Because consumer reports are being used by more and more parties, including by landlords before renting an apartment, it’s important that credit reporting companies acquire accurate information. But the complaint for this class action alleges that TransUnion, LLC and TransUnion Resident Screening Solutions, Inc. (TURSS) do not do enough to ensure the accuracy and currency of information, resulting in unnecessarily negative reports to landlords.
The Failure to Update Class for this action is all natural persons with a US address who, between September 10, 2013 and the date of judgment in this case, were the subject of tenant screening consumer reports, created by TransUnion Resident Screening Solutions, that contained eviction information, but failed to state that, according to court records dated at least thirty days prior to the preparation of the report, the eviction action had been withdrawn, dismissed, non-suited, or had resulted in a judgment for the tenant defendant.
There are also two subclasses to this class, plus an Incomplete Disclosure Class and a Sources Disclosure Class.
Court records of eviction cases are publicly available. But the filing of an eviction case in itself does not indicate wrongdoing. Many cases have been dismissed, withdrawn, satisfied, or concluded in the tenants’ favor. But the complaint claims that TURSS regularly fails to obtain up-to-date information on cases and instead publishes harmful, inaccurate, and misleading tenant information in reports to landlords and property managers, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Plaintiff Patricia McIntyre applied to rent an apartment in August 2016. The apartment representative ordered a report on her from TURSS. The complaint alleges that the report showed seven incorrect entries, including court cases that had been satisfied, merged with another case, or withdrawn. The apartment complex refused to rent to McIntyre.
In 2017, McIntyre again applied to rent an apartment in a different complex. A report was ordered from TURSS, and this time, the complaint says, it contained eleven different incorrent entries. Again, the apartment complex refused to rent to her.
In April 2018, she requested a copy of her TURSS file. The complaint claims it contained five inaccurate entries. TURSS claimed to have obtained the information from the Philadelphia Municipal Court, but the complaint says this is not true since the information was not up-to-date.
A few months later, in July, she requested a copy of her TransUnion file disclosure. The complaint claims that the company did not provide a complete disclosure to her and omitted eviction information which it had previous supplied to requesting parties.
The complaint claims violations of the FCRA.