Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 4171 

39S. Rep. No. 91–517, at 1 (1969). 

40Courts have recognized the importance of the 

disclosure of all sources for consumers to dispute 

inaccuracies and prevent the reoccurrence of 

inaccuracies. See, e.g., Clark v. Trans Union LLC, 

No. 3:15cv391, 2016 WL 7197391, at *11 (E.D. Va. 

Dec. 9, 2016) (stating that ‘‘the omission of 

LexisNexis as a source deprived Clark of her 

congressionally-mandated right to correct the 

mistake with LexisNexis, or with anyone else to 

whom LexisNexis also may have disclosed the 

inaccurate information. Moreover, the failure to 

include LexisNexis in the report creates a material 

risk that LexisNexis could continue to report 

inaccurate information to others in the future.’’); 

Leo v. AppFolio, Inc., No. 17–5771 RJB, 2018 WL 

623647, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2018) (noting 

that AppFolio’s failure to properly identify the 

vendor who provided the data would make it 

harder for the plaintiff to correct the misreporting). 

41See, e.g., Clark v. Trans Union LLC, No. 

3:15cv391, 2016 WL 7197391, at *11 (E.D. Va. Dec. 

9, 2016); Leo v. AppFolio, Inc., No. 17–5771 RJB, 

2018 WL 623647, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2018). 

42 15 U.S.C. 1681s. 

43 15 U.S.C. 1681o (emphasis added). 

44 15 U.S.C. 1681n (emphasis added); Safeco Ins. 

Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57–58 (2007) 

(construing meaning of ‘‘willful’’). 

45Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70 

(2007); Fuges v. Sw. Fin. Servs., Ltd., 707 F.3d 241, 

253 (3d Cir. 2012). 

46Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

47 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). 

48 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. 

49 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 

damaged because of inaccurate or 

arbitrary information in a credit 

report.’’ 39 The FCRA achieves this by, 

among other things, providing 

consumers the right to obtain, upon 

request, all information in their file and 

the sources of that information and the 

right to dispute any incomplete or 

inaccurate information. The statutory 

right provided by FCRA section 

609(a)(2) enables consumers to 

understand the true sources of any 

incomplete or inaccurate information in 

their file and helps them to address 

such errors more effectively.40 For 

example, many consumer reporting 

agencies, including background 

screening companies, obtain public 

records information from vendors. 

Vendors often provide only distilled 

versions of these records that do not 

contain all the information housed by 

the jurisdiction from which the records 

originated and sometimes contain 

mistakes or fail to include the most upto-date status of the public records. If a 

consumer reporting agency discloses to 

a consumer only the original 

jurisdiction as the source of the 

information and does not also disclose 

the vendor, or conversely, if the 

consumer reporting agency discloses to 

a consumer only the vendor and does 

not also disclose the original source of 

the information, the consumer may not 

be able to correct any erroneous public 

records information that could be 

included in their files at all of the 

consumer reporting agencies that 

receive data from the vendor.41

Interpreting FCRA section 609(a)(2) to 

allow a consumer reporting agency to 

disclose to a consumer only a single 

source of the information, and not all 

sources of the information, would 

undermine the FCRA’s purposes by 

limiting consumers’ ability to 

understand the sources of the often 

highly sensitive information in their file 

and to address and prevent further 

dissemination of incomplete or 

inaccurate data. 

In addition to provisions authorizing 

Federal and State enforcement,42 the 

FCRA contains two provisions relating 

to civil liability to consumers for 

noncompliance. Section 617 provides 

that ‘‘any person who is negligent in 

failing to comply with any requirement 

imposed under this title with respect to 

any consumer is liable to that consumer 

in an amount equal to’’ the consumer’s 

actual damages, and costs and 

reasonable attorney’s fees.43 Section 616 

provides that ‘‘any person who willfully 

fails to comply with any requirement 

imposed under this title with respect to 

any consumer is liable to that consumer 

in an amount equal to’’ actual or 

statutory damages of up to $1,000 per 

violation, such punitive damages as the 

court allows, and costs and reasonable 

attorney’s fees.44 A violation is willful 

when it is inconsistent with 

‘‘authoritative guidance’’ from a relevant 

agency.45 As with any guidance issued 

by the CFPB on the FCRA, or 

predecessor agencies that were 

responsible for administering the FCRA 

prior to the CFPB’s creation, consumer 

reporting agencies risk liability under 

section 616 if they violate the FCRA in 

a manner described in this advisory 

opinion, regardless of whether the 

consumer reporting agencies were 

previously liable for willful violations 

prior to its issuance. 

II. Regulatory Matters 

This advisory opinion is an 

interpretive rule issued under the 

Bureau’s authority to interpret the 

FCRA, including under section 

1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act of 2010,46 which 

authorizes guidance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to enable the 

Bureau to administer and carry out the 

purposes and objectives of Federal 

consumer financial laws.47

The Bureau has determined that this 

advisory opinion does not impose any 

new or revise any existing 

recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure 

requirements on covered entities or 

members of the public that would be 

collections of information requiring 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act.48

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act,49 the Bureau will submit a report 

containing this interpretive rule and 

other required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to the 

rule’s published effective date. The 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs has designated this interpretive 

rule as not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Rohit Chopra, 

Director, Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00786 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

12 CFR Part 1022 

Fair Credit Reporting; Background 

Screening 

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

ACTION: Advisory opinion. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is 

issuing this advisory opinion to affirm 

that, when preparing consumer reports, 

a consumer reporting agency that 

reports public record information is not 

using reasonable procedures to assure 

maximum possible accuracy under 

section 607(b) of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (FCRA) if it does not have 

certain procedures in place. For 

example, it must have procedures that 

prevent reporting of information that is 

duplicative or that has been expunged, 

sealed, or otherwise legally restricted 

from public access. This advisory 

opinion also highlights certain aspects 

of the reporting period for adverse items 

under FCRA section 605(a)(5). 

