Class Action Alleges TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions Submitted ‘Grossly Inaccurate’ Report to Potential Landlord [UPDATE]
Last Updated on April 12, 2023
Beard v. TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc.
Filed: April 7, 2021 ◆§ 7:21-cv-00201
A class action alleges TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions has unlawfully used “overly broad criteria” in response to customer requests for screening reports.
Virginia
April 12, 2023 – TransUnion Rental Screening Settlement Website Is Live
The official website for the TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions (TURSS) class action settlement detailed below is live and can be found at https://www.rentalscreeningsettlement.com/.
The settlement site is separated into two sections, one for the “policy settlement” class and one for the “money settlement” class:
- You are included in the policy settlement if TURSS reported or reports a criminal record and/or landlord-tenant record about you to a third party between November 7, 2016 and two years after the company implements the policy changes required by the settlement.
- You are covered by the $11.5 million monetary settlement if you, within certain timeframes, fit any of the age mismatch, state criminal, state eviction, eviction disputes or criminal disputes criteria outlined on this page.
To file a claim for compensation, head to this page. Only members of the state criminal group and certain members of the age mismatch group will need to fill out a claim form. All other members of the money settlement class will receive payments automatically.
The policy-focused settlement does not include any payments to eligible class members who will be impacted by the policy changes TURSS is required to make under the deal, the website states. Those who are eligible to receive benefits from the policy aspect of the deal do not need to do anything in order to receive them.
Don’t miss out on settlement news like this. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Case Update
October 13, 2022 – TransUnion Agrees to Settle Rental Screening Lawsuit
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions (TURSS) has agreed to pay $11.5 million and make certain changes to its business practices as part of a settlement of the claims detailed on this page.
According to court documents, TURSS has agreed not to link a consumer to a criminal record without first matching their name and their date of birth, Social Security number or address. TURSS has also been prohibited from using landlord-tenant records gathered from sources that are not visited at least every 60 days, and the company will be required to reformat its reports so records relating to a single legal proceeding between a landlord and tenant will be grouped together and not shown in a way that implies that multiple evictions were filed.
“Although these changes sound simple, they are powerful, and a significant concession by TURSS,” the plaintiffs wrote in a September 9 motion asking the court to approve the settlement.
The settlement will also provide monetary relief to certain consumers who had criminal records misattributed to them or had outdated landlord-tenant records included in their consumer reports.
Cash payments made to these individuals, who are described in more detail here, will vary depending on “the relative seriousness of the consequences of TURSS’s conduct.” In other words, those who were reported as having committed a felony or sex offense, or who disputed their criminal records, will receive higher payments than people who were misreported as having a misdemeanor, lower-level offense or eviction record. The plaintiffs’ attorneys estimate that each person covered by the settlement will receive between $40 and $800, depending on which group they fall into.
Everyone affected by the settlement will receive their payment automatically, without needing to file a claim, except for those who fall into the “state criminal group,” i.e., certain individuals whose reported criminal records were from California, Florida, Texas or Utah. These consumers will be able to file a claim for their share of the settlement on the official settlement website. Those who fall into the “age mismatch group” will also be eligible to file a claim for an additional payment if the criminal record reported about them was a felony or sex offense but was not categorized as such on the notice they received as part of the settlement.
The website will also include a feature that will allow each person affected by the settlement to request a copy of the information reported about them by the defendant.
Anyone eligible to receive a cash payment from the settlement should receive notice of the deal via mail and email. Contact information for each person will be gathered based on publicly available databases and from TURSS, who will be required to hand over consumer contact details by February 28, 2023.
The proposed settlement now awaits the judge’s preliminary approval.
Don’t miss out on settlement news like this. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
A proposed class action alleges TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions (TURSS) has unlawfully used “overly broad criteria” in response to customer requests for screening reports.
The 13-page case alleges the defendant provided a potential landlord with a “grossly inaccurate report” that incorrectly stated that the plaintiff was listed on the National Sex Offender registry. TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions matched this criminal information to the plaintiff even though it knew the man had a different middle name and date of birth than the true offender, the complaint says.
According to the lawsuit, TransUnion’s inaccurate consumer reporting practices could have been easily prevented had the company required a first name, middle name, last name and date of birth match, a common procedure adopted by reporting agencies. The lawsuit charges that TransUnion, by “systematically allowing criminal records to be attributed to consumers who had different middle names and/or date of births [sic] than the registered sex offender,” has failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the consumer information it shares with third parties.
Per the suit, TransUnion has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a law meant to safeguard consumers’ right to fairness, impartiality and respect with regard to their private information. The case stresses, however, that the FCRA “covers more than just credit reporting” in that it regulates all consumer reports, including tenant screening reports.
The plaintiff, who served 18 years in the Marine Corps, says he applied to rent an apartment in August 2020 and, as part of the application process, was required to undergo a background check for which he provided his full name, social security number and date of birth. The report the potential landlord received from the defendant was “grossly inaccurate,” the suit says, in that it stated the plaintiff was listed on the National Sex Offender Registry as a registered sex offender in Virginia.
“This entry does not belong to the Plaintiff,” the lawsuit says. “Plaintiff is not a registered sex offender in any jurisdiction, nor had he ever been charged with a crime on TURSS’s report.”
The lawsuit says the defendant “knew or should have known” that the inaccurate background report information did not belong to the plaintiff because it did not match the middle name and birth date the man provided the potential landlord who requested the report.
“TURSS has been sued many times for its failure to use reasonable procedures to assure that the rental-purposed consumer reports it sells are maximally accurate,” the lawsuit goes on to say. “TURSS knows that its process for obtaining and accurately reporting, updating, and investigating criminal public records is so shoddy that it leads to material inaccuracies. TURSS’s parent company, TransUnion, has been admonished by at least one federal court that it doesn’t comply with the FCRA.”
The case looks to represent U.S. residents who were the subject of a report sold by TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions in the last five years and through the date on which a class is certified and who were identified as listed on a sex offender registry despite the fact that the offender’s date of birth did not match the applicant’s date of birth.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.