12.  Although no comprehensive study focusing on the accuracy of criminal record  reports industrywide, several recent studies demonstrate the prevalence of major inaccuracies in  criminal background reports. For example, a 2013 study by the National Employment Law Project  examined criminal background checks conducted by the FBI. Nat’l Employment Law Project,  Wanted: Accurate FBI Background Checks for Employment (July 30, 2013), available at  www.nelp.org/publication/wanted-accurate-fbi-background-checks-for-employ-ment/.    13.  Although “considered the gold standard” of criminal background checks, the NELP  study found that “50 percent of the FBI’s records fail to include information on the final disposition  of the case” including “missing information [] frequently beneficial to job seekers.” Id.   15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)  Class Claim   15.  Beyond the risks raised by the sheer volume of the information and players involved  in the industry, the manner in which many companies prepare criminal history reports increases  the risk of inaccuracies. Companies often purchase criminal data in bulk and in static form, or  access databases that are infrequently updated.    16.  “Despite the importance of the accuracy of criminal background report, evidence  indicates that professional background screening companies routinely make mistakes with grave  consequences” for applicants. See Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Broken Records, available at  http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reprts/broken-records-report.pdf.   17.  Online background check companies sell criminal history reports that contain  inaccurate information.    18.  One “common problem with criminal background reports is false positive matches  or mismatched identifications,” resulting in a mismatched report that contains “the criminal history  of a person other than the subject of the report.” Id. at 15.    19.  A mismatch report is “due in large part to unsophisticated matching criteria.” Id.    20.  Unlike “state-maintained databases” that use a “biometric identification system,  such as fingerprint data,” to match a person to a record, private companies typically use “non- biometric information, such as name and date of birth.” Id.    22.  The problem is significantly magnified where, as here, a company does not require  a full match of the first name, last name, and date of birth (rather than year of birth).   23.  A search of a website, howmanyofme.com, demonstrates the high risk of  inaccuracy created when a consumer reporting agency fails to use a full match of the first name,  last name, and date of birth.   24.  According to this predictive website—which uses U.S. Census Bureau data to make  estimates about the number of people with the same name—there are at least 3,317 people named  Terry Brown in the United States.    25.  Given the number of people with common names, it is unreasonable to match a  record to a person based, upon information and belief, the person’s name and year of birth.   B.  Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Experience.    26.  On or around January 24, 2020, Plaintiff applied to rent an apartment at the Seasons  at Celebrate Virginia in Fredericksburg, Virginia.    27.  As part of the application process, Plaintiff was required to undergo a background  report.   29.  Plaintiff’s landlord ordered a background report from Corelogic. In requesting the  background report, the landlord provided Corelogic with Plaintiff’s first name, last name, full date  of birth, address, and last four digits of his social security number.    30.  Corelogic provided Plaintiff’s background report to the Seasons at Celebrate  Virginia on or around January 24, 2020.    31.  Seasons at Celebrate immediately denied his rental application “because a  background check indicated [he] had been convicted of a crime.”   32.  Plaintiff requested a copy of his report from Corelogic.   33.  Upon receipt of his report, Plaintiff learned that Corelogic’s report identified him  as a sex offender and contained three felony convictions for statutory rape.    34.  None of these felony convictions should have been associated with Plaintiff, who  has no criminal history.    35.  Corelogic knew or should have known that this information did not belong to  Plaintiff because it did not match the date of birth, i.e., January 13, 1976, provided to Seasons at  Celebrate Virginia.   36.  Instead, Corelogic appears to have matched this information to Plaintiff was born  in the same year as the offender, who was born on February 24, 1976, according to his indictment.   37.  Despite the objective difference between the Plaintiff and offender’s dates of birth,  Corelogic matched the information to Plaintiff’s background report and reported it to his potential  landlord—even though the underlying record contained the offender’s date of birth.    39.  Corelogic violated the FCRA by using overly broad criteria in response to its  customers’ requests for tenant screening reports.   40.  Corelogic matched this criminal information to Plaintiff even though the underlying  records unequivocally indicated that the offender was born on February 24, 1976; not January 13,  1976, as listed on Plaintiff’s application.   41.  Corelogic’s inaccurate reporting could have been easily prevented if it required a  date of birth match prior to the publication of its reports—a common procedure adopted by  consumer reporting agencies. See Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Broken Records, 15 (2012)  (explaining that “mismatched reports” are “due in large part to unsophisticated matching criteria”  and that “many private screening companies rely solely on first name, last name, and date of  birth.”); E-Backgroundchecks.com, 81 F. Supp. 3d at 1360 (discussing credit reporting agency’s  contention that use of first name, last name, and date of birth “is considered industry best- practice.”).    42.  Rather than adopting these procedures to ensure maximum accuracy, however,  internal documents produced in another case showed that Corelogic designed its matching logic  “to continue to maximizing its profits and remain relevant in its market.” Williams, 2016 WL  6277675 at *5.    