been directed to the TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate websites. 

22. Defendants lack a reasonable basis for asserting that the information 

available through Defendants’ background report services is accurate because, among 

other things: 

a. Defendants do not know, and have made no effort to verify, whether 

the information they receive from their third-party data providers is accurate or current 

when they include it in background reports that they provide to users; 

b. Defendants’ third-party data providers explicitly disclaim any 

warranty of the accuracy of the information and state that they provide data as-is; 

c. Defendants have failed to take reasonable measures to test or assess 

the accuracy of TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate reports; and 
7 

[Case No.]

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

d. In numerous instances, when consumers have contacted Defendants to 

report that Instant Checkmate or TruthFinder reports contained erroneous information, 

Defendants have not verified, investigated, or corrected reported inaccuracies. 

23. Additionally, from at least 2018 to 2020, many TruthFinder subscribers had 

access to an additional service called Guardian Protection Suite, which allowed those 

subscribers to “claim” TruthFinder reports about themselves and edit those reports by 

removing any item except for criminal records and by adding additional information. 

Defendants did not take any steps to ensure that the reports, as edited by Guardian 

Protection Suite subscribers, were accurate. 

24. Thousands of consumers have complained to Defendants about inaccuracies 

in Defendants’ background reports. In numerous instances, consumers have stated that 

they located inaccurate information about themselves in Defendants’ background reports. 

Deceptive Claims that an Individual has Criminal or Arrest Records 

25. Defendants have promoted their background reports by implicitly or 

explicitly representing that searched-for individuals have criminal and/or arrest records 

that can be discovered by purchasing TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate subscriptions. 

Defendants have made these claims by multiple means, including on the TruthFinder and 

Instant Checkmate websites, in automated messages that Defendants periodically cause to 

appear on consumers’ computer or mobile device screens (“push notifications”), in 

customized marketing emails to prospective customers, and in search-engine 

advertisements. 

26. For example, Defendants have represented that individuals have criminal or 

arrest records that can be viewed by visiting the TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate 

website in advertisements that have been displayed in response to Google and Bing 

searches for proper names. For example, if a consumer searched for the name “John 

Smith,” the consumer might have been shown an advertisement stating: “John Smith May 

Have Arrests,” “Check John Smith’s Arrests,” or “Find criminal records, phone, address, 
8 

[Case No.]

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

& more on John Smith.” Clicking on these ads directed consumers to the TruthFinder or 

Instant Checkmate website. 

27. In another example of Defendants’ criminal and arrest records claims, after 

the submission of a User Query, but before the consumer is prompted to purchase a 

subscription in order to access the requested report, Defendants have made statements on 

the TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate websites such as: 

a. “The arrest records sections of your report WILL SHOW arrest or 

conviction records associated with the name [John Smith]”; 

b. “Your report WILL REVEAL important court records and sensitive 

legal information associated with the name [John Smith]. We’ll reveal arrest details from 

case numbers [XXXXX-XXXXX]”; or 

c. “We found [some number of] CRIMINAL RECORDS for people 

associated with the name [John Smith] in [State].” 

28. In numerous instances, Defendants’ representations that searched-for 

individuals have or may have criminal and/or arrest records that can be obtained from 

TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate have been false, including because the individuals’ 

TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate reports do not contain criminal or arrest records, or 

contained only non-criminal traffic violations. 

29. Only after purchasing a subscription to TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate 

are consumers able to view the information in background reports. 

30. In numerous instances, after seeing Defendants’ representation that an 

individual’s background report contains criminal and/or arrest records, consumers have 

purchased subscriptions to TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate only to discover that the 

background report in question includes only traffic violations. Consumers have 

submitted numerous complaints to Defendants about this deceptive practice.
9 

[Case No.]

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

Deceptive “Remove” and “Flag as Inaccurate” Features 

31. Defendants have displayed buttons labeled “Remove” and “Flag As 

Inaccurate” within or alongside TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate reports when 

subscribers view those reports on Defendants’ websites. 

