1.  Nationwide File Disclosure Class  106.  Plaintiff Huff sues on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).  Plaintiff Huff is a member of the Nationwide File Disclosure  Class that he seeks to represent, which consists of all individuals (“consumers” as defined the  FCRA) who requested and received a consumer disclosure called the “TeleCheck File Report”  since September 12, 2009, which only contained information related to the identifier(s) provided  by Plaintiff Huff and members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class, and which excluded  additional information in Defendants’ files linked or associated with Plaintiff Huff and members  of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class.  107.  Plaintiff Huff is a member of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class because he  requested and received a TeleCheck File Report containing information related to the identifiers  provided by Plaintiff Huff to Defendants, and which excluded additional information in  Defendants’ files linked or associated with Plaintiff Huff.       1.  Nationwide File Disclosure Class  113.  The prosecution of the claims of Plaintiff Huff requires adjudication of questions  of law and fact common to the putative Nationwide File Disclosure Class: whether Defendants  have engaged in a systematic and uniform policy, practice or procedure in refusing or failing to  provide consumers with full and complete file disclosures in compliance with 15 U.S.C. §  1681g(a)(1)-(4).    114.  The claims of the Plaintiff Huff and the Nationwide File Disclosure Class that he  seeks to represent are embedded in common questions of facts and law.  Defendants have  31 engaged in a uniform and systematic refusal or failure to provide file disclosures containing  information regarding identifiers that are linked or associated with Plaintiff Huff and members of  the National File Disclosure Class.  Thus, the common questions of law are:  1) whether  Defendants’ conduct violated and/or continues to violate the FCRA; 2) whether Defendants’  noncompliance was and/or is a willful violation of the FCRA; 3) if willful, whether Plaintiff Huff  and members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class are entitled to statutory damages and/or  punitive damages; and 4) if not willful, whether Defendants’ violations of the FCRA were and/or  are negligent.     115.  The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any  questions affecting only individual Class members.   2.  Tennessee File Disclosure Class  116.  The prosecution of the claims of Plaintiff Bates requires adjudication of questions  of law and fact common to the putative Tennessee File Disclosure Class: whether Defendants  have engaged in a systematic and uniform policy, practice or procedure in refusing or failing to  provide consumers with full and complete file disclosures in compliance with 15 U.S.C. §  1681g(a)(1)-(4).    117.  The claims of the Plaintiff Bates and the Tennessee File Disclosure Class that he  seeks to represent are embedded in common questions of facts and law.  Defendants have  engaged in a uniform and systematic refusal or failure to provide file disclosures containing  information regarding both the eight-digit and nine-digit Tennessee driver license numbers.   Thus, the common questions of law are:  1) whether Defendants’ conduct violated and/or  continues to violate the FCRA; 2) whether Defendants’ noncompliance was and/or is a willful  violation of the FCRA; 3) if willful, whether Plaintiff Bates and members of the Tennessee File  32 Disclosure Class are entitled to statutory damages and/or punitive damages; and 4) if not willful,  whether Defendants’ violations of the FCRA were and/or are negligent.     118.  The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any  questions affecting only individual Class members.  F.  2.  Tennessee File Disclosure Class  108.  Plaintiff Bates sues on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).  Plaintiff Bates is a member of the Tennessee File Disclosure  29 Class that he seeks to represent, which consists of all individuals (“consumers” as defined by the  FCRA) who requested and received a consumer disclosure called the “TeleCheck File Report”  since September 12, 2009, which only contained information related to the eight-digit Tennessee  driver license number issued to Plaintiff Bates and members of the Tennessee File Disclosure  Class, and which excluded additional information in Defendants’ files related to the nine-digit  Tennessee driver license issued to Plaintiff Bates and members of the Tennessee File Disclosure  Class (and vice versa).  109.  Plaintiff Bates is a member of the Tennessee File Disclosure Class because he  requested and received a TeleCheck File Report containing information related to the nine-digit  Tennessee driver license number issued to him, and which excluded additional information in  Defendants’ files related to the eight-digit Tennessee license number issued to Plaintiff Bates.    B.  27.  Throughout the country, including the state of Tennessee, many businesses,  9 including merchants and retailers, accept checks and electronic fund transfers from consumers as  methods of payment for goods and services.  