DATES: This advisory opinion is 

effective on January 23, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth 

Caffrey, Amanda Quester, or Ruth Van 

Veldhuizen, Senior Counsels, Office of 

Regulations at (202) 435–7700 or 

https://reginquiries. consumer

finance.gov/. If you require this 

document in an alternative electronic 

format, please contact CFPB_

Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Bureau is issuing this advisory opinion 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4172 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 85 FR 77987 (Dec. 3, 2020). 

2CFPB, Bulletin 2021–03: Consumer Reporting of 

Rental Information (July 1, 2021), https://files.

consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumerreporting-rental-information_bulletin-2021-03_

2021-07.pdf; CFPB, Market Snapshot: Background 

Screening Reports, at 3–4 (Oct. 2019), https://files.

consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201909_cfpb_

market-snapshot-background-screening_report.pdf. 

3See 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d) (defining ‘‘consumer 

report’’); 1681a(f) (defining ‘‘consumer reporting 

agency’’). 

4See generally CFPB, Market Snapshot: 

Background Screening Reports (Oct. 2019), https:// 

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201909_

cfpb_market-snapshot-background-screening_

report.pdf. 

5See id. at 5. 

6See id. at 2. 

7See id. at 8. 

8See generally Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Broken 

Records Redux: How Errors by Criminal 

Background Check Companies Continue to Harm 

Consumers Seeking Jobs and Housing, at 3 (Dec. 

2019), https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminaljustice/report-broken-records-redux.pdf; Sarah E. 

Lageson & Robert Stewart, Faulty Background 

Checks Are Violating Privacy and Ruining Lives, 

The Hill (Sept. 28, 2023), https://thehill.com/ 

opinion/technology/4227081-faulty-backgroundchecks-are-violating-privacy-and-ruining-lives/ 

(describing study that concluded that 74 percent of 

total criminal charges reported on 101 participants’ 

reports did not have matches in official state reports 

and that a background report erroneously attributed 

50 charges to a participant who in fact had only two 

drug convictions). 

9 In November 2021, the Bureau issued an 

advisory opinion highlighting that a consumer 

reporting agency that prepares consumer reports 

using name-only matching (i.e., matching 

information to the particular consumer who is the 

subject of a consumer report based solely on 

whether the consumer’s first and last names are 

identical or similar to the names associated with the 

information) does not use reasonable procedures to 

assure maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 

section 607(b). Fair Credit Reporting: Name-Only 

Matching Procedures, 86 FR 62468 (Nov. 10, 2021). 

10See Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Digital Denials: 

How Abuse, Bias, and Lack of Transparency in 

Tenant Screening Harm Renters, at 37 (Sept. 2023), 

https://www.nclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ 

202309_Report_Digital-Denials.pdf. 

11See id. at 38. 

12See, e.g., id. at 5, 31, 35; Consent Order, In re 

Gen. Info. Servs., Inc., 2015–CFPB–0028 (Oct. 29, 

2015), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201510_

cfpb_consent-order_general-information-serviceinc.pdf; CFPB, Press Release, CFPB Takes Action 

Against Two of the Largest Employment 

Background Screening Report Providers for Serious 

Inaccuracies (Oct. 29, 2015), https://www.consumer

finance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-actionagainst-two-of-the-largest-employment-backgroundscreening-report-providers-for-serious-inaccuracies/ 

; Consent Order, United States v. HireRight Sols., 

Inc., 1:12-cv-01313 (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2012), https://

www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/ 

2012/08/120808hirerightstip.pdf. 

13See, e.g., Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 105.163 (allowing 

sealing of eviction records in certain circumstances, 

such as when there is a judgment or judgment of 

dismissal entered in the consumer’s favor); DC Code 

sec. 42–3505.09 (requiring that eviction records be 

sealed in certain circumstances, such as (1) after 30 

days have passed from final resolution if the 

eviction proceeding does not result in a judgment 

for possession in favor of the housing provider or 

(2) three years after the final resolution of the 

eviction proceeding if the eviction proceeding 

results in a judgment for possession in favor of the 

housing provider); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code sec. 1161.2 

(requiring certain eviction records to be sealed at 

filing, and limiting access to those records to a 

small list of exceptions, unless judgment is entered 

for the landlord within 60 days of the complaint 

being filed); see also Margaret C. Love, Collateral 

Consequences Res. Ctr., 50-State Comparison: 

Expungement, Sealing & Other Record Relief (Oct. 

2021), https://ccresourcecenter.org/staterestoration-profiles/50-state-comparisonjudicialexpungement-sealing-and-set-aside/. 

