1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-2659

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, and

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and

TRANS UNION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(“Bureau”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against TransUnion Rental Screening 

Solutions, Inc. (“TURSS”) and Trans Union LLC (“TU LLC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and 

allege as follows: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and Section 621(a)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(1), which authorize the FTC to seek, and the Court to order, 

permanent injunctive relief and other relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x.

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 16
2 

2. The Bureau brings this action under Sections 1054(a) and 1055 of the Consumer 

Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5564(a) and 5565, and Section 621(b) 

of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(b)(1)(H), which authorize the Bureau to seek, and the Court to 

order, permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, civil money penalties, and other relief for 

Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x.

INTRODUCTION

3. In numerous instances, Defendants have violated the FCRA by failing to follow

reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information in background 

screening reports that landlords and others rely on to, among other things, make rental decisions 

about specific consumers (“Tenant Screening Reports”), and by failing to clearly and accurately 

disclose to consumers the sources of information in background screening reports. 

4. Inaccurate and outdated information in Tenant Screening Reports can 

significantly interfere with consumers’ ability to find housing and cause them harm, including, 

but not limited to, prolonged housing searches, additional application fees, time and money spent 

correcting errors, higher rental payments, temporary housing costs, and denial of housing.

5. Plaintiffs filed this Complaint to stop Defendants’ unlawful practices, to obtain 

relief for harmed consumers, and to obtain a penalty. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345, and 12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(1). 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 16
3 

7. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), 15 

U.S.C. § 53(b), and 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f), because Defendants are located, reside, or do business 

in this district and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 

occurred in this district.

PLAINTIFFS

8. 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 civil action by its own 

attorneys. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. 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.

9. The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 

the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5491(a). The Bureau is charged with enforcing Federal consumer 

financial laws, including the CFPA and the FCRA. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5491(a), 5481(12), (14). The 

Bureau is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings by its own attorneys to address 

violations of Federal consumer financial law, including the CFPA and the FCRA. 12 U.S.C. 

§ 5564(a)-(b). 

DEFENDANTS

10. Defendant TURSS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 

in Greenwood Village, Colorado and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant TU LLC. 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 16
4 

11. Defendant TU LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal 

place of business in Chicago, Illinois. TU LLC operates TURSS as a business unit and performs 

a variety of shared services for TURSS, including legal and compliance, accounting and finance, 

marketing and public relations, data science, and human resources. TU LLC also develops and 

approves FCRA-related policies and procedures used by TURSS. Throughout the relevant time 

period, TU LLC, through its officers or employees, has been responsible for, among other things,

management and oversight of TURSS’s FCRA compliance policies and procedures, including 

monitoring and testing for regulatory compliance and compliance training. TU LLC participated 

in, directed, or authorized the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint.

12. Defendants transact or have transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, 

Defendants have furnished background reports about consumers in Colorado and throughout the 

United States.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 

13. Enacted in 1970, the FCRA became effective on April 25, 1971, and has been in 

force since that date. It has been amended several times, including by the Fair and Accurate 

Credit Transactions Act in December 2003 and the Dodd-Frank Act in July 2010.

14. TURSS, through its provision of tenant and employment background screening 

reports, and TU LLC, through its provision of credit and other reports, are and have been 

“Consumer Reporting Agencies,” as defined in Section 603(f) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681a(f). That section defines a Consumer Reporting Agency as: 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 16
5 

[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 [C]onsumer [R]eports to third parties, and which uses any means or 

facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing 

[C]onsumer [R]eports.

Defendants regularly sell in interstate commerce information on consumers that they assemble or 

evaluate for the purpose of furnishing Consumer Reports to third parties, as described further 

below.

15. The FCRA imposes several obligations on Consumer Reporting Agencies, 

including obligations to: (1) follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible 

accuracy of the information in Consumer Reports, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and (2) upon a 

consumer’s request, disclose to the consumer all information contained in the consumer’s file 

and the sources of the information, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a). 

16. Pursuant to § 621 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s, a violation of the FCRA 

constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 

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

TURSS’s Background Screening Reports Are Consumer Reports 

Subject to the Requirements of the FCRA

17. TURSS has furnished background screening reports about consumers to 

thousands of client rental property owners, property management companies, employers, and 

other background screening companiesthroughout the United States, to, among other things,

assist in tenant and employee selection. These background screening reports may include public 

record information, including criminal records and records related to residential eviction 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 16
6 

proceedings (“Eviction Proceeding Records”), obtained from multiple sources. In addition, the 

background screening reports may include credit information obtained from Defendant TU LLC. 