The business transactions are initiated by the  consumers who wish to purchase goods or services from the businesses or merchants (hereinafter  Plaintiffs refers to “businesses,” “merchants” and “retailers” interchangeably).   28.  Businesses desire to accept checks and electronic fund transfers as methods of  payment for goods and services, yet also want to minimize the potential risk of a check or  electronic fund transfer being returned as an unpaid or dishonored item, such as one returned for  non-sufficient funds.   29.  Defendants engage in several business operations, including but not limited to  electronic commerce, payment processing services and customer account management.  In their  Commercial Services segment, Defendants provide credit card processing, debit card processing,  check and electronic fund verification, check and electronic fund guarantee, and prepaid card  services.   30.  Defendants provide the services stated in the above Paragraphs, including credit  card processing, debit card processing, check and electronic fund verification, and check and  electronic fund guarantee, to businesses in the state of Tennessee.     31.  Defendants purports that their check verification and guarantee services use  Defendants’ proprietary database system to assist in verifying that a check writer is a reasonable  risk for a merchant; or to guarantee that approved checks presented to businesses for payment  will be collectible.     32.  Defendants’ databases, systems and files contain information regarding  consumers, including those residing in Tennessee, regarding check writing and electronic fund  transfer histories.  Defendants claim that they use check writing and electronic fund transfer  10 histories of consumers as part of their risk analysis in providing check/electronic fund  verification and guarantee services to businesses.    33.  Defendants’ revenues from check verification and check guarantee services are  earned primarily by charging merchant fees for their services.    34.  Procedurally, when a consumer, including those in Tennessee, initiates a sales  transaction with a business and presents a check or electronic fund transfer as a method of  payment at the point of sale, the business processes the check or electronic fund transfer through  Defendants’ systems, databases and files, typically by way of a terminal or by phone.  Typically,  the check or electronic fund transfer is processed by the business or merchant inputting  identifiers unique to that consumer, primarily a driver license and/or bank number (MICR  number, containing the bank’s ABA routing number and the consumer’s account number).  The  transaction is then processed through Defendants’ systems, databases and files.  Thereafter, the  merchant receives a “code” from Defendants indicating whether the check/electronic fund  transfer is accepted (a “Code 1” or approval code); declined with a “Code 4,” which according to  Defendants, means that there is evidence of an unpaid item, such as a returned check, in its  databases, systems and files regarding the consumer, or that the bank account is closed; declined  with a “Code 3,” which Defendants claim is a risk-based decline regarding the consumer; or  declined with a “Code 0” (Call Center Code).     35.  Under Defendants’ check/electronic funds transfer guarantee service, when a  business is presented a check/electronic fund transfer as a method of payment from the  consumer, the transaction is submitted to and analyzed by Defendants, purportedly utilizing their  databases, systems and files, which according to Defendants, include the consumer’s check  writing history.  Defendants then either accept or decline the check/electronic fund transfer for  11 warranty or guarantee coverage.  If Defendants approve the check/electronic fund transfer for  warranty coverage and the business accepts the check/electronic fund transfer, the business then  deposits the check in its bank account or processes the electronic fund transfer.  If the  check/electronic fund transfer is returned as an unpaid item by the businesses’ bank and the  returned check/electronic fund transfer meets the requirements for warranty coverage,  Defendants are required by their contract with the merchant to purchase the check/electronic  fund transfer from the merchant at its face value.    36.  Defendants charge a fee for each check/electronic fund transfer they guarantee,  which generally is determined as a percentage of the check/electronic fund transfer amount.    37.  Defendants also provide check verification services to merchants and generally  receive a fee on each transaction processed through their databases, systems and files, even if the  same check is being reprocessed by the merchant following receipt of a decline code.      38.  As part of their business operations, Defendants regularly and routinely store  information regarding checks/electronic fund transfers processed through their databases,  systems and files.  This information includes the date and time of the transaction, merchant,  identifier(s) used to process the transaction, check number, check/electronic fund transfer  amount, and code provided to the merchant (such as approval, decline, Code 0, Code 1, Code 3  or Code 4).     39.  