FCRA Complaint Against LinkedIn Dismissed

Print Friendly

FCRA Complaint Against LinkedIn Dismissed

Case dismissed – good news for LinkedIn!

On April 14, 2015, the United States District Court, Northern District of California, dismissed a lawsuit against LinkedIn that alleged the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  Four LinkedIn users had filed a class action lawsuit alleging that they were denied jobs with prospective employers because those employers contacted other LinkedIn users identified by LinkedIn’s “Reference Search” as having worked with them.  The “Reference Search” service is only available to premium account holders.   The service identifies connections (people) in the premium account holder’s network who share a common past employer with the job applicant.  Plaintiffs’ asserted that each of their prospective employers used the Reference Search service, and denied employment based on what they learned from talking with some of the mutual connections identified by the Reference Search service.

The Purpose of The FCRA:

The Court first examined what the FCRA is all about.  The Court noted that the purpose of the FCRA is “to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them.”  The Court further stated that, “[t]o fulfill this need, the FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to ‘adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy and proper utilization of such information.’” (Emphasis added).

As the Court discussed, a “consumer report” under the FCRA includes any “written, oral or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for … (B) employment purposes; or (C) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.”

In essence, the FCRA applies when a “consumer reporting agency” provides a “consumer report.” 

 LinkedIn Does Not Provide “Consumer Reports”:

In making its ruling, the Court first focused on whether the results of the Reference Searches were “consumer reports” as defined by the FCRA.  The Court found that they are not “consumer reports,” because ” the information contained in these histories came solely from LinkedIn’s transactions or experiences with these same consumers.  The FCRA excludes from the definition of consumer report any ‘report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report.’”  Simply, as the Court also noted, “Plaintiffs’ own allegations show that consumers provide LinkedIn with information about their employment histories so that LinkedIn can publish this information online.”  Indeed, “sharing information is precisely why the subjects here or anyone else on LinkedIn provides their employment histories to LinkedIn.”  As a result, LinkedIn’s service does not amount to a “consumer report” under the FCRA.

LinkedIn Is Not A “Consumer Reporting Agency”:

Next, the Court also found that Plaintiffs’ allegations do not demonstrate that LinkedIn is a “consumer reporting agency” when it publishes the information during the Reference Searches.   According to the Court, “[a]n entity does not become a [consumer reporting agency] solely because it conveys, with the consumer’s consent, information about the consumer to a third party in order to provide a specific product or service that the consumer has requested.”  The Court agreed with LinkedIn’s argument that LinkedIn merely “gathers the information about the employment histories of the subjects of the Reference Searches not to make consumer reports but to ‘carry out consumers’ information-sharing objectives.’”  Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims failed for this additional reason.

Further Deficiencies In Plaintiffs’ Claims:

The Court did not stop with the above analysis.  It continued and determined that the information provided via the Reference Searches did not “bear on the ‘character, general reputation, mode of living’ and other relevant characteristics of the consumers who are the subjects of these searches.”  The Court wrote that the “problem here is that Plaintiffs do not allege that Reference Search results indicate that subjects actually knew or associated with the listed references.  Instead, Plaintiffs allege that the Reference Search results list people who once had a common employer with the subject of the search and are in the network of the person who initiated the search.”  And ultimately, the Court found that “LinkedIn markets the Reference Search results [as] a way to ‘locate people’ who might be able to communicate bearing on information about the consumer-subjects of these results, not that these results themselves convey bearing on information.  And, thus, the information does not meet the definition of a “consumer report,” for this additional reason.

Finally, the Court also was unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that the results of the Reference Searches were “used as a factor in determining whether the subjects . . . are eligible for employment.”  Plaintiffs did not make such an allegation that the information provided by LinkedIn played a role in any employment decision.  Simply, whether one employee worked with the same employer as a Plaintiff, was not alleged to have altered any employment decision.

What’s Next For This Case?

In December 2014, I first wrote about this case as a lawsuit to keep an eye on in my post titled “Allegations of LinkedIn Violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.”  In ruling on LinkedIn’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety.  The Court, however, gave Plaintiffs until May 19, 2015 to try to restate their claims by an Amended Complaint.  Additionally, the Plaintiffs could attempt to appeal the dismissal.

Employers can rest easier now that the Court has dismissed this case (for now).  Those involved in recruiting and checking applicant backgrounds can continue to use LinkedIn (and other social media) without having to follow the requirements of the FCRA.  There are still other pitfalls with using social media in recruiting and hiring (see: Employers Be Cautious Using Social Media to Screen Job Applicants), and the law (and technology) constantly changes in this area.  So, employers stay tuned…

Information provided on this website is not legal advice, nor should you act on anything stated in this article without conferring with the Author or other legal counsel regarding your specific situation.  No attorney-client relationship is created via this website.

Maximize Social Business


Federal Wiretap Charges Vs. Facebook, Zynga Dismissed, But Facebook Still Faces Breach-Of-Contract Claims


ScalesOfJusticeGavel650It was a mixed bag for Facebook at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco Thursday, as Reuters reported that federal wiretap claims against the social network and game developer Zynga were dismissed, but breach-of-contract claims under California state law were revived.

Separate class-action lawsuits were filed against Facebook and Zynga in 2010, according to Reuters, and they were consolidated during the appeal process. The suits involved disclosure of users’ personal information to advertisers.

According to court filings, as reported by Reuters, the plaintiffs claimed that advertisers and other third parties received their Facebook IDs and page addresses when they clicked on Zynga games or ads on the social network.

The three-judge panel ruled that civil wiretap claims were not applicable because the information that was allegedly disclosed did not qualify under law as “contents of a communications,” according to Reuters, but the panel also ruled that the plaintiffs could pursue allegations that Facebook’s privacy policies were violated.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Kassra Nassiri told Reuters:

Now we’re going to get our chance to show exactly why Facebook breached its privacy policy, and what the value was to Facebook.

Readers: How will this case turn out?

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.