FCRA Class Action Review – 2025

to be impacted due to a bankruptcy notation. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted. The plaintiff proposed a two-step process to identify potential class members, including: (i) reviewing the defendant’s files to identify those with a bankruptcy remark on tradelines but no public bankruptcy record; and (ii) cross-referencing these files with the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system to confirm whether those individuals had filed for bankruptcy in the past 10 years. The defendant argued that the proposed class did not meet the required elements under Rule 23. The court disagreed. It granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In doing so, the court found that the defendant’s internal data and the proposed process for identifying class members – despite some challenges with accessing older data – were feasible. The court further found that the class was sufficiently large to make joinder impractical; even with limited data, the court estimated hundreds of potential class members were in just a few sample months of the 37 months then at issue. The court also found that the plaintiff’s claims were typical of the class, as he alleged that the defendant reported inaccurate bankruptcy information on their credit reports in violation of the FCRA. Moreover, the court held that the plaintiff and his attorneys were qualified and capable of adequately representing the class. The defendant also argued that individualized issues about the accuracy of each credit report (whether each report was inaccurate due to a bankruptcy filing) predominated over common issues and that multiple individualized categories for identifying bankruptcy filings would unduly complicate the case. In contrast, plaintiff proposed a method to determine bankruptcy status based on matching the class member’s social security number with bankruptcy records, arguing this approach would work for all class members. The court rejected the defendant’s argument and further found that the central question of whether a report was inaccurate based on bankruptcy data could be resolved using class-wide evidence and therefore that common issues predominated. Finally, the court ruled that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication as individual class members were unlikely to have a strong interest in pursuing their claims separately, given the uniformity of the issues and the limited statutory damages amounts at issue. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Similarly, in Miller, et al. v. United Debt Settlement, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129701 (S.D. Ohio July 23, 2024), the plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against United Debt Settlement, LLC, Everything is in Stock, LLC (operating as Elite Restaurant Equipment) (United Debt), and individuals Marcel Bluvstein (Bluvstein) and Gabriel Gorelik (Gorelik), alleging violations of the FCRA. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants illegally accessed consumer credit reports by marketing debt settlement and debt repair services without due consent. After being served with the complaint, defendants United Debt and Gorelik failed to respond or file any legal pleadings, resulting in entry of default judgment against them. The court separately dismissed defendant Bluvstein from the case due to improper service. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of Ohio citizens whose consumer reports were accessed by the defendants for an impermissible purpose. The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous to make individual joinder impractical, as defendants allegedly accessed the consumer reports of tens of thousands of Ohio citizens. Next, the court determined that there were common questions of law and fact affecting all class members, such as whether the defendants accessed consumer reports without a permissible purpose, whether their actions were willful, and whether they violated the FCRA. The court concluded that the claims of the plaintiffs were typical of the class because both they and the class members suffered the same harm – namely, access of their personal financial information without consent. The court opined that the plaintiffs would adequately represent the class because they shared common interests with the class members, and they had qualified counsel to vigorously pursue the case. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the court noted that common issues predominated over any individual issues in the case. The key issue – whether the defendants improperly accessed consumer reports – applied equally to all class members, and since the plaintiffs were seeking statutory and punitive damages, there was no need for individualized damages analysis. Finally, the court concluded that a class action would be a superior method for adjudicating the claims, as it would be more efficient than individual lawsuits and would allow for fairer and more uniform relief for the class members. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Finally, in Helwig, et al. v. Concentrix Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49477 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2024), the plaintiff, a job applicant, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to provide him and other applicants with a meaningful opportunity to contest negative information provided in background checks before taking adverse employment actions. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted the motion in part. The plaintiff contended that after he applied for a position with the defendant, it informed him that his application was pending on receipt of a background check. A few days later, the plaintiff

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online