12.  Without a brick-and-mortar store, most online payday and other predatory lenders  rely heavily on marketing and advertising to prey on consumers. 1   13.  In order to find potential customers, Internet payday lenders pay companies  known as "lead generators," which are businesses that collect information on potential borrowers  searching for marketing such consumers as potential targets for payday lenders.   14.  Lead generators pay high foes to several sources to acquire borrower information,  including consumer reporting agencies. Often, lead generators use a non-Big-3 consumer  reporting agency,2 such as Clarity, because it does not impose the typically more demanding  verification and "permissible purpose" restrictions usually followed by the publically scrutinized  Big-3 CRAs.   15.  Lead generators primarily obtain the consumer reports to review consumers'  personal financial information in order to obtain details of the consumers' lifestyle, mode of  living, whether the consumer has recently applied for other subprime credit, and other evidence  of a vulnerability to high-cost credit.   17.  Typically, lead generators repeatedly resell the same applicant's infonnation to  different companies after an exclusivity period for the "first-look buyer," who pays a higher cost  for a brief exclusivity period in order to be the first lender to contact the consumer. In fact, often  the same data is resold with the lead generator falsely claiming such exclusivity to its customers.   18.  Often times, lists-such as a list of people who have applied for payday loans- are sold and then resold by brokers, especially if a company does not wish to make a loan.   19.  Ultimately, this practice leads to unending harassment and solicitation by  numerous online lenders and data brokers as soon as a consumer does a basic search on the  Internet for potential credit.   20.  As part of this process, onlinc lenders, data brokers, and lead generators also  unlawfully obtain consumers' credit reports for several purposes, including to detennine whether  a consumer is still actively looking for an internet loan, whether the consumer received an  internet loan, or whether the consumer may qualify or be in need of an additional loan.   21.  As reflected by the credit reports of the named Plaintiffs, this results in the  improper access of a consumer's credit report by multiple entities for months, often years, after a  consumer applies for a single internet loan by entities that a consumer never contacted, nor  authorized to obtain their private financial details.  Commo11 Allegatio11s as to Clarity a11d Clickspeed   23.  As part of this process, Clarity lets certain customers access its consumer database  for impermissible purposes, primarily to allow its customers to identify potential payday lending  opportunities and then sell the identities of those consumers as "leads".   24.  Consistent with its unlawful procedures, Clarity allowed Clickspeed Marketing,  Inc. to obtain consumer reports regarding the Plaintiffs and the putative class members.   25.  Upon information and belief, Clarity also entered into a contract with Clickspeed  in May 2009 where Clarity expressly acknowledge that Clickspeed would use consumer reports  from Clarity for the purpose of lead generation and mass marketing.   26.  Clarity and Clickspeed's contract violated§§ 1681b and 1681e(a) of the FCRA.   27.  Moreover, a basic Internet search on Clickspeed shows that was always a lead  generation company rather than a lender. For example, on its homepage, www.clickspeed.com,  Clickspeed describes itself as "a leader in online business to consumer lead generation,  delivering marketing solutions through technology driven products such as: hosted lead  management solutions, data monetization services, marketing and transactions email services,  affiliate network and marketing programs, and integrated outsourced phone center solutions."3   29.  Despite this available knowledge, Clarity regularly allowed Clickspeed to access  individual consumers' reports dozens of times within a single hour. Where such repeated uses  would ordinarily serve as warning signs of misuse of consumer reports, Clarity continued to  allow unfettered access to its database without consideration of these unusual use patterns.   30.  One of the purposes for which the FCRA permits access to a consumer's credit  report is for sending marketing "pre-screen" offers for specific credit terms. This provision - 15  U.S.C. § t 681b(c)(B)- requires a specific "firm offer of credit" and other specific disclosures.   31.  From all of 2012 and into 2013, Clarity classified Clickspeed inquiries as "PC" to  "Screen Consumer- In connection with pre-screen back-end verification that determines if the  consumer who accepts pre-screen firm offer still meets the specific criteria" despite knowing that  Clickspced never makes any firm (or other) offers of credit to consumers and certainly never  attempted to comply with§ 1681 b(c)(B).   32.  By example, Clarity provided Ms. Jensen's consumer report to Clickspeed at least  11 times, including multiple occasions within a single hour and on at least one occasion within  one minute of one another within the five years prior to filing the Complaint.   33.  Similarly, Clarity provided Ms. Jones' consumer report to Clickspeed at least 8  times, including multiple occasions within a single hour and on two occasions multiple times in  the same minute within the five years prior to filing the Complaint.   