32. The “Remove” buttons appear next to specific items of information within 

TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate reports, such as email address or phone number. 

33. When a customer clicks the “Remove” button next to an item of information 

in a background report, the item disappears from the report as displayed to that customer. 

However, items of information “removed” from background reports remain visible to 

other customers who search for the same person. 

34. Defendants take no action to investigate the accuracy of the information that 

a consumer has disputed with the “remove” feature, to modify the contents of reports 

from which subscribers have attempted to “remove” information, to indicate to other 

customers that any information has been “removed,” or otherwise to correct reports from 

which information has been “removed.” 

35. The “Flag As Inaccurate” buttons have appeared at the top of customers’ 

web browsers while they are viewing TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate reports. 

Customers can use the buttons to “flag” individual sections of the reports, including 

contact information and criminal records. 

36. In numerous instances, when customers have interacted with the “Flag As 

Inaccurate” buttons, Defendants have presented customers with a pop-up that has 

contained statements such as the following: “We strive for report accuracy to improve 

our product. If you’ve found something inaccurate within the contact section of [report 

subject]’s report, please tell us about it.” 

37. In numerous instances, the pop-up has also asked the customer to submit 

additional information, including by posing questions such as: “Why is this data 

inaccurate?”, with possible responses including: “It is out of date;” “It’s not the correct 

person;” and “It’s missing information.” 
10 

[Case No.]

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

38. To submit a response, the user must click on a green button labeled “FLAG 

AS INACCURATE.” If a user clicks this button, a second pop-up is displayed stating 

that the information “has been flagged for inaccurate data” and, for Instant Checkmate, 

“Our data team will review this information.” 

39. Defendants take no action to investigate the accuracy of flagged reports, to 

modify the contents of the report, to indicate to other customers that the reports have been 

“flagged,” or otherwise to correct the specific reports that have been flagged. 

40. Defendants have directed customers to use the “Remove” and/or “Flag As 

Inaccurate” buttons to remedy inaccuracies in TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate 

reports, including during customer service communications. 

41. In fact, neither the “Remove” nor the “Flag As Inaccurate” buttons remove 

or correct information from background reports. 

42. Millions of customers have interacted with the TruthFinder or Instant 

Checkmate “Remove” or “Flag as Inaccurate” buttons, and numerous customers have 

complained to the company that inaccurate information has reappeared in reports about 

themselves or family members after the customers have clicked the “Remove” buttons, or 

that reports were not corrected after the customers clicked the “Flag as Inaccurate” 

buttons. 

Deceptive Failure to Disclose Incentivized Endorsements 

43. Defendants have attempted to increase the number of positive reviews of 

Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder’s background reports on third-party consumer review 

website HighYa. This would have the effect of reducing the prominence and percentage 

of negative reviews. 

44. HighYa’s website recommends that merchants not offer free products in 

exchange for reviews because “this practice creates a feeling of obligation among 

reviewers to only leave 5-star feedback,” and further advises consumers, “If a company is 

offering to pay for a review, our experience has shown that this does not benefit 

consumers in any way, and it also violates our Terms and Conditions. If a company 
11 

[Case No.]

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

reaches out and offers to pay you for a review (using money or in exchange for services), 

please report them using our contact form.” 

45. Nevertheless, Defendants promised to provide consumers one free premium 

report credit in exchange for posting a review of Defendants’ products on HighYa. 

46. Each premium report credit could be redeemed for a “premium” TruthFinder 

or Instant Checkmate report. A premium TruthFinder report cost approximately $17.99. 

A premium Instant Checkmate report cost approximately $19.99. 

47. Defendants did not advise customers to disclose, and few, if any disclosed, 

that they were offered a premium report credit in exchange for posting a review. 

II. THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 

48. The FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x, imposes obligations on consumer 

reporting agencies (“CRAs”) that assemble and evaluate consumer reports in order to 

protect the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such 

information. These include requirements to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the 

maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports, to limit the furnishing of consumer 

reports to individuals who certify that they will use the reports only for certain 

permissible purposes, to conduct reasonable reinvestigations when consumers dispute the 

accuracy of information in their consumer reports, and to provide users of consumer 

reports with notice of their own obligations under the FCRA. 

