Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Decker v. The U.D. Registry, Inc.
No. 01CC07725 (Ca. Super Ct. Orange County, filed June 14, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53850
Description
Class Action Against Tenant Information Service Alleges That Reports Sold to Landlords Contain False, Confidential, and Misleading Information
Abstract
Plaintiffs filed this class action alleging that defendant sells to
landlords tenant reports that contain false, confidential, and
misleading information. Defendant gathers information about
residential renters and sells that information to its subscribers,
mainly landlords and their agents. Individual plaintiffs are
renters whose prospective landlords declined their rental
applications based on information, which plaintiffs claim was
inaccurate, in reports landlords obtained from defendant. The
proposed class includes tenants whose reports contained false
information and disclosed that their status was in forma
pauperis and that they were defendants in unlawful detainer
actions while failing to disclose that the landlord did not
prevail. Plaintiffs contend that defendant has a policy and
practice of entering stale, inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading
information into its database and releasing that information to its
subscribers in eviction reports. They assert that defendant falsely
claims that it continuously updates its records. Plaintiffs allege
violations of California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
Act, Information Practices Act, and Business and Professions Code
(unfair competition); negligence; defamation; and invasion of
privacy.