Transactions processed through Defendants databases and systems are typically  stored under the identifier or identifiers used to process the transaction.  For example, if a  check/electronic fund transfer is processed using the MICR number only, information related to  the transaction is stored under that particular identifier.  If two identifiers are used to process the  transaction, such as a MICR number and a driver license number, information related to the  12 transaction is stored under both identifiers.     40.  Defendants also regularly and routinely store other information related to  consumers, such as the consumer’s name, address and telephone number; the number of  check/electronic fund transfer transactions processed using a particular identifier (such as the  driver license and MICR number), the total dollar amount of check/electronic fund transfer  transactions processed using a particular identifier; and information regarding returned checks  and closed bank accounts.   41.  Although information is generally stored under a particular identifier, Defendants  regularly and routinely link identifiers associated with a particular consumer in their databases,  systems and files.  For example, if a consumer presents a check/electronic fund transfer to a  merchant and the merchant uses the MICR number and the driver license number to process the  transaction, the two identifiers (the consumer’s MICR number and driver license number) are  “linked” in Defendants’ systems, databases and files.  Once identifiers are linked, they are used  in Defendants’ systems, databases and files when subsequent transactions are processed, and can  affect the approval/decline code that Defendants provide to the merchant, recommending that the  merchant approve or decline the check/electronic fund transfer.     42.  As part of Defendants’ business operations, Defendants also furnish information  regarding consumers from merchants and banks related to returned checks/electronic fund  transfers and closed bank accounts.  For returned checks/electronic fund transfers to merchants  using Defendants’ guarantee service, Defendants purchase the returned checks/electronic fund  transfers at face value, then inputs this information into their systems, databases and files under  identifiers associated with the returned checks/electronic fund transfers and other identifiers  linked to or associated with the particular consumer.  In a subsequent check/electronic fund  13 transfer transaction, the merchant will receive a decline or “Code 4” decline code, and will  typically reject the check/electronic fund transfer.  The same is true if the consumer attempts to  open a new bank account with a bank utilizing Defendants’ bank account opening service.  In  short, Defendants effectively “block” a consumer from receiving an approval on a subsequent  check/electronic fund transfer from merchants using Defendants’ services, or from opening a  new bank account with banks utilizing Defendants’ bank account opening services, until the  consumer pays Defendants for the face amount of the check, and a returned check and/or other  fees.  Defendants routinely and regularly store this information in their databases, systems, and  consumer files.    43.  With respect to information regarding consumers from merchants who do not use  Defendants’ check guarantee service related to returned checks/electronic fund transfers, and  from banks related to closed accounts, Defendants input this information into their systems,  databases and files and as discussed in Paragraph 42, effectively “block” a consumer from  receiving an approval on a subsequent check/electronic fund transfers from merchants using  Defendants’ check verification service; or from opening a new bank account with a bank using  Defendants’ bank account opening services, until the consumer “makes good” or otherwise  resolves the issue with the merchant with the returned check/electronic fund transfer.  In theory,  if and when the consumer “makes good” or otherwise resolves the issue with the merchant which  received the returned check/electronic fund transfer, that merchant reports the item as paid or  resolved to Defendants, who in turn, make the proper notations in their systems, databases, and  files, and then eliminates the “block.”     44.  Defendants routinely and regularly store information regarding returned  checks/electronic fund transfers, and payment/resolution of said returned checks/electronic fund  14 transfers in their databases, systems, and files.   45.  As part of Defendants’ business operations to collect on returned  checks/electronic fund transfers purchased through their check/electronic fund guarantee service,  and to assist merchants which do not utilize Defendants’ check guarantee service to collect on  returned checks/electronic fund transfers, Defendants regularly and routinely link and/or  associate the consumer’s identifiers, primarily the consumer’s driver license number(s) and  MICR number(s), in its databases, systems and files.  In so doing, Defendants attempt to increase  the likelihood of Defendants or a merchant collecting on a returned check/electronic fund  transfer, by essentially blocking a consumer’s check writing privileges at the thousands of  merchants using Defendants’ services, and/or blocking the consumer’s ability to open a new  checking account.   