In 2015, the CFPB ordered General Information Services to pay “$10.5 million in relief to people harmed” by errors in their background check work that the CFPB alleged “cost applicants jobs or hurt their reputations. General Information Services had to pay about 11,500 of their customers potentially harmed between July 21, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2014, each estimated to receive “about $1,000.”

• General Information Services is based in Chapin, S.C. and e-Background-checks.com is “based in Dallas.” Collectively, at the time of the case, the companies generated and sold “more than 10 million background reports annually.” [Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, “$13M penalty for bad background checks;_ Agency says errors may have cost jobs, hurt reputations,” The Chicago Tribune, 10/29/15]

• The companies “failed to use basic procedures to match public records with the correct consumer and to audit reports to ensure their accuracy.” Nearly 70 percent of criminal history disputes consumers filed with General Information Services resulted in some change or correction to the information in their background report,” according to the CFPB. They also “failed to prevent certain information from illegally being included in reports, such as nonreportable civil suit and civil judgment information older than seven years.” “11,500 consumers who got background checks between July 21, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2014” were involved in the settlement. [Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, “$13M penalty for bad background checks;_ Agency says errors may have cost jobs, hurt reputations,” The Chicago Tribune, 10/29/15]

• The $13 million settlement consisted of “$10.5 million in relief to people harmed by the inaccuracies and $2.5 million in civil penalties.” Each individual victim was estimated to receive “about $1,000” in the settlement. The companies were ordered “to identify consumers affected by their conduct. They must also retain an independent consultant to review their policies and staffing levels, develop an audit program and revise their processes to assure report accuracy, such as with algorithms that use middle names to distinguish between reports.” [Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, “$13M penalty for bad background checks;_ Agency says errors may have cost jobs, hurt reputations,” The Chicago Tribune, 10/29/15]