RealPage incorrect sex offender data $9.73M class action lawsuit settlement

Source: topclassactions.com 7/28/22

RealPage agreed to pay over $9.73 million to resolve claims that it violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by allowing incorrect sex offender registry data on tenant screening reports.

The class action lawsuit settlement benefits individuals who were subject to a RealPage report between June 14, 2017, and March 2, 2021, where the report included a record from a sex offender registry with the record matching the report subject based on the birth date range, but where further review shows a differing birth date.

RealPage offers rental property solutions including property management, sales, marketing, screening, revenue management and more. Tenants attempting to rent an apartment or house may have their background screened during the application process through RealPage.

However, RealPage may violate federal reporting laws by including incorrect information on tenant background checks. 

A 2019 class action lawsuit claims the company includes information from sex offender registries on certain background checks despite these reports not being associated with the report subject.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Outstanding! This is definitely one for our side.

Last edited 2 years ago by Newb Commenter

Sad. If a person is mischaracterized as a registrant, then it’s illegal. In this scenario, it just shows that it’s okay to use the registry to prevent housing from a “free citizen”.

This is yet another piece of evidence that the 2003 Smith v Doe decision that the registry wouldn’t interfere with an individual’s life. The registry can be used as a hit list and label one a monster who is just a legal liability to accept. The registry is an institutionally systematic way of legalized segregation, berthing of second class citizens.

This is great. Everyone should suffer because the Hit Lists exist. Let chaos and hate reign.