49. Section 621 of the 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(a)(1). 

50. Section 621(a)(2) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(2), as adjusted by 16 

C.F.R. § 1.98(m), authorizes this Court to award monetary civil penalties of not more 

than $4,705 per violation for each knowing violation of the FCRA which constitutes a 

pattern or practice of violations of the statute. As specified by the Federal Civil Penalties 
12 

[Case No.]

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

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 the civil penalty. 

51. Defendants’ violations of the FCRA have been knowing and have 

constituted a pattern or practice of violations as required by Section 621 of the FCRA, 15 

U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(2).

Defendants are Consumer Reporting Agencies

52. Defendants are CRAs because they regularly engage in whole or in part in 

the practice of assembling or evaluating information on consumers into background 

reports and, among other things, market, promote, and sell the background reports for 

employment and tenant screening purposes. 

53. Section 603(f) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f), defines a CRA as: 

[A]ny 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. 

54. FCRA Section 603(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(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. 

55. Among other things, Section 604 authorizes CRAs to provide consumer 

reports to persons with “a legitimate business need in connection with a transaction 

initiated by the consumer,” such as for tenant screening. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(F)(i). 
13 

[Case No.]

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

56. Defendants have regularly engaged in the assembly of information on 

consumers into Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder background reports, which generally 

include name, date of birth, phone numbers, address history, relatives, arrest and criminal 

records, government license information, and social media profiles, and have sold those 

reports to the public. 

57. Since at least January 1, 2017, Defendants have used search engine 

advertising keywords in their marketing and advertising to promote the use of both 

Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder background reports for use in employment and tenant 

screening. 

58. As part of this advertising campaign, Defendants have purchased thousands 

of Microsoft Advertising and Google Ads keywords that implicate employee or tenant 

screening, directing Microsoft and Google to display Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder 

advertisements when consumers have used the search engines Bing (operated by 

Microsoft) or Google to search for these or conceptually-related words or phrases. 

59. Defendants’ search engine advertising keywords have included words and 

phrases relating to employment, tenant, or credit screening. For example: 

a. “nanny background check” 

b. “pre employment screening” 

c. “criminal background checks for employment” 

d. “best background check for landlords” 

e. “background check companies for landlords” 

f. “tenant background check” 

g. “consumer reporting agency background check” 

h. “Mary Tenant” 

i. “Kevin Job” 

j. “Melissa Credit” 

k. “free employee background check” 

l. “how to check employee background” 
14 

[Case No.]

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

m. “texaco employees” 

n. “maryland nanny” 

o. “trinidad job” 

p. “+background +check +employment” 

q. “+natalie +landlord” 

r. “+employee +background +check +services” 

s. “summer nanny” 

t. “cesar hire” 

u. “florida tenant” 

v. “mason hire” 

60. In addition, in numerous instances, Defendants selected the “broad” match 

setting for Microsoft or Google advertising keywords containing terms that relate to 

employment, tenant, or credit screening under the FCRA. The “broad” match setting 

instructs Microsoft or Google to display advertisements when consumers search for not 

only the keyword itself but also synonyms and related terms. 

61. Since January 1, 2017, Defendants’ inclusion of keywords related to 

employment, credit, and tenant screening in their ad campaigns have resulted in Instant 

Checkmate or TruthFinder ads being displayed to consumers more than a million times. 

62. Defendants were on notice that their use of these keywords implicated the 

FCRA because, in 2014, Instant Checkmate entered into a consent agreement to settle 

allegations that it failed to comply with requirements of the FCRA while promoting its 

backgrounds screening products for use in employment and tenant screening, including 

by using search engine advertising keywords that relate to employment and tenant 

screening. United States v. Instant Checkmate, Case No. 3:14-cv-0675, ¶ 9.c. (S.D. Cal. 

Mar. 24, 2014) (Complaint) (alleging that Instant Checkmate violated the FCRA by 

promoting the use of its reports for employment or housing through search engine 

advertising keywords). 
15 

[Case No.]