14See, e.g., 28 CFR 20.21(b); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 

sec. 9121(b)(2) (generally restricting State and local 

police departments from disseminating information 

regarding the initiation of criminal proceedings to 

individuals or noncriminal justice agencies when 

three years have elapsed from the date of arrest, no 

disposition is indicated in the record, and nothing 

in the record indicates that proceedings seeking 

conviction remain pending); 6 Va. Admin. Code 20– 

120–50.A.1 (generally prohibiting dissemination of 

criminal history records to noncriminal justice 

agencies or individuals when one year has elapsed 

from the date of arrest, no disposition of the charge 

has been recorded, and no active prosecution of the 

charge is pending); see also SEARCH, The Nat’l 

Consortium for Justice Info. and Statistics, Report 

of the National Task Force on the Commercial Sale 

of Criminal Justice Record Information, at 41 (2005), 

https://www.search.org/files/pdf/RNTFCSCJRI.pdf 

(‘‘In most States, authorized noncriminal justice 

requestors receive less than the full record; most 

often they are provided conviction-only 

information.’’). 

15The FCRA limits the length of time that certain 

items of information may appear in a consumer 

report. 15 U.S.C. 1681c. For example, the FCRA 

generally prohibits the reporting of ‘‘[a]ny . . . 

adverse item of information . . . which antedates 

the report by more than seven years.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

1681c(a)(5). This advisory opinion uses the term 

‘‘obsolete’’ to refer to information that is older than 

the applicable FCRA time limit. 

16See, e.g., Moran v. The Screening Pros, LLC, 25 

F.4th 722, 724–25 (9th Cir. 2022); Moran v. The 

through the procedures for its Advisory 

Opinions Policy.1 Refer to those 

procedures for more information. 

I. Advisory Opinion 

A. Background 

The majority of landlords and 

employers conduct background checks 

before renting property or hiring 

employees.2 Landlords and employers 

typically conduct background checks by 

obtaining consumer reports from 

consumer reporting agencies.3

Consumer reporting agencies that 

prepare consumer reports for these 

purposes are commonly known as 

background screening companies, and 

the reports that they prepare are 

commonly known as background 

screening reports.4

Background screening companies vary 

in size, the users they serve, the services 

they provide, and the geographic 

regions they cover.5 The reports they 

provide sometimes include information 

about a consumer’s credit history, rental 

history, employment, salary, 

professional licenses, criminal arrests 

and convictions, and driving records.6

Background screening companies also 

vary in how they obtain information and 

prepare reports. Different companies use 

different identifying information to 

conduct searches; search different 

databases, external and internal, to 

access information; apply different 

criteria to determine whether a record in 

a database matches an individual; and 

employ different procedures for 

updating information.7

In many instances, background 

screening reports contain inaccurate 

information about consumers.8 For 

example, some background screening 

reports contain information about the 

wrong consumer, such as when a report 

shows an eviction record or criminal 

conviction that belongs to someone 

else.9 Some also contain duplicative 

information, such as when a report 

shows the same eviction or criminal 

conviction twice, giving the impression 

that the consumer’s eviction or criminal 

history is more extensive than it really 

is.10 In addition, some background 

screening reports omit existing 

disposition information, such as when 

an eviction action or criminal charges 

have been dismissed, giving a 

misleading picture of a consumer’s 

rental or criminal history.11

Some background screening reports 

also include arrests, convictions, or 

other court records that should not be 

included because they have been 

expunged or sealed or otherwise legally 

restricted from public access.12 Some 

States and localities have taken steps to 

make it easier to seal or expunge certain 

records, including eviction records.13

Additionally, public access to certain 

criminal records maintained by 

government entities that reflect a 

disposition other than conviction or that 

have reached a specified age without 

active prosecution is legally restricted in 

certain circumstances.14 As explained 

in part C.1 below, the CFPB interprets 

the FCRA to prohibit background 

screening companies from including in 

consumer reports information that 

would not be publicly available to the 

user due to these restrictions. 

Background screening companies 

sometimes also include obsolete 

criminal record information in 

background screening reports.15 For 

example, the CFPB is aware that, when 

some consumer reporting agencies 

report criminal cases that have been 

dismissed, they have used the 

disposition date to start the seven-year 

reporting period for records of arrests 

and other non-conviction criminal 

record information, rather than the 

‘‘date of entry’’ for records of arrest or 

the date of the criminal charge for other 

non-conviction criminal record 

information.16 As a result, these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 4173 

Screening Pros, LLC, 943 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 

2019); Complaint at ¶¶ 19–20, Bureau of Consumer 

Fin. Prot. v. Sterling Infosys., Inc., No. 1:19–cv– 

10824 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2019), https://files.

consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_sterlinginfosystems-inc_complaint_2019-11.pdf. 

17See Joint Ctr. for Hous. Studies of Harvard 

Univ., The State of the Nation’s Housing, at 1–2, 22 

(2023), https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/ 

files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_The_State_of_the_

Nations_Housing_2023.pdf (noting that ‘‘renter cost 

burdens have risen to their highest recorded level, 

underscoring the worsening affordability challenges 

facing many renters with lower incomes’’); CFPB, 

Tenant Background Checks Market at 5 (Nov. 2022), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_tenant-background-checks-market_report_

2022-11.pdf. 

18 15 U.S.C. 1681–1681x. 

19 15 U.S.C. 1681(a)(4). 

20S. Rep. No. 91–517, at 1 (1969). 21 Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info., 45 F.3d 

1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see 

also Porter v. Talbot Perkins Children’s Servs., 355 

F. Supp. 174, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (noting that the 

FCRA was intended ‘‘to protect an individual from 

inaccurate or arbitrary information about himself in 

a consumer report that is being used as a factor in 

determining the individual’s eligibility for credit, 

insurance or employment’’). 

