Skip to the main content.
Making screening easy for candidates

CVC - Mega Menu-01

With Verified Credentials' mobile-first candidate experience, you meet candidates where it's most convenient. Learn how easy we make it.

See how it works ›

Featured resource

Adverse Action Guide_Menu

Gain clarity about your compliance responsibilities with our new Adverse Action Guide! Use the interactive map to learn what regulations apply in your area.

Visit the guide ›

Verified Credentials is a leading background screening company. Since 1984, we’ve helped validate and secure relationships through the use of our comprehensive screening solutions. We offer a wide variety of background checks, verifications, and innovative screening tools.

Get to know us ›

Accredited background screening solutions

Logo-PBSA-Accreditation-120x98

Our accreditation confirms that our policies, processes, and employee training meet rigorous industry compliance standards.

Learn about our solutions ›

2 min read

Another Disclosure Violation Case

We’ve highlighted many cases of companies accused of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). So many of these situations fall back on disclosure forms.  We have previously discussed cases involving FCRA disclosures, such as Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC. Each case gives us a better understanding of how the courts interpret the FCRA. Employers may want to take note of these decisions to get a clearer picture of their requirements.

Another company is facing potential financial loss after the US District Court for the Northern District of California found, in Arnold v. DMG Mori USA, Inc., it violated the FCRA. In a recent decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit, the court found that DMG Mori USA, Inc. (DMG), a cutting machine tools maker, didn’t follow the FCRA disclosure requirements.

DMG’s Misstep

Plaintiffs in this class action case included certain U.S.-based DMG applicants. DMG obtained background reports on them for employment purposes from April 19, 2016, and after. During the application process, DMG gave them disclosure forms that outlined their rights under the FCRA. The problem? DMG’s disclosure also included their rights under state laws in:

  • California
  • Maine
  • Minnesota
  • New York
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon
  • Washington

Plaintiffs claimed this directly violated the FCRA’s requirement for a standalone disclosure, i.e., a clear and conspicuous disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes, in a document that consists only of the disclosure.

The court agreed, stating “the undisputed facts amply establish that DMG violated the FCRA.  DMG provided plaintiffs with a standardized disclosure and authorization form, which plaintiffs signed.  In addition to the disclosures required by the FCRA, the form contained statements about the laws of several states.  The Ninth Circuit interprets the FCRA ‘as mandating that a disclosure form contain nothing more than the disclosure itself, without any extraneous information.”

As further background on its decision, the court pointed to precedent set by the Gilberg decision. It stated that “forms such as those used by DMG that contain ‘extraneous information relating to various state disclosure requirements in that disclosure’ violate” the FCRA.

DMG Fails a Redo

Court documents show that after the Gilberg case, DMG removed language about state laws from its disclosure. But there were still issues with the updated document. DMG’s disclosure included extra language about the applicants’ rights. It stated they have “the right, upon written request made within a reasonable time, to request whether a consumer report has been run about you and to request a copy of your report.”

While it appears DMG intended to help applicants with this, the court again pointed to previous cases. In the past, the Ninth Circuit decided that similar language violates the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement.

On top of the court’s findings on the violations, it found DMG acted willfully. This means that the company knowingly violated the FCRA. DMG showed “reckless disregard” for the law when it violated one of its clear requirements – the standalone disclosure requirement.

Penalties Coming

The court issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on March 31, 2021. Damages in this case are pending a settlement conference. However, the court noted that potential damages under the FCRA range from $100 to $1,000 for each class member.

This case is a good reminder to employers to consult legal teams when developing and updating background check disclosures. Even if you feel like you know the ins-and-outs of what’s required, there is still room for misunderstanding.

 

Maryland Offers Second Chances to Reformed Individuals by Passing the Expungement Reform Act of 2025

On April 22, Governor Wes Moore signed Maryland’s Expungement Reform Act of 2025 (Senate Bill 432) into law, adding Maryland to the list of states...

Read More

From Tragedy to Action: How Miya’s Law Affects Hiring and Screening in Nevada Property Management

Sometimes, meaningful change emerges from tragedy. On August 4, 2025, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed Senate Bill 114 (SB 114), also known as...

Read More

Big or Small, Age Is Still Just a Number: Oregon Expands Employment Protections with HB 3187

On May 22, 2025, Governor Tina Kotek signed House Bill 3187, expanding the state's employment protections for hiring and apprenticeships. Legislation...

Read More

Lawsuit Alleges Violations of Disclosure and Authorization Requirements

Background check disclosure and authorization requirements can often be a source of confusion for employers, and violations may lead to potential ...

Read More

Lawsuit Filed for Alleged Background Check Disclosure Violations

Amazon is busy this time of year. But a recent court filing may leave it busier than usual. A prior Amazon employee claims the retailer violated a...

Read More

An Update on an FCRA Disclosure Case

The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) disclosure requirements haven’t always been clear to employers. A recent update to a long-running case, Walker...

Read More