46.  As part of their business operations, Defendants also offer bank account opening  services to banks.  Procedurally, for banks using this service, the bank inputs or provides  information to Defendants, including identifiers unique to that consumer, such as driver license  number and/or prior bank account numbers.  The transaction is then processed through  Defendants’ systems, databases and files, and the bank receives information on whether there is  evidence of an unpaid item associated with the consumer in Defendants’ systems, databases and  files (such as a returned check), as well as information regarding the consumer’s prior bank  account activity.     47.  As part of their business operations, Defendants also offer tenant screening  services to landlords.  Procedurally, for a landlord using this service, the landlord inputs or  provides information to Defendants, including identifiers unique to that consumer, such as driver  license number and/or bank account number(s).  The transaction is then processed through  15 Defendants’ systems, databases and files, and the landlord receives information on whether there  is evidence of an unpaid item associated with the consumer in Defendants’ systems, databases  and files, such as a returned check, as well as information regarding the consumer’s prior bank  account activity.   48.  As part of its business operations, First Data offers multiple other payment  processing services to merchants, including credit and debit card acceptance.  First Data offers  these to merchants in product “bundles” to cover all payment processing options available at the  point of sale.  First Data claims to serve more than six million merchant locations and holds itself  out as one of the largest, if not the largest, payment processor in the world.  First Data utilizes a  sales force which markets these “bundled” payment solutions, including check/electronic fund  transfer verification and/or guarantee services.       49.  First  Data  provides  its  payment  processing  services,  including  the  check/electronic fund transfer guarantee and verification services discussed in the preceding  Paragraphs, either directly or through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, including TeleCheck  Services, Inc. and/or TeleCheck International, Inc.    50.  First Data provides bank account services discussed in the preceding Paragraphs  either directly or through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, including TeleCheck Services, Inc.  and/or TeleCheck International, Inc.   51.  First Data collects or attempts to collect returned checks/electronic fund transfers  either directly or through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, TeleCheck Services, Inc., TeleCheck  International, Inc. and/or TRS Recovery Services, Inc.   52.  First Data maintains a website titled www.firstdata.com.  On its website, First  Data lists various product solutions and payment services that it offers to merchants, including a  16 variety of electronic payment and online transaction processing solutions, such as credit and  debit card acceptance, check guarantee, check verification and other payment options.     53.  TeleCheck Services, Inc. and TeleCheck International, Inc. provide similar  services to businesses and banks as alleged in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   54.  First Data offers to businesses a terminal machine that supports all of its various  payment processing products, including debit and credit cards, electronic check acceptance,  check verification and check warranty.     55.  On its website, First Data states that TeleCheck “is part of the First Data family.”     56.  Defendants claim that they have built and maintain the nation’s largest system of  databases and files containing check writer information, including those related to Tennessee  consumers.  The databases and files containing check writer information are shared by all  Defendants and are accessible by them at various locations throughout the United States.     57.  Defendants claim that they offer the most accurate check verification/guarantee  services in the industry, with databases providing merchants with continually updated  information, including bad check activity, automated inquiries using the consumer’s  identification (driver license or State ID) and checking account data.   58.  Defendants claim that through their services, they can help merchants separate  good check writers from bad ones.  Defendants also claim or have claimed that they can predict  “with unmatched accuracy” the probability of a check being good.   59.  Defendants engage in a common enterprise, which includes common operations  related to consumer reporting.  First Data exercises exclusive dominion and control over the  remaining Defendants, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries and operate as First Data’s alter  ego.  17  60.  First Data controls and dictates the budget of the remaining Defendants.   Defendants comingle financial resources in the operation of their business segments.   61.  Defendants share or have shared the same business locations, including those in  Houston, Texas, Greenwood Village, Colorado, and Atlanta, Georgia.     