18. The background screening reports that TURSS has sold to clients are “Consumer 

Reports” as defined in Section 603(d) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d). They are 

communications of information, including public record and credit information, by a Consumer 

Reporting Agency; the reports bear on, among other things, consumers’ credit worthiness, 

general reputation, and personal characteristics; and they are used or expected to be used as a 

factor in determining the consumer’s eligibility for employment or for rental housing pursuant to 

Section 604(a)(3) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3). 

Eviction Proceeding Records and Events

19. The process of attempting to evict a tenant can result in a variety of different 

events being reported on the court record (“Events”). These Events could include the filing of a 

new civil matter to begin the process with the court (also known as a civil new filing) and the 

filing of an outcome of the proceeding. An eviction might also have post-judgment filings, such 

as a satisfaction of judgment. These Events are reflected in Eviction Proceeding Records.

20. Eviction Proceeding Records may also include, among other items, the amount 

sought by the plaintiff landlord, any judgment amount that the court awards, and amounts owed 

that reflect consumer payments on a debt. 

21. Courts may seal or expunge the records reflected in Eviction Proceeding Records 

at the request of a consumer or pursuant to applicable state laws, among other reasons.

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 16
7 

22. TURSS has furnished hundreds of thousands of Consumer Reports containing 

Eviction Proceeding Records to clients every year.

Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to 

Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy

23. Section 607(b) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), requires that “[w]henever a 

[C]onsumer [R]eporting [A]gency prepares a [C]onsumer [R]eport it shall follow reasonable 

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual 

about whom the report relates.”

24. In numerous instances, TURSS has failed to follow reasonable procedures to 

assure maximum possible accuracy of Eviction Proceeding Records in its Tenant Screening 

Reports. TURSS has not followed reasonable procedures to: (1) prevent the inclusion of multiple 

entries for the same eviction case in Eviction Proceeding Records, (2) accurately report the case 

disposition in Eviction Proceeding Records, (3) accurately label data fields in Eviction

Proceeding Records, and (4) prevent the inclusion of sealed Eviction Proceeding Records. 

25. TURSS’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible 

accuracy of Eviction Proceeding Records has been knowing and reckless.

Multiple Entries for a Single Eviction Case

26. TURSS has failed to follow reasonable procedures to prevent the inclusion of 

multiple entries for the same eviction case in Eviction Proceeding Recordsin Tenant Screening 

Reports.

27. When reporting Eviction Proceeding Records in Tenant Screening Reports, 

TURSS’s procedure has been to display each Event in a case as a separate entry in the report. 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 16
8 

28. TURSS also previously reported Events from one case interspersed with Events 

related to other cases. 

29. For example, prior to April 2021, TURSS would display a single eviction case 

that had two Events—such as a civil new filing and a judgment of possession—as two separate 

entries. On the same report, TURSS would also display a second eviction case that had two 

Events—such as a civil new filing and a civil dismissal —as two separate entries, with the 

entries for the second case interspersed among the entries from the first case. As a result, the 

consumer’s Tenant Screening Report would display four separate entries when there were only 

two eviction cases. 

30. In April 2021, TURSS began to group all Events for a single eviction case 

together. TURSS only took this step after receiving a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC. 

TURSS continued to provide the old versions of the reports to some customers.

31. TURSS’s procedures have caused consumer eviction histories to appear more 

voluminous than the actual number of cases present and have resulted in incorrect and 

misleading information about the number of eviction cases relating to a particular consumer.

32. Even when grouped together, there have continued to be multiple entries for a 

single case, and consumer eviction histories can still appear more voluminous than the actual 

number of eviction cases.

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 16
9 

Inaccurate Dispositions for Eviction Cases

33. TURSS has failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure that the Eviction 

Proceeding Records in Tenant Screening Reports accurately reflect the true or current status of 

the public records, such as the final disposition of the case. 

34. In numerous instances, TURSS has provided Tenant Screening Reports with 

errors including Eviction Proceeding Records that do not identify a final disposition and merely 

indicate that an eviction case was initiated, even if a later or final disposition is available in 

public records. TURSS has also provided Tenant Screening Reports with Eviction Proceeding 

Records that have an incorrect final disposition, such as reporting a judgment for the plaintiff 

when a case was actually dismissed. 

