Consumer complaint received 2024-02-08 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Other personal consumer report
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Old information reappears or never goes away
Company: FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
It has come to my attention that First Advantage Corporation has obtained information about me that exceeds the statutory limitations set forth by both the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the specific regulations governing background checks in Arizona and California. 

First advantage failed to provide me a copy of my report prior to adverse actions. 
First advantage also failed to provide me the ability to dispute said report within 5 days before adverse action. 


first Advantage reported old and outdated information further than 7 years which both Arizona and California follow. 

Reported information that does not accurately have all information specifically my birth date to determine its my record, therefore they shall exclude it in the report Reported to my employer prior to the 5 day deadline labeled in their consumer rights report ( You will have five ( 5 ) days from the date you receive this notice to initiate the Individualized Assessment request by clicking on the link below. ( In some jurisdictions you may have more than 5 days to respond, but we recommend that you initiate any process as soon as possible ). 

n California, Rule 2.507 of the California Rules of Court has been established to safeguard the privacy rights of individuals involved in criminal proceedings. This rule was tested in a legal case where the plaintiff, an organization dedicated to assisting former offenders, contended that using DOB and drivers license numbers to access criminal history records violates Rule 2.507. 

Since Rule 2.507 applies statewide, this court decision carries broad implications, mandating that all state courts restrict public access to identifiers like date of birth within court documents. Consequently, this measure conceals the identities of individuals with prior criminal records from public scrutiny. 
According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you can not match criminal records to people based on names alone. Names are often too common, so it is not a fair or workable idea. Partial birth date information, like the month and year, is not much help either. 
Now, background check companies only get Personally Identifiable Information ( PII ) from county court offices. This process can be slow and unpredictable because it involves waiting for responses from court clerks. 

First Advantage reported that the employer requested a lifetime background search, according to the employees website, they only request a 7 year lookback on background checks further the employer did not get my permission to run a background check in writing. only an offer letter was sent out for me to accept In XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX effectively banned the box, by moving any disclosure of past criminal history from the XXXX  job application process to the final interview stage. Evaluation of the background checks obtained will be done by individualized assessments, using the EEOC criteria. Only convictions that predate the background check request by seven years or less will be considered during the hiring process. If adverse action is contemplated, the job applicant will be provided with a pre-adverse action notification letter and then will have ten calendar days to dispute the information or provide mitigating circumstances to the CRA that prepared the initial background check report. In XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX unanimously approved a HR policy ( XXXX ), which would delay background checks until after a conditional offer of employment is accepted by the applicant. An applicant may not begin work on their new job until after they have successfully passed the background check. If the background check reveals negative information and the potential employer contemplates taking adverse action, the employer must meet all FCRA requirements. 

Specifically, under the FCRA, CRAs are prohibited from reporting convictions older than XXXX years. The clock starts from the disposition date, This ensures that outdated or irrelevant information does not unfairly impact employment decisions. 

Moreover, CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in consumer reports, as mandated by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). This requirement extends to criminal record information, ensuring that consumer reports are reliable and fair. 

Furthermore, I wish to draw your attention to case law such as the XXXX v. XXXX. Check XXXX XXXX ruling, which highlights the obligation of CRAs to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports. Any deviation from this standard XXXX result in legal liabilities, including civil lawsuits. 

It is crucial to note that First Advantage Corporation has faced litigation in the past due to similar violations, indicating a pattern of non-compliance with FCRA regulations. As a responsible consumer, I can not overlook such negligence, and I demand immediate action to rectify the inaccuracies in my consumer report. 

In California, XXXX information plays a crucial role in background checks as it helps verify the identity of the individual being screened. It allows background check providers to distinguish between individuals with similar names and ensure that all collected information pertains to the correct person. When redacted or removed from a background check report, XXXX information can significantly complicate the process. It becomes much more challenging to accurately match records and confirm someones identity without this key identifier. This can lead to delays, inaccuracies, and potentially incomplete background checks. This can affect an individuals job prospects or other aspects of their life that require a reliable background screening process. However, this redaction of birth information is often done to protect an individuals privacy, striking a balance between personal data protection and the need for XXXX XXXX checks. With California courts following XXXX bills that no longer have date of birth on files, how can you be certain that file pertains to me. The accuracy is not adding up. 

Comparing First Advantage to XXXX, another CRA, they did not report anything past XXXX which they followed the FCRA laws and regulations. Anything reported after XXXX is in violation of FCRA laws, California, and Arizona laws and regulations. 

Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, California XXXX XXXX XXXX ( SB XXXX ) makes criminal record sealing available for a defendant convicted of a felony on or after XX/XX/XXXX, if the defendant completes all terms of incarceration, probation, supervision, and parole and is not convicted of a new felony offense for XXXX years. 

Reporting sealed or expunged records violate frca rules and California automatically seals said records. This is concerning that their are these types of errors on my report. 


From first advantage website : The California XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) finalized the Consideration of Criminal History in Employment Decisions Regulations. These regulations, which will impact employers, are scheduled to take effect on XX/XX/XXXX. 

The regulations outline items employers are currently prohibited from considering in employment decisions, irrespective of adverse impact, and provide information on employers additional criminal history limitations found in other California legislations. 