62.  In addition to Houston, Texas, Greenwood Village, Colorado, and Atlanta,  Georgia, Defendants also maintain common offices in City of Industry, California, where both  consumers and merchants are directed to forward payments.   63.  Defendants also operate several common “call centers” throughout the United  States and abroad, and share common agents and employees at these facilities.  Depending on the  situation, the same call center employee may represent to a consumer that they are speaking on  behalf of one Defendant, while later tell a different consumer that they are speaking on behalf of  another Defendant.         64.  Several of the same individuals are or were officers of both First Data and the  other Defendants.     65.  Defendants share manpower and resources.  Defendants share the common  databases, systems and files, as stated above, containing information regarding consumers,  including check writing information, consumer debt information, collection activity and other  consumer information.  These common databases and systems are accessible by Defendants’  agents and employees throughout the country.   66.  Defendants compile, maintain and input information about consumers in their  common databases, systems and files, including information regarding check writing histories.    67.  Defendants maintain files and other information on consumers in their databases  and systems, including check writing histories.   18  68.  Defendants provide check verification, electronic fund transfer verification, check  guarantee and electronic fund guarantee services to merchants and banks in the state of  Tennessee.   69.  Defendants have created and implemented a uniform policy, practice and  procedure for responding to consumers’ requests for disclosures and information under the  FCRA, including consumer requests for disclosures by telephone or in writing.   70.  In addition, Defendants have developed a uniform, standardized consumer  disclosure format which is called the “TeleCheck File Report.”  For at least five (5) years leading  up to the filing of this Complaint, Defendants routinely provide the “TeleCheck File Report” to  consumers utilizing the same uniform, standardized format.       71.  During the Liability Period (five (5) years preceding the filing of this Complaint),  it was and is Defendants’ policy, practice and procedure to only provide information to  consumers related to check/electronic fund transactions processed through Defendants’ databases  and systems stored under the identifier or identifiers provided by the consumer in his or her  request for a consumer disclosure under the FCRA.  Defendants regularly and routinely refuse or  fail to provide information related to check/electronic fund transfer transactions processed under  an identifier(s) linked or associated with that particular consumer.   72.  In addition, during the Liability Period (five (5) years preceding the filing of this  Complaint), it was and is Defendants’ policy, practice and procedure to only provide information  to consumers related to returned checks (including those that Defendants’ records showed  remained unpaid, paid or otherwise resolved) stored under the identifier or identifiers provided  by the consumer in his or her request for a consumer disclosure under the FCRA.  Defendants  regularly and routinely refuse or fail to provide information related to returned checks (including  19 those that Defendants’ records showed remained unpaid, paid or otherwise resolved) under an  identifier(s) linked or associated with that particular consumer.   73.  Defendants have and continue to willfully refuse to disclose to consumers which  checkwriting history or histories were/are utilized when processing a consumer’s transaction and  providing consumer reports to businesses.  Specifically, and as part of Defendants’ standard  operating procedure, Defendants systematically and deliberately conceal how their  verification/guarantee system, bank account opening and/or tenant screening services work,  and/or the information which forms the basis for the decline/approval codes provided in the  consumer reports to businesses, including but not limited to the fact that Defendants have taken  no steps to combine, associate and/or link the checkwriting history stored under the consumer’s  eight-digit Tennessee driver license number, with the consumer’s nine-digit Tennessee driver  license number beginning with a “0,” and that the failure to combine, associate and/or link this  information could affect the transaction.     74.  Defendants have a policy, practice and/or procedure to provide consumers with  standardized form letters and/or utilize standardized verbiage when speaking to consumers.  For  example, when providing information to a consumer who received a decline code, Defendants  use vague, generalized language stating that the consumer’s check “did not meet the acceptance  guidelines that TeleCheck has established.”  