43.  These documents, including an in-depth study of its matching algorithm, further  showed that there was no indication that Corelogic’s “internal review into the company’s matching  logic was to comply with state or federal law[.]” Id.   45.  As part of  litigation in this District and Division, Corelogic agreed to a class action  settlement whereby it agreed “with respect to search queries designated by wholesale background  screening customers for “employment,” [Corelogic] shall not provide any public records that do  not match the search query by either Social Security number, a address, or full date of birth.” Witt  v. CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-386 (E.D. Va.),  Dkt. 306-1, Class Action Settlement and Release at § 9.1.    46.  Despite agreeing to use the full date of birth for employment reports, Corelogic  fails to utilize these same procedures for its tenant screening products, such as the report furnished  regarding Plaintiff.   47.  In addition to the conduct set forth above, Corelogic’s willful conduct is further  reflected by, inter alia, the following:  a. The FCRA was enacted in 1970;  Corelogic has had nearly many years to become  compliant;  b. Corelogic is a corporation with access to legal advice through its own general  counsel’s office and outside employment counsel.  Yet, there is no  contemporaneous evidence that it determined that its conduct was lawful;  c. Corelogic knew or had reason to know that its conduct was inconsistent with FTC  guidance, case law, and the plain language of the FCRA;  d. Corelogic voluntarily ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the  risk associated with a reading that was merely careless; and  e. Corelogic’s violations of the FCRA were repeated and systematic.   49.  Plaintiff restates each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth  at length herein.    50.  Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this  action for himself and on behalf of a class defined as follows:   All natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were the subject of a report  sold by Corelogic; (b) in the five years predating the filing of this Complaint and  continuing through the date which the class list is prepared; (c) which included a  sex offender record; (d) which did not match the applicant’s date of birth.   Plaintiff is a member of this class.    51.  Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this  action for himself and on behalf of a subclass defined as follows:   All natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were the subject of a report  sold by Corelogic; (b) in the five years predating the filing of this Complaint and  continuing through the date which the class list is prepared; (c) which included a  sex offender record; (d) which did not match the applicant’s date of birth; and (e)  Corelogic’s records show the records were subsequently removed based on a  dispute from the consumer.   Plaintiff is a member of this class.    53.  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 putative class members, and there are no factual  or legal issues that differ between the putative class members. These common questions  predominate over the questions affecting only individual class members. The common questions  include: (1.) whether Corelogic’s failure to require date of birth matches for sex offender records  was a procedure designed to ensure that its reports were as accurate as possible; (2.) whether  Corelogic’s conduct constituted a violation of the FCRA; (3.) whether Corelogic’s conduct was  willful; and (4.) what is the appropriate level of damages.      54.  Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of  each putative class member. Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the same causes of action as the  other putative class members. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts and legal  theories as each of the class members’ claims.   55.  Adequacy of Representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiff is an adequate  representative of the putative class because his interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to,  the interests of the other putative class members. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and  experienced in such litigation and intends, with his counsel, to continue to prosecute the action  vigorously. Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately protect the class members’ interests.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interest that might conflict with his vigorous pursuit of  this action.    57.  As described above, Corelogic used loose matching criteria and algorithms that  placed sex offender data on consumers’ tenant screening reports, even though the dates of birth  associated with the sex offenders did not match the applicant’s date of birth.    58.  This conduct violated § 1681e(b) of the FCRA because in using this loose matching  criteria and algorithms, Corelogic failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum  possible accuracy of the information it that it published about consumers to its landlord clients.   59.  Plaintiffs and each putative class member suffered real and actual harm and injury.   60.  For example, the rights at issue were determined by Congress to be important  measures to ensure continued accuracy and completeness in Corelogic’s files and reports.   61.  Class members were also falsely painted as sex offenders to their prospective  landlord.   63.  As a result of these FCRA violations, Equifax is liable for statutory damages from  $100.00 to $1,000.00 for Plaintiff and each class member, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and  costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the putative class members, moves for  class certification and for statutory and punitive damages, as well as his attorney’s fees and costs  against the Defendant for the class claim, as well as actual, statutory, and punitive damages and  attorney’s fees and costs for his individual claim; for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at  the legal rate, and such other relief the Court does deem just, equitable, and proper.  A.  Pervasive Errors in Criminal Background Checks.  