35.  None of the Plaintiffs ever applied for credit with Clickspeed or provided  authorization to Clickspeed to allow it to access their respective consumer reports.   36.  Based on the foregoing, Clarity violated the FCRA by furnishing the Plaintiffs  and putative class members' consumer reports to Clickspeed without a permissible purpose in  violation of§ 1681 b.   37.  Moreover, Clarity's conduct also violated § 168lc(a), which prohibits a  consumer reporting agency from furnishing a consumer report if it has "reasonable grounds for  believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose" listed in § 1681 b.   38.  Upon information and belief, Clarity furnished in excess of one hundred thousand  consumer reports to Clickspeed, including the consumer reports of each of the Plaintiffs.   39.  As a result of this conduct, Plaintiffs and the class members suffered concrete  injuries. In addition to having their privacy invaded, Plaintiffs and the class members have had  their personal identifying and financial information unnecessarily disseminated to Clickspeed,  who in tum disseminated this information to others. Clarity has subjected class members to an  increased risk of identity theft and/or a data breach, resulting in consequential anxiety and  emotional distress. These injuries arc particularized and concrete, but difficult to quantify,  rendering the recovery of class statutory damages ideal and appropriate.  l11volveme11t a11d Pers011a/ Liability of Defe11da11ts Halli11a11 a11d Ra1111ey   41.  Similarly, Ranney was the president, chief executive officer and co-owner of  Clarity, who had the managerial responsibilities for the activities of Clarity, including direct  personal involvement of the unlawful conduct described above.4   42.  From at least 1997 until at least 2013, Hallinan himself owned, operated,  controlled, and financed numerous business entities (at least 20), which issued, serviced, funded,  and collected debt from small, short-term, high-interest pay-day loans.   43.  In addition, Hallinan created and ran Apex I Lead Generators, Inc., obviously by  its name a lead generator, which gathered and resold personal information about consumers to  enable his companies and others to target them for illegal Internet loans.   44.  Hallinan thus desired to marshal the personal consumer information they had  obtained in operating these many payday lending companies and create Clarity as a new revenue  stream by adding all of the information from the Hallinan payday lenders to the Clarity database.   45.  Hallinan retained an approximately one-third interest in Clarity, but tried to keep  his ownership confidential to avoid discovery of the connection between his own payday lending  business and Clarity.   47.  Upon information and belief, Hallinan and Ranney knew and facilitated  Clickspeed's efforts to obtain consumer reports for the purpose of lead generation and mass  marketing. Most notably, Hallinan and Ranney participated in the decision to enter into the  contract that allowed Clickspeed to obtain consumer reports from Clarity for the purpose of lead  generation.   48.  Hallinan and Ranney had full knowledge that Clickspeed did not have a  permissible purpose as required by § 1681 b of the FCRA and that it would sell information  obtained from Clarity to payday lenders interested in targeting potentially vulnerable consumers.   49.  Upon information and belief, Hallinan and Ranney made the decision to allow  Clickspeed to unlawfully access Clarity's database in order to gain access to data in the  possession of Clarity to expand its database and, in turn, improve the marketability of its own  products and the compensation received by Hallinan and Ranney.   50.  Upon information and belief, Hallinan and Ranney have siphoned off most, if not  all, of these profits, leaving Clarity deliberately undercapitalized to satisfy the judgment it faces  for the fraudulent and deceptive conduct alleged herein.   51.  Accordingly, Hallinan and Ranney may be held personally responsible for their  direct involvement in the unlawful conduct and/or by piercing the veil of Clarity because it was  used to perpetrate the fraud, to gain an unfair advantage and to commit the injustice alleged  herein.  Clarity Concealed C/ickspeed Inqlliries 011 Plaintiffs' Co11s11mer Reports   53.  In response to Ms. Jensen's request, Clarity furnished Ms. Jensen with a copy of  her file, which intentionally concealed that Clarity furnished Ms. Jensen's credit report to  Clickspeed on at least 11 occasions.   54.  As demonstrated by Ms. Jensen's file disclosure, Clarity consciously omitted the  Clickspeed inquiries while at the same time providing a record of 56 other inquiries from  September 15, 2015, through March 16, 2012. During this timeframe, Clarity furnished Ms.  Jensen's report to Clickspeed on multiple occasions.   55.  Rather than disclosing this information in accordance with § 1681 g(a){l), Clarity  concealed its unlawful conduct and deprives consumers of this congressionally-mandated  information in violation of the FCRA.   56.  Similarly, Plaintiffs Ms. Jones and Ms. Greene requested copies of their files from  Clarity in April 2016.   57.  In response to these requests, Clarity furnished Plaintiffs Ms. Jones and Ms.  