22 15 U.S.C. 1681(b). 

23 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). 

24As used in this advisory opinion, nonconviction disposition refers to a dismissal or a 

similar disposition of criminal charges such as 

dropped charges or an acquittal. 

25 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). 

26See, e.g., Fair Credit Reporting: Name-Only 

Matching Procedures, 86 FR 62468 (Nov. 10, 2021); 

Consent Order at ¶¶ 4–13, In re Gen. Info. Servs., 

Inc., 2015–CFPB–0028 (Oct. 29, 2015), https://files.

consumerfinance.gov/f/201510_cfpb_consentorder_general-information-service-inc.pdf; 

Complaint at ¶¶ 5–11, 13–14, Bureau of Consumer 

Fin. Prot. v. Sterling Infosys., Inc., No. 1:19–cv– 

10824 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2019), https://files.

consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_sterlinginfosystems-inc_complaint_2019-11.pdf. 

consumer reporting agencies have 

included adverse information in 

consumer reports longer than FCRA 

section 605(a) permits. 

When these types of information 

appear in background screening reports, 

the consequences for consumers can be 

grave. Consumers’ rental housing 

applications may be denied, or they may 

end up paying more for such housing or 

be limited to locations or types of rental 

housing that they would not otherwise 

have selected, all of which is 

particularly challenging for consumers 

in a market characterized by high 

rents.17 Consumers’ employment 

applications may be rejected, they may 

be passed over for promotions or denied 

security clearances, and they may lose 

their jobs. Even if none of these things 

happen, a consumer may spend 

considerable time and energy, and incur 

considerable expense, attempting to 

correct inaccuracies. Consumers often 

do not see their reports, if at all, until 

after they are denied, and efforts to 

correct information with one company 

may not carry over to the hundreds of 

other background screening companies 

or those that sell data to them. 

In 1970, Congress enacted the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to protect 

against these types of harms. The FCRA 

regulates consumer reporting and 

imposes obligations on consumer 

reporting agencies, the entities that 

furnish information to them, and the 

users of consumer reports.18 In passing 

the FCRA, Congress recognized ‘‘a need 

to insure that consumer reporting 

agencies exercise their grave 

responsibilities with fairness, 

impartiality, and a respect for the 

consumer’s privacy.’’ 19 Accordingly, 

Congress designed the FCRA ‘‘to 

prevent consumers from being unjustly 

damaged because of inaccurate or 

arbitrary information’’ and ‘‘to prevent 

an undue invasion of the individual’s 

right of privacy in the collection and 

dissemination of credit information.’’ 20

A primary purpose of the FCRA is ‘‘to 

protect consumers from the 

transmission of inaccurate information 

about them, and to establish credit 

reporting practices that utilize accurate, 

relevant, and current information in a 

confidential and responsible 

manner.’’ 21 The statute is meant to 

ensure, among other things, that 

consumer reporting agencies provide 

information ‘‘in a manner which is fair 

and equitable to the consumer, with 

regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, 

relevancy, and proper utilization of 

such information.’’ 22

Because of the importance of 

consumer report accuracy to businesses 

and consumers, the structure of the 

FCRA creates interrelated legal 

standards and requirements to support 

the goal of accurate credit reporting. 

Among these is the requirement that, 

when preparing a consumer report, 

consumer reporting agencies ‘‘shall 

follow reasonable procedures to assure 

maximum possible accuracy of the 

information concerning the individual 

about whom the report relates.’’ 23 This 

requirement remains as important today 

as it was when the statute was enacted 

in 1970, and concerns about the 

accuracy of information included in 

consumer reports are long standing. 

The CFPB is issuing this advisory 

opinion to underscore certain 

obligations that the FCRA imposes 

when background screening reports are 

provided and used. First, this advisory 

opinion highlights that consumer 

reporting agencies must comply with 

their FCRA obligation to ‘‘follow 

reasonable procedures to assure 

maximum possible accuracy’’ under 

section 607(b). In particular, a consumer 

reporting agency that reports public 

record information is not using 

reasonable procedures to assure 

maximum possible accuracy if it does 

not have reasonable procedures in place 

to ensure that (1) it does not report 

information that is duplicative or that 

has been expunged, sealed, or otherwise 

legally restricted from public access in 

a manner that would prevent the user 

from obtaining it directly from the 

government entities that maintain the 

records and (2) it includes any existing 

disposition information if it reports 

arrests, criminal charges, eviction 

proceedings, or other court filings. 

Second, consistent with prior cases 

and guidance discussed below, this 

advisory opinion highlights that, when 

consumer reporting agencies include 

adverse information in consumer 

reports, the occurrence of the adverse 

event starts the running of the reporting 

period for adverse items under FCRA 

section 605(a)(5), which is not restarted 

or reopened by the occurrence of 

subsequent events. Moreover, a nonconviction disposition 24 of a criminal 

charge cannot be reported beyond the 

seven-year period that begins to run at 

the time of the charge. Consumer 

reporting agencies thus must ensure that 

they do not report adverse information 

beyond the reporting period in FCRA 

section 605(a)(5) and must at all times 

have reasonable procedures in place to 

prevent reporting of information that is 

duplicative or legally restricted from 

public access and to ensure that any 

existing disposition information is 

included if court filings are reported. 