Specifically the Regulations states : ( b ) Criminal History Information Employers Are Prohibited from Seeking or Considering, Irrespective of Adverse Impact. Except if otherwise specifically permitted by law, employers are prohibited from considering the following types of criminal history, or seeking such history from the employee, applicant or a third party, when making employment decisions such as hiring, promotion, training, discipline, lay-off and termination : ( XXXX ) An arrest or detention that did not result in conviction ( XXXX XXXX section XXXX ) ; ( XXXX ) Referral to or participation in a pretrial or post-trial diversion program ( Id. ) ; ( XXXX ) A conviction that has been judicially dismissed or ordered sealed, expunged or statutorily eradicated pursuant to law ( e.g., juvenile offense records sealed pursuant to XXXX and XXXX XXXX section XXXX and XXXX XXXX sections XXXX or XXXX ) ( Id. ) ; ( XXXX ) An arrest, detention, processing, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or court disposition that occurred while a person was subject to the process and jurisdiction of juvenile court law ( Id. ) ; and ( XXXX ) A non-felony conviction for possession of XXXX that is XXXX or more years old ( XXXX XXXX section XXXX ). 

( c ) Additional XXXX XXXX Limitations, Irrespective of Adverse Impact. 

( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX also be subject to local laws or city ordinances that provide additional limitations. For example, in addition to the criminal history outlined in subsection ( b ), XXXX XXXX employers are prohibited from considering a conviction or any other determination or adjudication in the juvenile justice system ; offenses other than a felony or misdemeanor, such as an infraction ( other than driving record infractions if driving is more than a de minimis element of the job position ) ; and convictions that are more than XXXX years old ( unless the position being considered supervises minors, dependent adults, or persons 65 years or older ) ( Article XXXX, XXXX XXXX Police XXXX ). 

( XXXX ) Employers that obtain investigative consumer reports such as background checks are also subject to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. ) and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ( Civil Code section XXXX et seq. ). 

The regulations also contain a ban the box section : ( XXXX ) Regardless of whether an employer utilizes a bright line policy or conducts individualized assessments, before an employer XXXX take an adverse action such as declining to hire, discharging, laying off, or declining to promote an adversely impacted individual based on conviction history obtained by a source other than the applicant or employee ( e.g. through a credit report or internally generated research ), the employer must give the impacted individual notice of the disqualifying conviction and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence that the information is factually inaccurate. If the applicant or employee establishes that the record is factually inaccurate, then that record can not be considered in the employment decision. 

It is important that California employers seek the advice of their legal counsel regarding their obligations under this legislation. 

reference : XXXX : XXXX A few examples of lawsuits filed against first advantage : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX First Advantage Background Services Corporation XXXX XXXX XXXX was denied a job due to criminal records that were inaccurately reported on his background report by First Advantage. The criminal records belong to another individual with the same first and last name as XXXX XXXX but a different middle name and date of birth. 

XXXX, XXXX v. First Advantage. Claimant applied for a job with a national delivery company. The company ran a background check, and purchased a report from First Advantage. The report inaccurately states that the Claimant has a conviction for aggravated assault. The claimant called First Advantage to dispute the inaccuracy ; however, First Advantage failed to take any steps to correct the report for nearly XXXX ( XXXX ) weeks. As a result of the inaccurate report, and XXXX XXXX failure to promptly investigate following Claimants dispute, Claimant was denied the job. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage. XXXX XXXX was delayed employment because of an inaccurate criminal history on her First Advantage background report. The inaccurate criminal history belongs to a person who has a similar name as XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage. XXXX XXXX was delayed employment as a healthcare worker because of an inaccurate criminal history on her First Advantage background report. The inaccurate criminal history belongs to a person who has a similar name as XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage. XXXX XXXX was denied employment due to an inaccurate criminal history reporting on his First Advantage background check. The criminal record in question belongs to an individual in Florida with the same first and last name as XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage. XXXX XXXX was denied a job with XXXX because of multiple misdemeanor convictions that were inaccurately reported on her First Advantage report. These convictions belong to XXXX XXXX twin sister who has a very similar first name as XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage Background Services Corporation. XXXX XXXX was denied a job as a cook due to a felony conviction for aggravated burglary which was inaccurately reported on his background report by First Advantage. The criminal records belong to another individual with the similar name and date of birth as XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage Background Services Corporation. XXXX XXXX was denied a job at XXXX due to an inaccurate felony conviction reporting on his First Advantage report. XXXX XXXX was never convicted of a felony. Rather, he had the charge reduced to a misdemeanor. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX First Advantage Background Services Corporation. N.D.GA. First Advantage inaccurately reported criminal records on XXXX XXXX background check. The criminal records belong to another individual with the similar name and date of birth as XXXX XXXX. Due to the errors XXXX XXXX was denied a job. The case settled. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage Background Services Corporation. N.D.IL. XXXX XXXX was denied a job due to an inaccurate felony conviction on his First Advantage report. XXXX XXXX was never convicted of a felony as the case was dismissed. The case settled. 

XXXX XXXX v. First Advantage Background Services Corporation. D.OR. XXXX XXXX was denied a job with XXXX because of an inaccurate felony conviction on his First Advantage background check. The inaccurate information belongs to an individual who has a similar name to XXXX XXXX. The case settled. 

Its no surprise that errors have happened before with first advantage. 
In fact, when background check companies report expunged cases, they violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

The FCRA governs the accuracy of criminal background checks prepared by commercial background check companies. More specifically, pursuant to XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ), background check companies must use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information in the report. 

In addition, pursuant to XXXX XXXX. XXXX, background check companies reporting public record information for employment purposes that is likely to have an adverse effect on the consumers ability to obtain employment must either : ( XXXX ) notify the person that the public record information is being reported and provide the name and address of the person that is requesting the information at the time that the information is provided to the user; or ( XXXX ) maintain strict procedures to make sure that the information it is reporting is complete and up to date. 

Thus, if a background check company reports expunged or sealed criminal record information and should have known better ( for example, by more frequently updating its data or by verifying the criminal record information through alternate means ), the FCRA is implicated and a case can be made that both XXXX. XXXX ( b ) and XXXX XXXX. XXXX have been violated.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation