• Text Size
• Print
• Email

  From:
  

  To:
  

  Hey! Check out this news page: https://www.thebackgroundinvestigator.com/Articles/Ethics,-Risks,-and--Liability-of-the-The-Record-Retriever/3161/index.php.

  SendCancel

National News

Ethics, Risks, and Liability of the The Record Retriever

December 29, 2025 posted by Steve Brownstein

If your record provider is giving you "compliance advice" on what you should or shouldn't report, you aren't just getting a tip—you might be opening a massive legal can of worms.

 In the background screening industry, the roles are usually clear: The provider finds the data, and the CRA reports it. But when a provider starts telling you how to interpret the law, the "Reasonable Procedures" that protect you under the FCRA start to crumble.

Here is why this "advice" is a major red flag for CRAs:

1. Unauthorized Practice of Law: Most providers are experts in retrieval, not litigation. Following their "legal" interpretation can leave you defenseless if that advice leads to a lawsuit.

2. The "Joint Venture" Trap: By taking compliance direction from a provider, you risk being seen as a "Joint Venture" in court. This pulls the provider into your liability bubble—and pulls you into theirs.

3. Outsourced Judgment: You cannot outsource your "Reasonable Procedures." If you blindly follow a provider's filtering logic, you are failing your primary duty as a CRA to maintain independent oversight.

The Bottom Line: PBSA best practices encourage education, but they draw a hard line at legal direction. A provider’s job is to deliver the most accurate data possible; your job is to decide the legality of reporting it.

Don't let a "helpful" tip turn into a $5 million class-action lawsuit.