B. Coverage 

This advisory opinion applies to all 

‘‘consumer reporting agencies,’’ as that 

term is defined in FCRA section 603(f). 

C. Legal Analysis 

1. Reasonable Procedures To Assure 

Maximum Possible Accuracy When 

Preparing Background Screening 

Reports 

FCRA section 607(b) provides that 

‘‘[w]henever a consumer reporting 

agency prepares a consumer report it 

shall follow reasonable procedures to 

assure maximum possible accuracy of 

the information concerning the 

individual about whom the report 

relates.’’ 25 The Bureau has previously 

indicated that it is not a reasonable 

procedure to use name-only matching to 

match information to the consumer who 

is the subject of the report when 

preparing a consumer report.26 This 

advisory opinion highlights the 

Bureau’s interpretation of three other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4174 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27See, e.g., Complaint at ¶ 22, United States v. 

AppFolio, Inc., No. 1:20–cv–03563 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 

2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

cases/ecf_1_-_us_v_appfolio_complaint.pdf 

(alleging that a tenant screening company failed to 

follow reasonable procedures to assure that the 

eviction and criminal record information included 

in tenant-screening reports accurately reflected the 

disposition). Even when disposition information is 

included, court filings can of course only be 

reported if doing so complies with the FCRA. As 

discussed below, consumer reporting agencies 

must, for example, have procedures in place to 

ensure that court filings are not reported if the 

information has been expunged, sealed, or 

otherwise legally restricted from public access in a 

manner that would prevent the user from obtaining 

it directly from the government entity that 

maintains the records. 

28The Bureau notes that such disposition 

information appears to be available, in the majority 

of cases, within five years. For example, a 2018 

survey of State criminal history information 

systems showed that in 48 States and the District 

of Columbia, an average of 64 percent of arrests in 

State databases in the past five years had final case 

dispositions reported. Becki R. Goggins & Dennis A. 

DeBacco, SEARCH, The Nat’l Consortium for Justice 

Info. and Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History 

Information Systems, 2018 (Nov. 5, 2020), https:// 

www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/255651.pdf. 

29CFPB, Press Release, CFPB and FTC Take 

Actions Against TransUnion for Illegal Rental 

Background Check and Credit Reporting Practices 

(Oct. 12, 2023), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ 

about-us/newsroom/cfpb-ftc-take-actions-againsttransunion-illegal-rental-background-check-andcredit-reporting-practices/. 

30Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). 

31See, e.g., 28 CFR 20.21(b); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 

sec. 9121; 6 Va. Admin. Code 20–120–50.A.1; see 

also SEARCH, The Nat’l Consortium for Justice Info. 

and Statistics, Report of the National Task Force on 

the Commercial Sale of Criminal Justice Record 

Information, at 41 (2005), https://www.search.org/ 

files/pdf/RNTFCSCJRI.pdf (‘‘In most States, 

authorized noncriminal justice requestors receive 

less than the full record; most often they are 

provided conviction-only information.’’). 

32Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Broken Records 

Redux: How Errors by Criminal Background Check 

Companies Continue to Harm Consumers Seeking 

Jobs and Housing, at 35–36 (Dec. 2019), https://

www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/reportbroken-records-redux.pdf. The Administrative 

Office of Pennsylvania Courts regularly produces 

lists of expunged cases for entities that subscribe to 

its bulk distribution of criminal case data and 

contractually requires those entities to use the 

information to remove expunged cases. Id. at 23. 

aspects of section 607(b)’s ‘‘reasonable 

procedures to assure maximum possible 

accuracy’’ requirement that relate to 

background screening information used 

in consumer reports: (1) preventing 

duplication of information; (2) 

including any existing disposition 

information if arrests, criminal charges, 

eviction proceedings, or other court 

filings are reported; and (3) ensuring 

that information that has been 

expunged, sealed, or otherwise legally 

restricted from public access in a 

manner that would prevent users from 

obtaining it directly from the 

government entity that maintains the 

records is not included in consumer 

reports. 

To comply with section 607(b) of the 

FCRA, consumer reporting agencies 

must have reasonable procedures in 

place to prevent duplicative information 

from being reported on consumer 

reports in order to ensure that reports do 

not inaccurately suggest that a single 

event occurred more than once. For 

example, inclusion of multiple entries 

for the same criminal conviction or the 

same eviction can wrongly suggest that 

a consumer was convicted or evicted 

more than once. Consumer reporting 

agencies that obtain information from 

multiple sources, or from a single source 

that in turn collects information from 

multiple sources, must take particular 

care to identify information that is 

duplicative to ensure that information is 

accurately presented in consumer 

reports. Similarly, when a consumer 

reporting agency reports multiple stages 

of the same court proceeding, it must 

have procedures in place to ensure that 

information regarding the stages of these 

court proceedings (such as an arrest 

followed by a conviction) is presented 

in a way that makes clear the stages all 

relate to the same proceeding or case 

and does not inaccurately suggest that 

multiple proceedings or cases have 

occurred. For example, at a minimum, 

such procedures should require that all 

information about one court case should 

be collated and presented together in 

manner that makes it clear it is a single 

case. 

