Class Action Says The Work Number Published Inaccurate, ‘Nonsensical’ Data in Consumer Report

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges consumer reporting agency The Work Number fails to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the employment-related consumer data it sells to third parties.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 22-page lawsuit claims defendant Equifax Workforce Solutions—which does business as The Work Number—“fell short” of its duties under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act when it disseminated “nonsensical, contradictory, and unverified information” about the plaintiff, a Virginia resident who discovered in 2021 that she was a victim of identity theft.

The company, which receives consumer data from its employer customers, regularly maintains and reports information that is plainly false, the suit contends.

“The Work Number accepts the consumer information it receives from employers at face value, and does not take any steps to review, analyze, or filter the data for accuracy,” the case charges.

For instance, a report the company sent to the Virginia Department of Social Services—from which the plaintiff received regular benefits—indicated the woman was employed full-time at a poultry processing plant in Alabama, though she had never lived or worked in the state, the complaint says.

Per the filing, the inaccurate report also “nonsensically” stated that the plaintiff lived simultaneously in Florida and had been employed at a Walmart there, and later at a local Amazon location, within the last few months.

“The Work Number employs no substantive procedures to filter or parse data to prevent reporting of simultaneous employment which would be impossible because of geographic distance between employment or residence location, time constraints, or even common sense,” the lawsuit argues. “It also employs no procedures to prevent reporting of employment at a location hundreds or even thousands of miles from the consumer’s residence.”

What’s more, when the plaintiff disputed the false employment data in her report, she was informed by The Work Number that she would first need to provide proof of address in the form of several official documents, among other “onerous requirements,” before the company would initiate the reinvestigation, the suit shares.

The case alleges the reporting agency creates such “burdensome” barriers to reduce the number of consumer disputes it has to process.

As the complaint tells it, although The Work Number is aware the data it maintains and reports can be false, it “chooses to flout its legal obligation” to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information and acts with “reckless disregard” for consumers’ rights under federal law.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who was the subject of a consumer report published by The Work Number within the past five years, whose report contained employer information originating from an employer who submitted a W-2 that was posted to the Social Security Administration’s Earning Suspense File, and who have consumer files at The Work Number that reflect simultaneous employment by separate employers who provided employee addresses in different states.

The suit also seeks to cover those for whom the company refused to conduct a reinvestigation of a dispute until and unless the consumer provided proof of address documentation following The Work Number’s receipt of the dispute.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.