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

63. Additionally, since at least January 1, 2017, Defendants have known that 

their customers have regularly used Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder background 

reports for employment and tenant screening. 

64. In numerous instances, customers directly communicated to Defendants, 

including by e-mail and phone calls, that they had used or were using Instant Checkmate 

and TruthFinder background reports for employment or tenant screening. 

65. In numerous instances, when a prospective customer contacted Defendants 

and indicated an intent to use their background report services for employment or tenant 

screening, Defendants have failed to take steps to prevent the prospective customer from 

using Defendants’ background report services. 

66. In numerous instances, after a user disclosed past or present use of 

Defendants’ reports for employment or tenant screening, Defendants have failed to 

disable the users’ access to the background report services, instead allowing them to 

continue using the product for the duration of their current subscriptions and to purchase 

new subscriptions in the future should they choose to do so. 

67. Because Defendants regularly engage in the practice of assembling or 

evaluating information on consumers into background reports and, among other things, 

market, promote, and sell the background reports for employment and tenant screening 

purposes, Defendants are CRAs. 

68. Despite Defendants’ promotion of TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate 

reports for employment and tenant screening, and their knowledge that their background 

report services have regularly been used for such purposes, Defendants failed to comply 

with the requirements of the FCRA as described below. 

Selling Consumer Reports Without a Permissible Purpose 

69. Section 604(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a), permits a CRA to 

furnish a consumer report for purposes authorized in the statute and for no other purpose. 

These “permissible purposes” include, but are not limited to, using the consumer report in 

connection with a credit transaction, for employment purposes, or for a legitimate 
16 

[Case No.]

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

business need in connection with a transaction initiated by the consumer (e.g., for tenant 

screening). 

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

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

permissible purposes. The reasonable procedures mandated by Section 607(a) include: 

a. Requiring 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. Making 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. Limiting the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed 

under Section 604. 

71. Defendants do not maintain any procedures to limit the furnishing of 

consumer reports only for permissible purposes. 

72. In numerous instances, Defendants have furnished Instant Checkmate or 

TruthFinder background reports to individuals when Defendants did not have reason to 

believe that the individuals intended to use the reports for permissible purposes. 

73. Each instance in which Defendants have furnished a consumer report 

without a permissible purpose, or without maintaining the procedures required by Section 

607(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(a), constitutes a separate violation for which 

Plaintiff may seek monetary penalties. 

Failure to Follow Requirements for Furnishing Consumer Reports for 

Employment Purposes 

74. Section 604(b) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b), requires CRAs that 

furnish consumer reports for employment purposes to: 

a. obtain a certification that the user has complied with certain consumer notice 

requirements, including that the user (i) has provided a standalone written disclosure to 
17 

[Case No.]

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

the consumer that a consumer report may be obtained, (ii) has obtained the written 

consent of the consumer to obtain a consumer report, and (iii) will prior to taking any 

adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, provide the consumer with a copy 

of the consumer report and a written description of the consumer’s rights under the 

FCRA; 

b. obtain a certification that the user will not use the information from the 

consumer report in violation of any applicable Federal or State equal employment 

opportunity law or regulation; and 

c. provide with the report, or have previously provided, a summary of the 

consumer’s rights under the FCRA. 

75. As described in Paragraphs 52-73 above, in numerous instances, Defendants

have sold consumer reports for employment purposes. 

76. In selling consumer reports for employment purposes, Defendants have not 

obtained the required certifications or provided a summary of the consumer’s rights unde

the FCRA. 

77. Each instance in which Defendants have furnished a consumer report for 

employment purposes without complying with the requirements of Section 604(b) of the 

FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b), constitutes a separate violation for which Plaintiff may 

seek monetary penalties. 

Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure 

Maximum Possible Accuracy 

78. FCRA Section 607(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), requires CRAs to follow 

reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer report 

information. 

79. As described above in Paragraphs 22-24 and 31-42, Defendants do not 

maintain reasonable procedures for assuring the maximum possible accuracy of 

information in Instant Checkmate or TruthFinder background reports. 