When arrests, criminal charges, 

eviction proceedings, or other court 

filings are reported, consumer reporting 

agencies must also have reasonable 

procedures in place to check for any 

available disposition information and to 

ensure that such information is 

included.27 For example, in situations 

where charges have been dismissed, it is 

misleading and inaccurate to report that 

an individual has been arrested for the 

charges without also reporting that the 

charges have been dismissed.28

Similarly, if a bankruptcy has been 

discharged, it would be misleading and 

inaccurate to report the bankruptcy 

filing without also reporting the result. 

Highlighting the importance of the 

accuracy requirements in the statute, the 

CFPB and FTC recently agreed to a 

stipulated order with TransUnion 

Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. 

(TURSS) that requires TURSS to follow 

written procedures reasonably designed 

to prevent reporting of court filings (in 

that case eviction proceeding records) 

without a final disposition after TURSS 

repeatedly provided tenant screening 

reports with eviction proceeding records 

that did not include available 

disposition information.29

Similar considerations apply with 

respect to expunged records, sealed 

records, and public records that are 

otherwise legally restricted from public 

access. Background screening 

companies are responsible for 

maintaining procedures that ensure that 

any inclusion of charges or arrest 

records in a consumer report complies 

with the law in the relevant jurisdiction 

from which the record originates. To 

‘‘expunge’’ means to remove from a 

record or to erase or destroy.30

Expungement removes arrests, 

convictions, or other matters from a 

person’s public record entirely, as if 

they had never occurred. Sealing 

removes items in public records from 

public view. Similarly, applicable law 

restricts public access to certain 

criminal records maintained by 

government entities that reflect a 

disposition other than conviction or that 

have reached a specified age without 

active prosecution when certain 

conditions are met.31 Once a conviction 

or other matter of public record has 

been sealed, expunged, or otherwise 

legally restricted from public access in 

a manner that would prevent the user 

from obtaining it directly from the 

government entity that maintains the 

records, it is misleading and inaccurate 

to include it as part of the individual’s 

background in a consumer report 

because there is no longer any public 

record of the matter. 

Consumer reporting agencies that 

report public record information are not 

using reasonable procedures to assure 

maximum possible accuracy if they do 

not have reasonable procedures in place 

to prevent the inclusion in consumer 

reports of information that has been 

expunged, sealed, or otherwise legally 

restricted from public access in a 

manner that would prevent the user 

from obtaining it directly from the 

government entity that maintains the 

records. These procedures could 

include, for example, reporting only 

newly-gathered information or crosschecking existing data against updated 

sources so that matters that have been 

sealed or expunged can be identified 

and removed. In some instances, 

consumer reporting agencies may also 

be able to request lists of expunged 

matters from the original source and 

then remove those matters from their 

databases.32 In addition, under FCRA 

section 611(a)(5)(C), consumer reporting 

agencies must maintain reasonable 

procedures to ensure that information 

that is deleted from a consumer’s file 

under FCRA section 611(a)(5)(A) 

because it is inaccurate or incomplete or 

cannot be verified does not reappear, 

except in the limited circumstances 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 4175 

33 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(5)(C). 

34The Bureau and the FTC have also previously 

issued guidance on these aspects of section 607(b). 

See, e.g., CFPB, Bulletin 2021–03: Consumer 

Reporting of Rental Information (July 1, 2021), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/ 

cfpb_consumer-reporting-rental-information_

bulletin-2021-03_2021-07.pdf; Fed. Trade Comm’n, 

What Tenant Background Screening Companies 

Need to Know About the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

(Oct. 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/ 

resources/what-tenant-background-screeningcompanies-need-know-about-fair-credit-reportingact. 

35See Consent Order, In re Gen. Info. Servs., Inc., 

2015–CFPB–0028 (Oct. 29, 2015), https://files.

consumerfinance.gov/f/201510_cfpb_consentorder_general-information-service-inc.pdf; CFPB, 

Press Release, CFPB Takes Action Against Two of 

the Largest Employment Background Screening 

Report Providers for Serious Inaccuracies (Oct. 29, 

2015), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/ 

newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-two-of-thelargest-employment-background-screening-reportproviders-for-serious-inaccuracies/. 

36Consent Order, United States v. HireRight Sols., 

Inc., 1:12–cv–01313 (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2012), https:// 

www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/ 

2012/08/120808hirerightstip.pdf. 

37Complaint at ¶¶ 13–14, United States v. 

HireRight Sols., Inc., 1:12–cv–01313 (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 

2012), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ 

documents/cases/2012/08/120808hireright

cmpt.pdf. 

38Complaint at ¶ 22, United States v. AppFolio, 

Inc., No. 1:20–cv–03563 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ 

ecf_1_-_us_v_appfolio_complaint.pdf. 

39Complaint at ¶ 3, FTC v. TransUnion Rental 

Screening Solutions, Inc., No. 1:23–cv–2659 (D. 

Colo. Oct. 12, 2023), https://files.consumerfinance.

gov/f/documents/cfpb_transunion-rental-screeningsolutions-inc-trans-union-llc_complaint_2023- 

10.pdf. 

40 Id. at ¶¶ 24–53. 

41 15 U.S.C. 1681c. 

42 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(5). FCRA section 605(a)(5) 

excludes from this prohibition records of 

convictions of crimes. Id. In addition, FCRA section 

605(b) provides that this prohibition is not 

applicable in the case of any consumer credit report 

to be used in connection with certain specified 

transactions. 15 U.S.C. 1681c(b). 

