HireRight Lawsuits Are Being Serially Resolved

  • Blog
  • HireRight Lawsuits Are Being Serially Resolved
12 Jun, 2024
Daniel Cohen
5 min
Scales with money on one side and a judge's gavel on the other

Consumer Protection Lawyer David Chami Says HireRight Lawsuits Are Being Serially Resolved with Offers of Judgment- Touts Easy Wins for Consumer Attorneys!

Consumer Protection Lawyer Addresses the Current State of FCRA Litigation Against HireRight As the Company Leans Into Accepting Serial Offers of Judgment Against It


Consumer Attorneys, PLC

Contact: Erica Serine, Media Coordinator

Consumer Attorneys PLC

+1 877-615-1725 | [email protected]

Consumer Protection Lawyer David Chami Says HireRight Lawsuits Are Being Serially Resolved with Offers of Judgment- Touts Easy Wins for Consumer Attorneys!


Scottsdale, Arizona, November 15, 2023 – David Chami, Esq., Managing Partner, Consumer Attorneys, PLC, is providing a consumer attorney’s perspective on what seems like HireRight’s apparent willingness to resolve FCRA cases by seemingly regularly allowing litigants to take Offers of Judgment (OOJ) against the company. While Chami touts HireRight’s strategy as a windfall for his practice and invites injured consumers to contact the firm, he also questions the broader implications for client justice as a matter of policy.

FCRA Lawsuits Against HireRight

With several other companies under its corporate wings, such as Backgroundchecks.com and General Information Solutions, HireRight is one of the leading global resources for employment-related background screenings, providing customizable background check reports for employers. Due to its size and scope, HireRight is an impactful player in the consumer data landscape, making its apparent embrace of OOJs, rather than correcting the procedures that lead to harmful reporting issues, a concerning trend.

As a long-standing litigator and advocate, Chami has navigated lawsuits against background check companies like HireRight for years. But this is the first time he notes what appears to be an ease in surmounting the usual hurdles in suing HireRight for FCRA violations. Instead, the company seems particularly amenable to accepting judgments against it, resulting in resolutions to normally hotly contested federal cases, putting money in consumers’ hands in relatively short order.

Consumer Attorneys’ HireRight OOJ Case Highlights

HireRight Accepts OOJ for $31,500.00 for Loss of Assignment!

The plaintiff, Eric, is employed by a security company. In preparation for an assignment under a contract for security services with a new client, Eric was subject to a required background check, which HireRight performed. After noticing that his colleagues received confirmed assignments, but he did not, Eric contacted his employer. In response, Eric was informed that his background check returned multiple criminal records, the vast majority of which were drug-related offenses, some of which constituted the equivalent of felony charges under applicable state law and some of which indicated the disposition was pending. Due to this information in his criminal screening, Eric was denied the assignment.

Armed with the knowledge that he does not have a criminal record, as confirmed by a separate, nearly contemporaneous background check report, Eric disputed the falsely reported criminal history with HireRight. After suffering a loss of wages and significant emotional distress, Eric sued and was shocked when HireRight readily accepted an Offer of Judgment for $31,500.00!

General Information Systems Accepts OOJ for $41,300.00 for Loss of Client!

Brian is a licensed insurance agent employed by a financial group. He must pass background checks for individual insurance carriers to attain and maintain the ability to sell insurance products in his state. Despite passing the background screening for several dozen other insurance carriers, Brian learned that he was denied clearance to sell products for one of the largest insurance carriers in the country due to a failed background check completed through HireRight (operating as General Information Services). Though Brian had never been charged with even a single misdemeanor, the HireRight report indicated that he had been charged with, convicted of, and found guilty of two misdemeanors and a felony offense, resulting in a significant prison sentence.

Brian disputed the wrongful information but was dismayed that HireRight continued to report it even after its reinvestigation. Brian sued HireRight for financial and emotional harm, and HireRight accepted an Offer of Judgment for $41,300.00!

BackgroundChecks.com Accepts OOJ for $28,200.00 for Reputational Harm!

After his partner died, Richard became a regular user of online dating sites OK Cupid and Plenty of Fish, paying for subscription services. In the course of business, these dating sites used Backgroundchecks.com to screen Richard for any disqualifying events in his personal history. Not long after, Richard was horrified to learn that he’d been banned and deactivated from the platforms due to being identified by BackgroundChecks.com as a sex offender convicted of sending, selling, or distributing obscene material involving a minor. In reviewing the report, Richard was shocked that this wrongful information was ever associated with him since it was abundantly clear that none of the identifying information was correct (name, birthdate, likeness).

Not only did Richard suffer loss of access to a service that he enjoyed, but he also suffered significant stress, anxiety, and emotional harm due to the nature of the false information associated with his name and profile. Once he filed a lawsuit, Richard easily secured a $28,200.00 Offer of Judgment against BackgroundChecks.com!

Are Serial OOJs Problematic?

While Chami concedes that it is hard to dislike quick resolutions to cases that normally require significant time and energy, he also recognizes that serial OOJs may reveal more significant systemic problems in the consumer data industry. For instance, Chami opines that HireRight’s willingness to accept Offers of Judgment against it for its alleged breaches of its FCRA obligations may be emblematic of a general disinterest in fixing the problems that give rise to these wrongful data disputes in the first place.

It could be construed that accepting Offers of Judgment is just another way for HireRight to cut costs in order to maximize profits while failing to invest in the protocols necessary to do the least harm possible to consumers.

However, Chami welcomes the tactic for now, inviting any consumer who has suffered harm due to erroneous reporting in a HireRight, Backgroundchecks.com, or General Information Solutions background screening to contact Consumer Attorneys today. As long as OOJs are still trending as a significant form of resolution, taking on these companies has never been easier!

Consumer Attorneys

Consumer Attorneys is a nationwide consumer protection law firm boasting over seventy-five years of combined experience. With a significant focus on FCRA litigation, the top-tier team of lawyers at Consumer Attorneys helps people recover from credit reporting errors, deceased reporting errors, mixed credit reports, identity theft, background check errors, tenant screening errors, employment background check errors, and debt collection harassment.

Daniel Cohen is the Founding Partner of Consumer Attorneys
About the author
Daniel Cohen
See more post

Daniel Cohen is the Founder of Consumer Attorneys. Daniel manages the firm’s branding, marketing, client intake and business development efforts. Since 2017, he is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the National Consumer Law Center. Mr. Cohen is a nationally-recognized practitioner of consumer protection law. He has a wealth of proven legal experience in the US in: collective claims, representing visually impaired people who believe their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act have been violated in both the physical and digital environments, corporate governance and dispute resolution. Read more

Contact Us

Attorney Advertising, Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

© 2024 Consumer Attorneys PLC. All Rights Reserved.