80. Each instance in which Defendants have furnished a consumer report 

r 
18 

[Case No.]

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

without following reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of 

consumer report information as required by Section 607(b) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1681e(b), constitutes a separate violation for which Plaintiff may seek monetary 

penalties. 

Failure to Provide User Notice 

81. FCRA Section 607(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(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. As required by Section 607(d), the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau has prescribed the content of the User Notice through a model notice 

that is set forth in 12 C.F.R. § 1022, Appendix N. The User Notice provides users of 

consumer reports with important information regarding their legal obligations under the 

FCRA, including the obligation of the user to provide a notice to consumers who are the 

subject of an adverse action based in whole or in part on information contained in the 

consumer report. 

82. Defendants do not provide users of Defendants’ background report services 

with the User Notice when they purchase reports. 

83. Each instance in which Defendants have furnished a consumer report 

without providing a User Notice as required by FCRA Section 607(d), 15 U.S.C. § 

1681e(d), constitutes a separate violation for which Plaintiff may seek monetary 

penalties. 

Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigations of Consumer Disputes 

84. FCRA Section 611(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A), requires that, if the 

completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file at a 

CRA is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or 

indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a 

reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate 

and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file, 
19 

[Case No.]

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

before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives 

the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. 

85. As described above in Paragraphs 31-42, Defendants fail to conduct 

reinvestigations of the completeness or accuracy of information contained within 

TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate reports upon receipt of a notice of dispute from the 

consumer. 

86. Each instance in which Defendants have failed to conduct a reasonable 

reinvestigation as required by FCRA Section 611(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A), 

constitutes a separate violation for which Plaintiff may seek monetary penalties. 

87. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff 

has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced 

by the FTC because, among other things: Defendants have made the deceptive 

representations described in Paragraphs 20-47, and have continued to promote their 

services for employment and tenant screening without complying with the FCRA, as 

described in Paragraphs 48-86, at least until the commencement of the FTC’s 

investigation. 

COUNT I 

DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS 

REGARDING ACCURACY 

88. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

89. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, promotion, 

offering for sale, or sale of background reports, Defendants have represented, directly or 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, that their background reports are highly accurate 

or are “the most accurate information available to the public” and “the most accurate 

information available to civilians.” 

90. The representations set forth in Paragraph 89 were false or unsubstantiated at 

the time the representations were made. 
20 

[Case No.]

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

91. Therefore, the making of the representations described in Paragraph 89 of 

this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT II 

DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS 

REGARDING CRIMINAL AND ARREST RECORDS 

92. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

93. Defendants have represented to Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder users 

that searched-for individuals may have or have criminal or arrest records that users could 

view after purchasing an Instant Checkmate or TruthFinder subscription. 

94. In truth and in fact, in many instances, the searched-for individuals do not 

have criminal or arrest records, or they have only traffic violations. Defendants’ 

representations to the contrary have been false or misleading. 

95. Therefore, the making of the representations described in Paragraph 93 of 

this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT III 

DECEPTIVE REMOVAL AND CORRECTION CLAIMS 

96. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

97. Defendants have represented directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that subscribers can correct inaccurate information contained in Defendants’ 

background reports by clicking on the “remove” or “flag as inaccurate” buttons. 

98. In fact, subscribers cannot correct inaccurate information contained in 

Defendants’ background reports by clicking “remove” or “flag as inaccurate,” nor do 

Defendants inform other users that such information has been flagged or otherwise 

disputed. 
21 

[Case No.]

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

99. Therefore, the making of the representations described in Paragraph 97 of 

this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT IV 

FALSE CLAIM OF UNBIASED REVIEWS 

100. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

101. In connection with the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of 

background reports, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that customer reviews of Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder reflect the 

opinions or experiences of ordinary unbiased customers. 

102. In truth and in fact, these customer reviews do not reflect the opinions or 

experiences of ordinary unbiased customers, but instead were written by individuals 

compensated with a free premium report credit. 

