Introduction

The case of Christopher Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc. (954 F.3d 938) adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 2, 2020, sets a significant precedent regarding the standards of accuracy required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Twumasi-Ankrah, an Uber driver, alleged that Checkr's negligent reporting of his state car-accident data led to his termination from Uber. This comprehensive commentary delves into the background, judicial reasoning, precedents cited, and the broader implications of this landmark decision.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, Twumasi-Ankrah claimed that Checkr, acting as a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA), provided inaccurate information to Uber by reporting three accidents from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) without sufficient verification of fault. This reporting allegedly misled Uber into assuming Twumasi-Ankrah was responsible for these accidents, resulting in his termination. The district court dismissed the case, adhering to a technical-accuracy standard derived from prior Sixth Circuit decisions. However, upon appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court reversed this dismissal, determining that the district court had misapplied the legal standard. The appellate court emphasized that "inaccurate" under § 1681e(b) encompasses not just technically inaccurate information but also misleading information that could have adverse effects. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to elucidate the interpretation of "inaccurate" information under the FCRA:

• Dickens v. Trans Union Corp. (18 F. App'x 315): Established the "technical accuracy" standard, focusing on literal inaccuracies.
• Turner v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. (No. 17-3795, 2018 WL 3648282): Reinforced the technical accuracy approach.
• Bickerstaff v. Lucarelli (830 F.3d 388): Emphasized accepting plaintiff's allegations as true in a motion-to-dismiss posture.
• Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc. (257 F.3d 409): Expanded the understanding of inaccuracy to include misleading information.
• Other circuits such as the Third, Fifth, and Eleventh also contributed to the consensus against a purely technical-accuracy standard.

Importantly, the Sixth Circuit departed from its own unpublished decisions in Dickens and Turner, which had previously endorsed a stricter technical accuracy standard, opting instead for a more expansive view that includes misleading information.

Legal Reasoning

The court undertook a thorough statutory interpretation of § 1681e(b) of the FCRA, which mandates CRAs to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of information. The appellate court identified that previous interpretations limiting "accuracy" to technical correctness were inconsistent with the statute's language and its broader objectives.

The court reasoned that "maximum possible accuracy" inherently demands a higher standard than mere factual correctness. It must encompass ensuring that reports are not misleading. This interpretation aligns with examples provided within the statute, such as avoiding incomplete reports that could misrepresent a consumer's standing.

Additionally, the court considered the treatment of similar language in neighboring sections of the FCRA and looked to other circuits for guidance, finding a prevailing trend towards a more inclusive definition of inaccuracy.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for both CRAs and consumers:

• For CRAs: It mandates a more rigorous approach to data verification, extending beyond mere factual accuracy to preventing information that could misleadingly portray a consumer's profile.
• For Consumers: It provides stronger legal grounds to challenge inaccuracies in consumer reports, potentially increasing accountability among CRAs.
• For Employers: Entities like Uber must exercise greater diligence in interpreting consumer reports, ensuring that decisions based on such reports are fair and substantiated.
• Legal Precedent: The decision sets a new standard within the Sixth Circuit, encouraging other circuits to reevaluate their interpretations of "accuracy" under the FCRA.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit's decision in Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc. marks a pivotal shift in the interpretation of "accuracy" under the FCRA. By expanding the definition to include not just factual correctness but also the prevention of misleading information, the court enhances protections for consumers against potentially adverse and unfounded judgments based on their consumer reports. This judgment underscores the necessity for CRAs to adopt comprehensive verification procedures, ensuring that the information they provide is both accurate and contextually complete. As the landscape of consumer reporting evolves, this case serves as a foundational reference point for future litigation and regulatory assessments within the realm of consumer rights and data accuracy.

Stakeholders across the board—from CRAs and employers to consumers and legal practitioners—must heed this ruling to foster a more equitable and precise environment in consumer reporting and its consequential impacts on individuals' livelihoods.