FCRA Class Action Review – 2025

received an email from the defendant indicating that he was no longer being considered for employment due to potentially disqualifying information in his background check ( i.e., a conviction for aggravated trespassing). The plaintiff contended that at least 50 other applicants received similar emails and he sought to certify a class of all individuals who submitted applications and were subject to background checks by the defendant. The defendant argued that its policy would not be to send an email, and rather it directed employees to make telephone calls to inform applicants of adverse actions. The court found that while the numerosity requirement was satisfied, the class lacked commonality due to the variations in communication methods and respective messages conveyed to applicants allegedly at issue. The court stated that although the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that 50 other applicants received the same email, he could not establish that every person subject to a background check had the same common experience. The court thus ruled that if it granted certification, it would be to a smaller class comprising the approximately 50 individuals who received emails like the plaintiff. The court found that of those 50 individuals, there was a common question of law and fact – whether all applicants with negative information in their background checks had adverse actions taken against them without a chance to challenge the information. The court also stated that the plaintiff failed to meet the typicality requirement of the proposed class. Instead, the court found the plaintiff’s claims were typical of the approximately 50 individuals who received emails like his. The court determined that a class action would be the superior method for resolving the FCRA claims, specifically those related to the defendant’s allegedly improper emails. Accordingly, the court granted class certification but limited to those applicants who received the same email that the plaintiff received in response to their background check results. V. Key FCRA Rulings Denying Class Certification Defendants also succeeded in blocking class certification in 2024 as well. Conversely, the court in Ballard, et al. v. Citadel Servicing Corp ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133756 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2024), denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiffs filed a class action against the defendants concerning the reporting of their mortgage status after they faced financial difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs asserted that their home loan, which they struggled to pay, was improperly reported as delinquent following payment accommodations from the defendant in violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and the FCRA. The plaintiffs had taken a $423,750 home loan from the defendant but faced difficulties in making payments due to financial strains caused by the pandemic. The plaintiffs initially entered a forbearance agreement in 2020, during which the defendant assured them that their payments would be suspended and that they would not be reported as delinquent. However, there was a dispute over the specific months covered by this forbearance - namely, whether it spanned August to November 2020 or alternatively September to December 2020. In December 2020, despite being in the forbearance plan, the defendant issued a Notice of Intent to Foreclose, claiming that the plaintiffs were in default. The plaintiffs sought to certify both: (i) a debt collection class, consisting of individuals in California who had received similar accommodations and then received debt collection notices; and (ii) a credit reporting class for those whose accounts were reported as delinquent under similar circumstances. The defendant opposed certification, arguing that the unique circumstances of the plaintiffs’ situation precluded various required elements under Rule 23 from being met, including typicality and adequacy. The court found that the issues faced by the plaintiffs were not typical of those faced by other potential class members. Hence, the unique questions about the terms of their forbearance and how their loan was reported effectively rendered plaintiffs’ claims atypical compared to those of the potential class members. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs could not serve as adequate representatives because their specific circumstances – particularly regarding the forbearance term and reporting status – would divert resources away from the class claims and run contrary to the putative class members’ interests. The court determined that the class failed to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) on the same basis. Given the substantial evidence presented detailing the plaintiffs’ specific situation, the court determined that these individual disputes would dominate the litigation and hinder a cohesive resolution for the class. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In Pena, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214641 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2024), the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant provided inaccurate credit reports with false OFAC watchlist hits. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the court denied the motion. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of individuals who had similar false OFAC hits on their credit reports and alleged that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit reports. The court

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