35. In numerous instances, the final disposition or other update that was missing or 

incorrect had occurred months or years prior to the date of the Tenant Screening Report. 

36. TURSS has received numerous consumer disputes regarding the errors described 

in Paragraph 34 that should have alerted it to this problem.

37. TURSS purchases the information that goes into Eviction Proceeding Records 

from a third-party vendor, LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc. 

(“LexisNexis”). 

38. TURSS has not imposed specific requirements on LexisNexis regarding the 

accuracy and completeness of information in Eviction Proceeding Records. Indeed, TURSS’s 

contract with LexisNexis has provided that: 

[LexisNexis] will use reasonable efforts to deliver the [LexisNexis] Services and 

to compile information gathered from public records used in the provision of the 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 16
10

[LexisNexis] Services; provided, however, that [TURSS] accepts all information 

“AS IS.” [TURSS] acknowledges and agrees that [LexisNexis] obtains its data 

from third-party sources, which may or may not be completely thorough and 

accurate, and that [TURSS] shall not rely on [LexisNexis] for the accuracy or 

completeness of information supplied through the [LexisNexis] Services.

39. Prior to April 2020, TURSS’s procedures allowed it to report Eviction Proceeding 

Records without regard to when an update on the records was last obtained from a particular 

source. In April 2020, TURSS implemented process changes in an attempt to reduce the number 

of Eviction Proceeding Records it reported with out-of-date dispositions. But TURSS only took 

these steps after receiving a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC. 

Inaccurate Labeling of Information in Eviction Proceeding Records

40. TURSS has failed to follow reasonable procedures to label the fields in Eviction 

Proceeding Records in Tenant Screening Reports to accurately describe the nature of the 

information populated in that field.

41. Until at least early 2019, TURSS included a field for Eviction Proceeding 

Records in Tenant Screening Reports that it labeled or described as a “Judgment Amount.”

42. However, the amounts that TURSS populated in this field were not necessarily a 

judgment amount awarded by a court. Instead, in many instances, TURSS used this field for 

amounts representing any money the plaintiff in the eviction case alleged that the consumer 

owed.

43. The term “Judgment Amount” was inaccurate and misleading because it falsely 

represented that a court had ordered the amount due in a judgment. 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 16
11

44. For example, TURSS included amounts in the “Judgment Amount” field even 

when there was no final disposition in an eviction case or when an eviction case was dismissed 

or resolved in the tenant’s favor, giving the impression that there was a final judgment of a 

particular amount against a tenant when there was none.

45. In March 2019, TURSS changed the name of this field in at leastsome of its 

reports to “Amount.” However, this vague labelstill does not assure maximum possible accuracy 

because TURSS has populated this field with a variety of figures, including the amount alleged 

due by a landlord when the case was filed—which may or may not be owed by a consumer, a 

judgment amount, or the remaining amount owed by the tenant on a judgment. 

Reporting Sealed Records

46. TURSS has failed to follow reasonable procedures to prevent the inclusion of

sealed Eviction Proceeding Records in Tenant Screening Reports.

47. TURSS maintains a database with Eviction Proceeding Records that are supplied 

by LexisNexis. 

48. According to TURSS, LexisNexis provides updates that permit TURSS to 

identify and delete Eviction Proceeding Records that could no longer be located, and thus may 

have been sealed or restricted from the public record after being supplied to TURSS. 

49. Prior to November 2021, TURSS did not have procedures to ensure that the 

updates from LexisNexis would allow TURSS to identify and delete all Eviction Proceeding 

Records in TURSS’s database that may have been sealed after being supplied to TURSS. 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 16
12

Specifically, the updates may not have included changes to eviction cases more than one year old 

if the only record was a civil new filing, even if those records were subsequently sealed. 

50. TURSS had notice no later than June 2018 that the records referenced in 

Paragraph 49 may not have been updated.

Results of Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures 

51. As a result of TURSS’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure 

maximum possible accuracy, in multiple instances, TURSS has provided Consumer Reports with 

incorrect and misleading information regarding consumers, including current or prospective 

tenants. 

52. Throughout the relevant time period, TURSS has received tens of thousands of

consumer disputes about the Eviction Proceeding Records in its Consumer Reports. 

53. TURSS’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible 

accuracy of Consumer Reports caused, or was likely to cause, consumer injuries, such as

prolonged housing searches, additional application fees, time and money spent correcting errors 

in Tenant Screening Reports, higher rental payments, temporary housing costs, and denial of 

housing.

Failure to Identify the Sources of Information in Consumer File Disclosures 

54. Section 609(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a), generally requires Consumer 

Reporting Agencies to, among other things, “upon request, . . . clearly and accurately disclose to 

the consumer: (1) All information in the consumer’s file at the time of the request . . . [and]

(2) The sources of the information . . . ” (“File Disclosure”). 

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 16
13

55. This statutory requirement is important because it enables consumers to dispute 

an inaccuracy at the source to help prevent the reoccurrence of the inaccuracy in information that 

the source provides to third parties.

56. TURSS obtains public record information, including criminal records and 

Eviction Proceeding Records, for inclusion in its background screening reports from multiple 

sources, including directly from the jurisdiction, through court-managed databases or records, 

and from third-party vendors. 

57. In numerous instances where TURSS obtained criminal records and Eviction 

Proceeding Records from third-party vendors—such as LexisNexis—TURSS failed to identify 

the third-party vendor as a source of the criminal record and Eviction Proceeding Record 

information in File Disclosures to consumers.

58. Prior to June 2021, when a consumer requested a File Disclosure from TURSS, 

TURSS provided the consumer with a File Disclosure that identified the jurisdiction for the 

criminal record or Eviction Proceeding Record as the sole source of the information even when, 

in fact, TURSS obtained the information from a third-party vendor source. 

59. In June 2021, TURSS began disclosing LexisNexis as a source of Eviction

ProceedingRecord information. TURSS only took this step after receiving a Civil Investigative 

Demand from the FTC. In June 2022, TURSS began disclosing third-party criminal data vendors 

as sources.

60. TURSS’s prior failure to disclose its third-party vendors as a source of criminal 

records and Eviction Proceeding Records was knowing and reckless.

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 16
14

Count I – Violations of Section 607(b) of the FCRA

61. As described in Paragraphs 23 through 53, and in numerous instances, Defendant

TURSS has failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of 

Consumer Report information.

62. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 61, Defendant

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

63. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 11, Defendant Trans 

Union LLC has violated Section 607(b) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

Count II – Violations of Section 609(a) of the FCRA

64. As described in Paragraphs 54 through 60, and in numerous instances, Defendant

TURSS has failed to disclose the sources of information contained in a consumer’s file in 

response to consumers’ requests. 

65. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 64, Defendant 

TURSS has violated Section 609(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a). 

66. By and through the acts and practices described in Paragraph 11, Defendant Trans 

Union LLC has violated Section 609(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court: 

a. permanently enjoin Defendants from committing future violations of the FCRA and the 

FTC Act; 

b. impose civil money penalties against Defendants;

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 16
15

c. award such monetary relief as the Court finds necessary, including but not limited to 

refund of moneys paid, restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment, 

and payment of damages; 

d. order Defendants to pay the FTC’s and Bureau’s costs incurred in connection with 

proceeding with this action; and

e. award additional relief as the Court determines to be just and proper.

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 16
16

Dated: October 12, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Benjamin Wiseman

Associate Director

Robert Schoshinski

Assistant Director

Tiffany George

Assistant Director

Whitney Moore (DC No. 496842)

Jarad Brown (CA No. 294516)

Attorneys

Federal Trade Commission

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Mail Stop CC-6315

Washington, DC 20580

(202) 326-2645 (Moore)

(202) 326-2927 (Brown)

(202) 326-3392 (Fax)

Email: wmoore@ftc.gov

Email: jbrown4@ftc.gov

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Federal Trade 

Commission

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

Eric Halperin

Enforcement Director

Richa Shyam Dasgupta

Deputy Enforcement Director

Susan Torres

Assistant Deputy Enforcement Director

Emily Sachs (VA No. 82437)

Phillip Harris (NC No. 39740, AZ No. 036513)

Joseph Sanders (IL No. 6308241, NY No. 

4397204)

Rebecca Smullin (DC No. 1017451, CA No. 

250274)

Enforcement Attorneys

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

1700 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20552

(202) 435-9424 (Sachs)

(202) 435-7768 (Harris)

(202) 435-9642 (Sanders)

(202) 435-7546 (Smullin)

Email: emily.sachs@cfpb.gov 

Email: phillip.harris@cfpb.gov

Email: joseph.sanders@cfpb.gov

Email: rebecca.smullin@cfpb.gov

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau

s/Whitney Moore

s/Emily Sachs

Case No. 1:23-cv-02659 Document 1 filed 10/12/23 USDC Colorado pg 16 of 16