Defendants willfully conceal what these guidelines  are, and specifically, conceal the fact that a decline may have occurred because the consumer  was viewed as a “first-time checkwriter” in Defendants’ system, or a checkwriter with limited  checkwriting history, due to Defendants’ failure to combine checkwriting histories stored under  the eight-digit and nine-digit Tennessee driver license numbers, or that a consumer’s check may  have been declined due to a smaller “positive” checkwriting history because Defendants failed to  20 combine checkwriting histories stored under the eight-digit and nine-digit Tennessee driver  license numbers.     75.  Defendants repeatedly tell consumers only that the consumers’ checks or  transactions “did not meet the acceptance guidelines” that Defendants have established.  Even  when consumer inquiries are escalated, Defendants’ employees are strictly forbidden to deviate  from the use of Defendants’ standardized form letters and/or Defendants’ standardized verbiage,  which state generally that the consumer’s check did not meet Defendants’ “acceptance  guidelines.”  In fact, David Hogan, Vice President of Service Operations and former Vice  President of Operations, testified that even he would have to stick to the general content of  Defendants’ standardized verbiage when speaking to a consumer in a highly escalated situation.     76.  Based on Defendants’ policies, practices and procedures, it was/is virtually  impossible for Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative classes to discover that Defendants have  violated the FCRA by refusing or failing to associate, link and/or combine the consumer’s  checkwriting history stored in Defendants’ databases, systems and files under the eight-digit  Tennessee driver license number with the nine-digit Tennessee driver license number simply by  communicating with Defendants and/or their agents.  In fact, Defendants’ violations of the  FCRA were only discovered in prior litigation against Defendants TeleCheck Services, Inc. and  TeleCheck International, Inc., in which Defendants disclosed that a Tennessee consumer whose  check was processed with the nine-digit Tennessee license number beginning with a “0” was  declined because she was treated as a first-time checkwriter, despite having prior checkwriting  history under the eight-digit Tennessee license number which would have resulted in an  acceptance code; and that Defendants did not have a procedure in place to combine these  histories.  21  77.  Further, based on Defendants’ policies, practices and procedures, it was/is  virtually impossible for Plaintiffs and/or members of the putative classes to discover Defendants’  processes and procedures for responding to requests for consumer disclosures under the FCRA,  how Defendants collect and store information, and what file information that Defendants fail to  include in disclosures to consumers pursuant to the FCRA.     78.  Without information regarding Defendants’ policies, practices and procedures  related to the linking or association of identifiers, information regarding the manner in which  Defendants store information regarding consumers, and the procedures followed when providing  a TeleCheck File Report, it was impossible for Plaintiff Huff, Plaintiff Bates and members of the  Nationwide File Disclosure and Tennessee File Disclosure Classes to discover that Defendants  violated the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1)-(4), by refusing or failing to provide:  a) all  information in the consumer’s file at the time of the request; b) the sources of the information in  the consumer’s file at the time of the request; 3) the names of each person (or trade name of the  person, if applicable) who procured a consumer report during the 1-year period preceding the  date on which the request was made; and 4) the dates, original payees, and amounts of any  checks upon which any adverse characterization of the consumer is based, and which is included  in the file at the time of the disclosure.    B.  Change in Tennessee’s Driver License Numbering System   79.  Prior to approximately February 2002, the state of Tennessee utilized an eight- digit numbering system for its driver licenses.   80.  In approximately February 2002, the state of Tennessee modified its driver license  numbering system, going from an eight-digit to a nine-digit system.  For Tennesseans with  existing driver licenses, the modification consisted of adding a “0” to the beginning of the license  22 number.  For example, if the Tennessee consumer had a license number “23456789,” his/her  number became “023456789.” For individuals obtaining a Tennessee driver license for the first  time, he/she was issued a license beginning with a “1.”  For example, “123456789.”   81.  Although the state of Tennessee made an across the board change in its driver  license numbering system in approximately February 2002, updated licenses were not sent to  Tennessee license holders all at once.  Instead, as each individual renewed his/her license, they  were issued a new physical license with the “0” as the first number of the nine-digit format.     82.  Prior to February 2002, Huff had a Tennessee license that was eight digits and  began with the number “4.”  On or about June 2, 2004, Huff received his nine-digit Tennessee  license, which had the identical numbers from his previous, eight-digit Tennessee license, except  that it began with a “0” based on the state of Tennessee’s nine-digit numbering system.   83.  