Greene with a copy of each of their consumer files, which intentionally concealed any inquiries  related to Clickspeed in each of their files.  58.  Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.   60.  Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a)(l). Upon information and belief, Plaintiff.Ii  allege that the class members are so numerous that joinder of all is impractical. The names and  addresses of the class members are identifiable through the internal business records maintained  by Defendant and the class members may be notified of the pcndency of this action by published  and/or mailed notice.   61.  Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact. Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a)(2). Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the putative class, and  there are no factual or legal issues that differ between the putative class members. These  questions predominate over the questions affecting only individual class members. The principal  issues are: (a) Whether Clarity, as a matter of common practice, furnished consumer reports to  Clickspeed for impermissible purposes as established in § 1681 b; (b) whether Clickspeed had a  permissible purpose to obtain the Plaintiffs' and putative class members' consumer reports; (c)  whether the reports Clarity furnished were sold when Clarity had reasonable grounds for  believing that the consumer report would not be used for a FCRA permitted purpose; ( d) whether  Hallinan and Ranney are personally responsible as a result of their personal involvement with the  fraudulent conduct; (e) whether the violation was negligent, reckless, knowing, or intentionally  committed in conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs and the putative class members.   63.  Adequacy of Representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs are adequate  representatives of the putative class, because their interests coincide with, and arc not  antagonistic to, the interests of the members of the Class they seek to represent; they have  retained counsel competent and experienced in such litigation; and they have and intend to  continue to prosecute the action vigorously. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately  protect the interests of the members of the Class. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any  interests which might cause him not to vigorously pursue this action.   64.  Predominance and Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Questions of law and  fact common to the Class members predominate over questions affecting only individual  members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy. The damages sought by each member are such that individual  prosecution would prove burdensome and expensive. Additionally, none of the class members  would have known of the facts underlying the violation or of the legal basis for this action absent  this lawsuit.  It would be virtually impossible for members of the Class individually to  effectively redress the wrongs done to them. Even if the members of the Class themselves could  afford such individual litigation, it would be an unnecessary burden on the Courts. Furthermore,  individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and  increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system presented by the legal and  factual issues raised by Defendant's conduct. By contrast, the class action device will result in  substantial benefits to the litigants and the Court by allowing the Court to resolve numerous  individual claims based upon a single set of proof in a case.   66.  These ongoing violations were willful as they were either intentional, or  alternately carried out with reckless disregard, rendering Clarity liable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §  168ln.   67.  Plaintiffs and the putative class members are entitled to recovery statutory  damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees from Clarity in an amount to be  determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U .S.C. §§ 1681 n.  68.  Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.   69.  Clarity violated § 1681 g through its conduct by concealing that it furnished  Plaintiffs' consumer reports to Clickspeed when Plaintiffs requested and received copies of their  files from Clarity.   71.  The violations by Clarity were willful, rendering it liable for punitive damages in  an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 168Jn. In the alternative,  Clarity was negligent, which entitles Plaintiff to recovery under 15 U.S.C. §16810.   72.  Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual damages, statutory damages, costs and  attorney's fees from Clarity in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §  1681n and§ 16810.  WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs move for class certification and for judgment against the  Defendants for actual and/or statutory damages and punitive damages as alleged, and for  attorneys' fees and costs, and such other specific or general relief, including injunctive relief, the  Court finds appropriate.  Overview of Lead Ge11eratio11   VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(a) and 168le(a)  CLASS CLAIM   VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1681g  INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS  