34.  Plaintiffs	 Hutto	 and	 Melnyk	 completed	 Defendants’	 standard	 electronic	 documents	relating	to	their	anticipated	employment,	including	an	electronic	authorization	 to	conduct	a	background	check.		  35.  Defendants’	online	authorization	causes	a	background	check	to	be	procured	by	 a	third-party	company.				  36.  Defendants’	 background	 check	 authorization	 contains	 liability	 release	 language	stating:	 .	.	.	.	I	release	all	parties	and	persons,	including	the	Company,	from	any	and	all	 liability	for	any	damages	for	seeking	or	providing	this	information,	consistent	 with	local,	state,	and	federal	law.	  37.  The	inclusion	of	the	release	provisions	in	connection	with	the	background	 disclosure	violates	the	FCRA.		  38.  At	the	bottom	of	the	page,	an	applicant	must	agree	to	the	background	check	 authorization.			  40.  Defendants’	online	documentation	and	authorization	fails	to	include	a	clear	 and	 conspicuous	 disclosure,	 in	 a	 document	 consisting	 solely	 of	 the	 disclosure,	 that	 Defendants	would	cause	a	consumer	report	to	be	procured.	  41.  By	including	a	release	with	the	disclosure,	Defendants	willfully	disregarded	 this	regulatory	guidance	and	violated	15	U.S.C.	§	1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).			  42.  As	such,	Plaintiffs	Hutto	and	Melnyk	were	misled	as	to	the	nature	and	purpose	 of	their	consent	and	their	rights.	  43.  Despite	 their	 failure	 to	 provide	 applicants,	 including	 Plaintiffs	 Hutto	 and	 Melynk,	 with	 the	 required	 stand-alone	 disclosures,	 Defendants	 subsequently	 procured	 a	 consumer	 report,	 or	 caused	 a	 consumer	 report	 to	 be	 procured	 on	 Plaintiffs	 Hutto	 and	 Melynk.	  44.  Pursuant	to	the	FCRA,	applicants	have	a	right	to	both	obtain	a	copy	of	their	 consumer	reports	and	to	have	errors	in	their	reports	corrected.	See	15	U.S.C.	§§	1681g,	1681i.		 In	order	for	applicants	to	exercise	those	rights,	it	is	essential	that	consumers	are	aware	that	 a	report	is	going	to	be	procured	so	that,	if	they	choose,	they	can	request	a	copy	of	the	report	 to	proactively	ensure	that	it	does	not	contain	any	errors.		  45.  Not	aware	of	their	ability	to	do	so,	Plaintiffs	Hutto	and	Melnyk	did	not	request	 a	copy	of	the	consumer	report	that	was	procured	by	Defendants.		  46.  Plaintiffs	 Hutto	 and	 Melnyk	 did	 not	 understand	 and/or	 were	 confused	 by	 Defendants’	 online	 disclosure	 forms	 because	 they	 were	 not	 limited	 to	 the	 information	 required	by	the	stand-alone	disclosure	requirement.	  48.  	For	 example,	 the	 disclosure	 contains	 several	 additional	 paragraphs	 of	 information	regarding	various	state	laws	and	use	of	public	records	pending	an	investigation	 of	suspicion	of	wrongdoing.	  49.  Additionally,	 Defendants’	 disclosure	 includes	 a	 “Certification	 and	 Release	 Statement”	section	which	includes	a	release	of	liability	waiver.		The	applicant’s	certification	 of	agreement	with	the	Certification	and	Release	Statement	section	appears	on	the	same	page	 as	the	background	disclosure	section.		  50.  Despite	 their	 failure	 to	 provide	 applicants,	 including	 Plaintiffs	 Hutto	 and	 Melnyk,	 with	 the	 required	 stand-alone	 disclosure,	 Defendants	 subsequently	 procured	 a	 consumer	report,	or	caused	a	consumer	report	to	be	procured	on	Plaintiffs	and	the	Class.			  51.  Thus,	Defendants	willfully	violated	15	U.S.C.	§	1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)	by	procuring	 a	consumer	report,	or	causing	a	consumer	report	to	be	procured	on	Plaintiffs,	including	 Plaintiffs	Hutto	and	Melnyk,	for	employment	purposes	without	first	providing	a	clear	and	 conspicuous	 written	 disclosure,	 in	 a	 document	 consisting	 solely	 of	 the	 disclosure,	 that	 a	 consumer	report	may	be	obtained	for	employment	purposes.		  52.  Plaintiffs	suffered	a	concrete	informational	injury	because	Defendants	failed	 to	provide	Plaintiffs	with	information	to	which	they	were	entitled	by	statute—a	stand-alone	 FCRA	disclosure	form.		  54.  Similar	to	Plaintiffs	Hutto	and	Melnyk,	Defendants,	through	the	services	of	a	 third	 party,	 conducts	 background	 checks	 on	 other	 job	 applicants	 as	 part	 of	 its	 standard	 screening	process.		  55.  Defendants	rely	on	consumer	reporting	agencies	to	obtain	this	information	 and	report	it.		