Prior to February 2002, Bates had a Tennessee license that was eight digits and  began with the number “8.”  On or about October 14, 2003, Bates received his nine-digit  Tennessee license, which had the identical numbers from his previous, eight-digit Tennessee  license, except that it began with a “0” based on the state of Tennessee’s nine-digit numbering  system.   84.  In January 2013, Huff requested a consumer disclosure and received a TeleCheck  File Report dated January 30, 2013, which only contained information in Defendants’ files  related to his nine-digit Tennessee license number.  The January 30, 2013 TeleCheck File Report  did not contain other information linked to or associated with Huff, such as check transactions  processed under Huff’s eight-digit Tennessee license number and/or bank account(s) linked to or  associated with Huff.   85.  In approximately October 2009, Bates requested a consumer file disclosure and  23 received a TeleCheck File Report dated October 5, 2009, which was essentially blank.  The  October 5, 2009 TeleCheck File Report did not provide Bates with information in Defendants’  files related to Bates’ eight-digit Tennessee driver license number.    V.  A.  CLASS DEFINITIONS   A.  Defendants’ Business Operations   DISCLOSURE LICENSE CLASS)  151.  Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 150 above as part of  Count II of this Complaint.  152.  Alternatively, if it is determined that Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are not  willful, Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are negligent.  Despite having knowledge that there  is additional information in their databases, systems and files that are linked or associated to a  consumer, Defendants refuse to provide this information in the disclosure called the TeleCheck  File Report.   153.  Plaintiff Huff and members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class have no  plain, adequate or complete remedy of law to redress these wrongs alleged herein.  A declaratory  judgment is their only means of securing adequate and equitable relief.  Further, Plaintiff Huff  and members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class are now and will continue to suffer  irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and procedures unless enjoined  by this Court.  154.  As a result of Defendants’ negligent violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff Huff and  members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class are entitled to declaratory relief, injunctive  relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.  DISCLOSURE CLASS)  136.  Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 135 above as part of  Count I of this Complaint.  137.  Plaintiff Huff and the members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class are  “consumers” under the FCRA.  36 138.  Defendants are “consumer reporting agencies” under the FCRA.  Alternatively,  Defendants are “nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies” under the FCRA.  139.  As consumer reporting agencies, Defendants are bound by the requirements of the  FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.   140.  Defendants provide check verification, electronic fund transfer verification, check  guarantee and electronic fund transfer guarantee services to businesses, merchants and retailers.   Further, Defendants provide account opening verification services to banks and tenant screening  services to landlords.  141.  On each occasion when a business, merchant or retailer process a consumer’s  check or electronic funds transfer through Defendants’ systems, databases and files, Defendants  provide a “consumer report” as defined by the FCRA.    142.  On each occasion when a bank utilizes Defendants’ account opening verification  service and the transaction is processed through Defendants’ systems, databases and files,  Defendants provide a “consumer report” as defined by the FCRA.       143.  On each occasion when a landlord utilizes Defendants’ tenant screening service  and the transaction is processed through Defendants’ systems, databases and files, Defendants  provide a “consumer report” as defined by the FCRA.  144.  As consumer reporting agencies, Defendants are required to provide disclosure to  consumers upon request which comply with the FCRA, including but not limited to the  provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1)-(4).  145.  When consumers, including Plaintiff Huff and members of the Nationwide File  Disclosure Class, request a disclosure as of right under the FCRA, Defendants only provide a  disclosure containing information limited to the identifiers (typically a driver license number  37 and/or bank account number) given to Defendants by the consumers.  Defendants routinely  refuse or fail to provide other file information regarding identifiers that are linked to and/or  associated with the consumer, although Defendants actually use this linked and/or associated  information when preparing and providing consumer reports to users, such as merchants, banks  and landlords.  As a result, consumers (including Plaintiff Huff and members of the Nationwide  File Disclosure Class) are given incomplete file information in willful violation of 15 U.S.C. §  1681g(a)(1)-(4).   