The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a consumer report that was factually accurate with clear instructions on how to further confirm the report’s accuracy was not misleading and complied with the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) “maximum possible accuracy.” The opinion was issued in Erickson v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., which began when a father volunteered to coach his son’s Little League baseball team and consented to a background check with a search of registered sex-offender records. The report resulted with a matching name (his father’s), but letters to both Little League and the subject stated that further review would be necessary to determine if this was, indeed, the person in question. The father decided not to coach the team and even changed his name to prevent further humiliation, later suing the consumer reporting agency alleging that the company failed to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.”
