• Text Size
• Print
• Email

  From:
  

  To:
  

  Hey! Check out this news page: https://www.thebackgroundinvestigator.com/Articles/A-Record-Provider-Asksing-the-CRA-For-a-Release-Doesnt-Affect-Liability/3160/index.php.

  SendCancel

Top Stories

A Record Provider Asksing the CRA For a Release Doesn't Affect Liability

December 26, 2025 posted by Steve Brownstein

A record provider (like a courthouse or a previous employer) requiring a specific, signed release from the subject does not shift or reduce the legal liability for the retriever or the Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA).

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the retriever still bears the burden of accuracy and "reasonable procedures," regardless of the administrative hoops a record custodian makes them jump through.

1. Accuracy Liability Still Rests with the CRA

The FCRA requires CRAs to follow "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" (Section 607(b)).

• The "Pass-Through" Myth: Just because a record provider requires a signed release to hand over a file doesn't mean the CRA is "off the hook" if that file contains errors. If the retriever misinterprets the record, or if the record is for the wrong person, the CRA is still liable for reporting it.

• Verification Obligation: Even with a signed release, the retriever is expected to verify that the records provided by the source belong to the specific applicant being screened.

2. The Release is an Administrative Gate, Not a Legal Shield

Record providers (especially in jurisdictions like Puerto Rico, which you've noted previously, or California) often demand a specific, notarized, or "wet-signature" release before they will search their records.

• Access vs. Compliance: This release is about access (the provider’s internal privacy policy), not compliance (the CRA’s legal duty).

• Double Documentation: You likely already have an FCRA-mandated disclosure and authorization. The provider’s request for a separate release is simply an additional hurdle to get the data; it doesn't replace the retriever's duty to report the data correctly.

3. Impact on "Reasonable Procedures"

If a retriever uses a signed release to obtain a record but fails to notice that the record's identifiers (like a middle name or DOB) don't match the applicant, the fact that they had a release will not defend them in a "strict liability" or "negligence" lawsuit. In fact, having the release gives the retriever more access to data, which courts may argue should have made it easier to verify accuracy.

4. Risks for the Retriever

If you are the retriever (or work with one):

• Privacy Exposure: Handling these specific releases increases your "Personally Identifiable Information" (PII) exposure. If the release contains a full SSN or wet signature and it's mishandled, the retriever faces direct liability for a data breach.

• Chain of Custody: The retriever must ensure the release provided to the record source is legitimate. Submitting a forged or "recycled" release to a courthouse can lead to criminal charges or permanent banning from that jurisdiction.

•