103. Therefore, the making of the representations, described in Paragraph 101 

was false or misleading and constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 

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

COUNT V 

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL CONNECTIONS 

104. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

105. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale, or sale of background reports, Defendants have represented, 

directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that customer reviews of Instant 

Checkmate and TruthFinder posted on the HighYa website reflected their customers’ 

opinions or experiences. 

106. In numerous instances in which the Defendants made the representation set 

forth in Paragraph 105, Defendants failed to disclose, or disclose adequately, that some of 

those customers received compensation in the form of a free premium report credit to 
22 

[Case No.]

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

post those reviews on the HighYa website. This fact would be material to consumers in 

evaluating the reviews in connection with a purchase or use decision. 

107. Defendants’ failure to disclose or disclose adequately the material 

information described in Paragraph 106, in light of the representation set forth in 

Paragraph 105, constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT VI 

FCRA SECTION 607(a) 

108. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

109. As described in Paragraphs 69-73, Defendants failed to maintain reasonable 

procedures to require users to identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the 

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

purposes; 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 limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes permitted 

by FCRA Section 604, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. 

110. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 109, 

Defendants have violated Section 607(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(a). 

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

and practices alleged in Paragraph 109 also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

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

COUNT VII 

FCRA SECTION 604(a) 

112. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

113. As described in Paragraphs 69-73, Defendants have furnished consumer 

reports, in the form of their background reports, to their subscribers without reason to 

believe those subscribers have permissible purposes to obtain such reports. 
23 

[Case No.]

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

114. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 113, 

Defendants have violated Section 604(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a). 

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

and practices alleged in Paragraph 113 also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

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

COUNT VIII 

FCRA SECTION 607(b) 

116. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

117. As described in Paragraphs 22-42, and 78-80, in multiple instances, 

Defendants have failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible 

accuracy of consumer report information. 

118. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 117, 

Defendants have violated Section 607(b) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). 

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

and practices alleged in Paragraph 117 also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

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

COUNT IX 

FCRA SECTION 604(b) 

120. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

121. In selling consumer reports for employment purposes, Defendants have not 

obtained the required certifications or provided a summary of the consumer’s rights under 

the FCRA. 

122. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 121, 

Defendants have violated Section 604(b) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1)(A) and 

(B). 
24 

[Case No.]

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

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

and practices alleged in Paragraph 121 also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

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

COUNT X 

FCRA SECTION 607(d) 

124. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

125. As described in Paragraphs 81-83, Defendants do not provide users of 

Defendants’ background report services with the User Notice when users purchase 

reports, as required by FCRA Section 607(d). 

126. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 125, 

Defendants have violated Section 607(d) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(d). 

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

and practices alleged in Paragraph 125 also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

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

COUNT XI 

FCRA SECTION 611(a) 

128. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated as if set forth herein. 

129. As described in Paragraphs 31-42 and 84-86, Defendants fail to conduct 

reinvestigations of the completeness or accuracy of information contained within 

TruthFinder or Instant Checkmate reports upon receipt of a notice of dispute from the 

consumer. 

130. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 129, 

Defendants have violated Section 611(a)(1)(A) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 

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

and practices alleged in Paragraph 129 also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 
25 

[Case No.]

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

CONSUMER INJURY 

132. Consumers have suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial injury as a 

result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and the FCRA. Absent injunctive relief 

by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the public 

interest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court: 

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and 

the FCRA by Defendants; 

B. Award monetary civil penalties against Defendants for each violation of the 

FCRA alleged in this Complaint; and 

C. Award such other and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just 

and proper. 

Dated: September 11, 2023 

Respectfully submitted, 

FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: 

BENJAMIN WISEMAN 

Associate Director 

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection 

TIFFANY GEORGE 

Assistant Director 

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection 

/s/ Katherine E. McCarron 

KATHERINE E. McCARRON (D.C. Bar No. 486335) 

ROBIN L. WETHERILL (CA Bar No. 323912) 

Attorneys 

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection 
26 

[Case No.]

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

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-2333 (McCarron) 

(202) 326-2220 (Wetherill)