These	reports	constitute	“consumer	reports”	for	purposes	of	the	FCRA.		  56.  The	online	documentation	completed	by	applicants	does	not	contain	a	clear	 and	conspicuous	written	disclosure	to	the	consumer,	in	a	document	that	consists	solely	of	 the	 disclosure,	 that	 a	 consumer	 report	 may	 be	 obtained	 by	 Defendants	 for	 employment	 purposes,	but	Defendants	routinely	request	and	procure	reports	from	a	third	party	about	 applicants	and	employees	in	spite	of	this	fact.		  57.  For	example,	the	documentation	includes	a	liability	waiver	in	the	disclosure	 form.						  58.  The	 language	 of	 the	 FCRA	 with	 respect	 to	 the	 stand-alone	 disclosure	 requirement	is	clear.		See	15	U.S.C.	§	1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).			  59.  The	Federal	Trade	Commission	(“FTC”)	confirms	that	“[t]he	inclusion	of	such	 a	 [liability]	 waiver	 in	 a	 disclosure	 form	 will	 violate	 [the	 FCRA],	 which	 requires	 that	 a	 disclosure	 consist	 ‘solely’	 of	 the	 disclosure	 that	 a	 consumer	 report	 may	 be	 obtained	 for	 employment	purposes.”		See	Exhibit	A.			  61.  By	systematically	inserting	a	liability	release,	Defendants’	willfully	violated	15	 U.S.C.	§	1681b(b)(2)(A).			 62.  Plaintiffs	 bring	 this	 action	 pursuant	 to	 Federal	 Rule	 of	 Civil	 Procedure	 23	 (“Rule	23”).	  63.  The	 class	 is	 defined	 as	 follows:	 all	 of	 Albertsons’	 current,	 former,	 and	 prospective	 applicants	 for	 employment	 in	 the	 United	 States	 who	 were	 the	 subject	 of	 a	 consumer	report	that	was	procured	or	caused	to	be	procured	by	Albertsons	without	proper	 disclosure,	during	the	period	beginning	five	years	prior	to	the	filing	of	this	action	and	ending	 on	the	date	that	final	judgment	is	entered	in	this	action.	  64.  Plaintiff	 reserves	 the	 right	 to	 amend	 or	 modify	 the	 class	 definitions	 with	 greater	 specificity,	 by	 further	 division	 into	 subclasses	 and/or	 by	 limitation	 to	 particular	 issues.	  65.  The	class	action	is	maintainable	under	subsections	(1),	(2),	(3)	and	(4)	of	Rule	 23(a).	  67.  Common	issues	of	law	and	fact	exist	as	to	all	members	of	the	Classes.	The	 Plaintiffs	and	the	Class	members	were	all	individuals	who	applied	to	work	for	Defendants	 and	a	background	check	was	procured	by	a	third	party	at	the	request	of	Defendants.	The	 common	issues	of	law	and	fact	also	include	the	following:	 • Whether	Defendants	obtained	or	caused	to	be	procured	background	checks	on	 employees	and	job	applicants;		 • Whether	Defendants	violated	the	FCRA	by	causing	consumer	reports	to	be	 procured	without	providing	the	proper	disclosure;	 • Whether	Defendants’	violations	of	the	FCRA	were	willful;	 • The	proper	measure	of	statutory	and	punitive	damages;	and	 • The	proper	form	of	declaratory	relief.		  68.  These	common	questions	of	law	and	fact	also	predominate	over	any	questions	 affecting	only	individual	members.			  69.  Plaintiffs’	 claims	 are	 typical	 of	 the	 claims	 of	 other	 members	 of	 the	 Class	 because	 the	 FCRA	 violations	 suffered	 by	 Plaintiffs	 Hutto	 and	 Melnyk	 are	 typical	 of	 that	 suffered	 by	 other	 Class	 members,	 and	 Defendants	 treated	 Plaintiffs	 Hutto	 and	 Melnyk	 consistent	 with	 other	 Class	 members	 in	 accordance	 with	 their	 standard	 policies	 and	 procedures.		  70.  Plaintiffs	Hutto	and	Melnyk	are	able	to	fairly	and	adequately	represent	the	 interests	of	the	Class	and	have	no	interest	antagonistic	to	the	Class.			  72.  Class	Counsel	is	well	experienced	in	both	employment	and	class	action	cases.			  73.  This	 class	 action	 is	 also	 maintainable	 under	 subsection	 (3)	 of	 Rule	 23(b)	 because	questions	of	law	or	fact	common	to	Class	members	(see	supra	¶	67)	predominate	 over	any	questions	affecting	only	individual	members,	and	a	class	action	is	superior	to	other	 available	methods	for	fairly	and	efficiently	adjudicating	this	controversy			  74.  Alternatively,	 the	 questions	 of	 law	 and	 fact	 common	 to	 the	 class	 may	 be	 certified	for	class	action	treatment	separately	from	any	questions	affecting	only	individual	 members	 under	 Rule	 23(c)(4)	 because	 resolution	 of	 those	 common	 questions	 will	 significantly	advance	the	litigation.		 Defendants	Failure	To	Make	A	Proper	Disclosure	In	Violation	Of	The	FCRA	 