43 Moran v. The Screening Pros, LLC, 943 F.3d 

1175, 1184 (9th Cir. 2019) (‘‘The statute’s use of 

‘antedates’ connects the seven-year window directly 

to the adverse event itself.’’). 

44While records of conviction of a crime are not 

subject to the time limits set forth in section 

605(a)(5), an arrest underlying a conviction is 

subject to the reporting period that ends seven years 

after the arrest’s date of entry. 

45 Moran, 943 F.3d at 1184 (‘‘A dismissal 

indicates that the consumer no longer faces an 

indictment, an overall positive—but at least 

neutral—development. A dismissal is only adverse 

insofar as it discloses the previous adverse event, 

i.e., the charge.’’). 

46Fed. Trade Comm’n, 40 Years of Experience 

With the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff 

Report With Summary of Interpretations, at 55 

(2011); cf. Moran, 943 F.3d at 1184 (‘‘Even though 

non-adverse information is typically not subject to 

reporting windows, a dismissal is different. A 

dismissal necessarily references the existence of the 

adverse event, to which the reporting window still 

applies.’’). 

47 Moran, 943 F.3d at 1184 (‘‘A related later event 

should not trigger or reopen the window, as the 

adverse event already occurred. To hold otherwise, 

thereby allowing this information to be reported 

through disclosure of a dismissal, would 

circumvent Congress’s intent to confine adverse 

criminal information to a seven-year window.’’). 

48 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(3). 

specified in FCRA section 611(a)(5)(B). 

This would include ensuring 

information does not reappear in 

situations in which a third-party vendor 

resupplies information that the 

consumer reporting agency has already 

removed.33

The CFPB and the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) have brought several 

cases illustrating the aspects of section 

607(b) discussed in this advisory 

opinion.34 For example, the CFPB 

alleged in one action that an 

employment background screening 

company, General Information Services, 

violated FCRA section 607(b) by, among 

other things, failing to use reasonable 

procedures to prevent the inclusion of 

expunged criminal records in consumer 

reports.35 Similarly, the FTC alleged 

that another employment background 

screening company, HireRight 

Solutions, failed to take reasonable steps 

to ensure that the information in its 

consumer reports was current and 

reflected updates, such as the 

expungement of criminal records.36

Because of this, the FTC charged, 

employers sometimes received 

information that incorrectly listed 

criminal convictions on individuals’ 

records. In addition, according to the 

FTC’s complaint, HireRight Solutions 

failed to follow reasonable procedures 

to prevent the same criminal offense 

information from being included in a 

consumer report multiple times.37 In 

another action, the FTC alleged that a 

tenant screening company, AppFolio, 

failed to follow reasonable procedures 

to assure that the eviction and criminal 

record information included in tenantscreening reports accurately reflected 

the disposition, offense name, and 

offense type, and to prevent the 

inclusion of multiple entries for the 

same criminal or eviction action in the 

same report.38

Additionally, the CFPB and the FTC 

alleged in a recent action that a rental 

screening company, TURSS, violated 

the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable 

procedures to assure maximum possible 

accuracy of information in background 

screening reports relied on by landlords 

and others.39 Specifically, the agencies 

alleged that TURSS knowingly and 

recklessly failed to follow 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.40

2. Seven-Year Period for Reporting 

Adverse Information 

The FCRA restricts a consumer 

reporting agency from including 

obsolete information in a consumer 

report.41 FCRA section 605(a)(5) 

generally prohibits the reporting of 

‘‘[a]ny . . . adverse item of information 

. . . which antedates the report by more 

than seven years.’’ 42

As the plain language of section 

605(a)(5) makes clear, each adverse item 

of information is subject to its own 

seven-year reporting period, the timing 

of which depends on the date of the 

‘‘adverse item’’ itself.43 Thus, the 

reporting period applicable to one 

adverse item cannot be restarted or 

reopened by the occurrence of a 

subsequent event. Once the period 

applicable to a particular item expires, 

that item can no longer be reported. For 

example, an arrest is subject to a 

reporting period that ends seven years 

after the arrest’s date of entry, and 

subsequent events do not restart or 

reopen the reporting period applicable 

to the arrest.44

Moreover, in the case of a nonconviction disposition of criminal 

charges, the disposition does not start 

its own seven-year reporting period.45

This interpretation follows from a 

longstanding principle in the 

application of section 605(a): a 

consumer reporting agency ‘‘may not 

furnish a consumer report referencing 

the existence of adverse information 

that predates the times set forth’’ in 

section 605(a).46 In other words, a 

consumer reporting agency generally 

cannot provide a consumer report 

containing information that reveals the 

existence of an adverse event that 

antedates the report by more than seven 

years. Otherwise the FCRA’s clear 

limitations on the reporting of obsolete 

information would be vulnerable to easy 

evasion. Because it necessarily would 

reveal the existence of the charge, a 

dismissal of a criminal charge or similar 

disposition such as dropped charges or 

acquittal generally could not be reported 

after the seven-year period that begins 

when the charge occurred.47

This interpretation also follows from 

the structure of section 605(a) and a 

1998 amendment to that provision. The 

contrast between section 605(a)(5) and 

several other paragraphs of section 

605(a), in which Congress prescribed a 

different rule for specific categories of 

information, is instructive. For paid tax 

liens, the reporting period ends seven 

years ‘‘from date of payment’’; 48 for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4176 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

49 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(1). 

50 In the original FCRA, ‘‘[r]ecords of arrest, 

indictment, or conviction of crime’’ were reportable 

for seven years, starting at the ‘‘date of disposition, 

release, or parole.’’ 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(5) (1996). 

The 1998 amendment to the FCRA deleted this 

paragraph. Consumer Reporting Employment 

Clarification Act, Public Law 105–347, sec. 5(2), 

112 Stat. 3211. The amendment moved ‘‘records of 

arrest’’ to pre-existing paragraph (a)(2), which now 

requires the reporting of ‘‘[c]ivil suits, civil 

judgment, and records of arrest’’ to end seven years 

after ‘‘date of entry,’’ 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(2). See 

Public Law 105–347, sec. 5(1), 112 Stat. 3211. 

(Information of this type can be reported ‘‘until the 

governing statute of limitations has expired,’’ if that 

period is longer. 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(2).) The 1998 

amendment also removed criminal convictions 

altogether from the restriction on reporting obsolete 

information. Id., sec. 5(3), codified at 15 U.S.C. 

1681c(a)(5) (prohibiting reporting, past seven years, 

of ‘‘any other adverse item of information, other 

than records of convictions of crimes’’). 

51 Moran, 943 F.3d at 1185. 

52 15 U.S.C. 1681s. 

53 15 U.S.C. 1681o (emphasis added). 

54 15 U.S.C. 1681n (emphasis added); Safeco Ins. 

Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57–58 (2007) 

(construing meaning of ‘‘willful’’). 

55Safeco Ins., 551 U.S. at 70; Fuges v. Sw. Fin. 

Servs., Ltd., 707 F.3d 241, 253 (3d Cir. 2012). 

56Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

57 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). 

58 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. 

59 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 

bankruptcy cases, the reporting period 

ends 10 years ‘‘from the date of entry of 

the order for relief or the date of 

adjudication.’’ 49 Unlike these 

provisions, section 605(a)(5) contains no 

indication that Congress intended to tie 

the end of the reporting period to 

something other than the occurrence of 

the adverse item. The pre-1998 version 

of section 605(a) explicitly made 

‘‘disposition’’ of a ‘‘record[ ] . . . of 

indictment’’ the trigger for the sevenyear reporting period; however, a 1998 

amendment deleted that provision.50

This amendment ‘‘significantly altered 

[the] statute,’’ indicating clearly that the 

end of the reporting period under 

section 605(a)(5) depends on the date of 

the adverse item itself—not on the date 

of disposition.51

In addition to provisions authorizing 

Federal and State enforcement,52 the 

FCRA contains two provisions relating 

to civil liability to consumers for 

noncompliance. Section 617 provides 

that ‘‘any person who is negligent in 

failing to comply with any requirement 

imposed under this title with respect to 

any consumer is liable to that consumer 

in an amount equal to’’ the consumer’s 

actual damages, and costs and 

reasonable attorney’s fees.53 Section 616 

provides that ‘‘any person who willfully 

fails to comply with any requirement 

imposed under this title with respect to 

any consumer is liable to that consumer 

in an amount equal to’’ actual or 

statutory damages of up to $1,000 per 

violation, such punitive damages as the 

court allows, and costs and reasonable 

attorney’s fees.54 A violation is willful 

when it is inconsistent with 

‘‘authoritative guidance’’ from a relevant 

agency.55 As with any guidance issued 

by the CFPB on the FCRA, or 

predecessor agencies that were 

responsible for administering the FCRA 

prior to the CFPB’s creation, consumer 

reporting agencies risk liability under 

section 616 if they violate the FCRA in 

a manner described in this advisory 

opinion, regardless of whether the 

consumer reporting agencies were 

previously liable for willful violations 

prior to its issuance. 

II. Regulatory Matters 

This advisory opinion is an 

interpretive rule issued under the 

Bureau’s authority to interpret the 

FCRA, including under section 

1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act of 2010,56 which 

authorizes guidance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to enable the 

Bureau to administer and carry out the 

purposes and objectives of Federal 

consumer financial laws.57

The Bureau has determined that this 

advisory opinion does not impose any 

new or revise any existing 

recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure 

requirements on covered entities or 

members of the public that would be 

collections of information requiring 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act.58

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act,59 the Bureau will submit a report 

containing this interpretive rule and 

other required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to the 

rule’s published effective date. The 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs has designated this interpretive 

rule as not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Rohit Chopra, 

Director, Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00788 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–1498; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2023–00459–T; Amendment 

39–22643; AD 2023–25–16] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Airbus SAS Model A330–200, A330– 

200 Freighter, A330–300, A330–800, 

and A330–900 series airplanes. This AD 

was prompted by a determination that 

part of a certain production ground test 

procedure used to confirm inner fuel 

tank integrity was not accomplished 

properly on certain airplanes. This AD 

requires a fuel tank leak test and, 

depending on findings, accomplishment 

of applicable corrective action, as 

specified in a European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is 

incorporated by reference. The FAA is 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 27, 

2024. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of February 27, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 

No. FAA–2023–1498; or in person at 

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this final rule, the mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI), any comments received, and 

other information. The address for 

Docket Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For EASA material incorporated by 

reference in this AD, contact EASA, 

Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 

8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; 

website easa.europa.eu. You may find 

this material on the EASA website at 

ad.easa.europa.eu. 

• For Airbus SAS service information 

identified in this AD, contact Airbus 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES