Sterling Infosystems: $6.8M FCRA mixed-file resolution

Sterling Infosystems, one of the largest employment background screening companies in the United States, agreed to pay $6.8 million to resolve Fair Credit Reporting Act charges that its background screening procedures produced consumer reports containing mixed files — criminal, civil, and other records from one individual that were incorrectly attributed to a different consumer with a similar name or date of birth — and that the company failed to maintain the reasonable accuracy procedures the FCRA requires.DOCUMENTED

A mixed file in a background report is a serious error with immediate employment consequences: a job applicant who has no criminal or civil record may receive a report attributing someone else's conviction, judgment, or arrest record to them. Employers who take adverse action based on such a report may withdraw a job offer from someone who has no adverse history of their own, based entirely on records that belong to a different person.

How Mixed Files Form

Sterling's screening process assembled reports from county criminal courts, state repository data, federal records, civil judgment databases, and other sources, linking database records to the screened individual through matching logic that weighted combinations of name, date of birth, Social Security number, and address history. Mixed-file errors occur when this matching logic incorrectly links a record belonging to one person to a report generated for a different person. The risk is highest for consumers with common names when database records lack the full set of disambiguating identifiers needed to distinguish them with certainty.REVIEWED

Regulators found that Sterling's matching procedures did not include adequate verification steps when match confidence was ambiguous or when records lacked sufficient identifying information to reliably distinguish the record subject from the person being screened. The FCRA's requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy was violated in the category of ambiguous-match cases where additional verification could have prevented incorrect attribution.DOCUMENTED

Employment Consequences for Affected Applicants

Background screening is now standard across professional, managerial, and many hourly employment positions. A consumer who is the subject of a mixed-file error may encounter that error at multiple employers using Sterling, since the underlying database error is not automatically corrected between one employer's screening request and the next. An applicant who loses a specific job opportunity to a mixed-file error may lose additional opportunities before the error is identified and corrected through the dispute process — which requires the consumer to first learn what the report contains, then dispute the inaccuracy, then wait 30 days for investigation, then potentially wait for correction and redelivery to the employer.REVIEWED

The employer ran the check. The report came back with someone else's record attributed to the applicant. The offer was withdrawn. The applicant had no record of their own — only someone else's attached to their name by an error in a database.

Settlement Reforms and Redress Fund

The settlement required Sterling to implement enhanced verification steps for cases involving common names, ambiguous matches, or database records lacking key disambiguating information. Quality control procedures were required to increase review of borderline matches before reports are delivered to employers. The settlement established a consumer redress fund for individuals who could document that a Sterling mixed-file error during the relevant period resulted in an adverse employment action. Documenting a claim requires showing the inaccurate report, evidence that the records were not the claimant's, and evidence of an adverse employment consequence.DOCUMENTED

Consumer Rights in Background Check Disputes

Any consumer who suspects a background report used in an employment decision contained records that do not belong to them can request a copy of the report from the screening company and file a dispute identifying the specific records that should not appear. The screening company must investigate within 30 days and delete or correct records that cannot be verified as accurately attributed to the consumer. Employers who take adverse action based on a background report are required to provide a pre-adverse action notice with a copy of the report before the decision is finalized, giving the applicant the opportunity to identify and dispute errors before the decision becomes final.

Sterling Infosystems' settlement requires enhanced verification procedures for the specific category of cases — common name, ambiguous match — where mixed-file error risk is highest. The monitoring obligations mean that regulators can review whether enhanced procedures are implemented as agreed and whether they produce the accuracy improvement the settlement contemplated. This creates an ongoing accountability mechanism extending the settlement's practical effect well beyond the initial payment.

For employers who use background screening in their hiring process, the Sterling case is a reminder that they cannot treat background reports as infallible final determinations. When an applicant disputes accuracy — particularly when they dispute records that appear to belong to a different individual with a similar name — the employer has both a legal obligation and a practical interest in allowing the dispute process to complete before finalizing an adverse action decision. The legal obligation comes from FCRA adverse action requirements; the practical interest comes from the reputational and legal exposure that follows from a hiring decision based on a report that proves to be incorrect. Treating background report disputes seriously and allowing adequate time for investigation before finalizing hiring decisions is both legally required and sound business practice for any employer processing significant background check volume.

Sterling Infosystems' settlement requires enhanced verification procedures for the specific category of cases — common name, ambiguous match — where mixed-file error risk is highest. The monitoring obligations mean that regulators can review whether enhanced procedures are implemented as agreed and whether they produce the accuracy improvement the settlement contemplated. This creates an ongoing accountability mechanism extending the settlement's practical effect well beyond the initial payment.

For employers who use background screening in their hiring process, the Sterling case is a reminder that they cannot treat background reports as infallible final determinations. When an applicant disputes accuracy — particularly when they dispute records that appear to belong to a different individual with a similar name — the employer has both a legal obligation and a practical interest in allowing the dispute process to complete before finalizing an adverse action decision. The legal obligation comes from FCRA adverse action requirements; the practical interest comes from the reputational and legal exposure that follows from a hiring decision based on a report that proves to be incorrect. Treating background report disputes seriously and allowing adequate time for investigation before finalizing hiring decisions is both legally required and sound business practice for any employer processing significant background check volume.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.