146.  Plaintiff Huff and the Nationwide File Disclosure Class that he seeks to represent  were subjected to a systematic and uniform policy, practice and procedure and common business  practice by Defendants in violating the FCRA.  147.  Defendants have and continue to violate the FCRA, including the provision  contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1)-(4).  148.  Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are willful.  Despite having knowledge that  there is additional information in their databases, systems and files that are linked or associated  to a consumer, Defendants refuse to provide this information in the consumer disclosure called  the TeleCheck File Report.    149.  Plaintiff Huff and members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class have no  plain, adequate or complete remedy of law to redress these wrongs alleged herein.  A declaratory  judgment is their only means of securing adequate and equitable relief.  Further, Plaintiff Huff  and members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class are now and will continue to suffer  irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and procedures unless enjoined  by this Court.  150.  As a result of Defendants’ willful violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff Huff and  38 members of the Nationwide File Disclosure Class are entitled to declaratory relief, injunctive  relief, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.  DISCLOSURE CLASS)  155.  Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 154 above as part of  Count III of this Complaint.  39 156.  As consumer reporting agencies, Defendants are required to provide disclosure to  consumers upon request which comply with the FCRA, including but not limited to the  provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1)-(4).  157.  When Tennessee consumers, including Plaintiff Bates and members of the  Tennessee File Disclosure Class, request a consumer disclosure as of right under the FCRA,  Defendants improperly limit the information contained in the disclosure to either the eight-digit  or nine-digit Tennessee driver license number.  For example, if the Tennessee consumer provides  Defendants with an eight-digit license number, Defendants only provide information regarding  the eight-digit license number, while refusing or failing to give information regarding the nine- digit license number which is identical except for a leading “0” at the beginning of the nine-digit  number.  The same is true if the Tennessee consumer provides Defendants with a nine-digit  number.  As a result, Tennessee consumers (including Plaintiff John Bates and the Tennessee  File Disclosure Class) are given incomplete file information in violation of 15 U.S.C. §  1681g(a)(1)-(4).   158.  Plaintiff Bates and the Tennessee File Disclosure Class that he seeks to represent  were subjected to a systematic and uniform policy, practice and procedure and common business  practice by Defendants in violating the FCRA.  159.  Defendants have and continue to violate the FCRA, including the provision  contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1)-(4).  160.  Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are willful.  Defendants either deliberately  refuse to produce information contained in their databases, systems and files on both the eight  and nine-digit numbers, or Defendants’ failure to do so is reckless.    161.  Plaintiff Bates and members of the Tennessee File Disclosure Class have no plain,  40 adequate or complete remedy of law to redress these wrongs alleged herein.  A declaratory  judgment is their only means of securing adequate and equitable relief.  Further, Plaintiff Bates  and members of the Tennessee File Disclosure Class are now and will continue to suffer  irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and procedures unless enjoined  by this Court.  162.  As a result of Defendants’ willful violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff Bates and  members of the Tennessee File Disclosure Class are entitled to declaratory relief, injunctive  relief, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.  DISCLOSURE LICENSE CLASS)  163.  Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 - 162 above as part of  Count IV of this Complaint.  164.  Alternatively, if it is determined that Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are not  willful, Defendants’ violation of the FCRA are negligent.    165.  Plaintiff Bates and members of the Tennessee File Disclosure Class have no plain,  adequate or complete remedy of law to redress these wrongs alleged herein.  A declaratory  judgment is their only means of securing adequate and equitable relief.  Further, Plaintiff Bates  and members of the Tennessee File Disclosure Class are now and will continue to suffer  irreparable injury from Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices and procedures unless enjoined  by this Court.  166.  As a result of Defendants’ negligent violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff Bates and  members of the Tennessee File Disclosure Class are entitled to declaratory relief, injunctive  relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. 