Earlier this year, Los Angeles County removed dates of birth (DOBs) from its record searching methodologies. It was a quick change—announced on February 21, 2024, and going into effect just three days later, on February 24, 2024. The change stems from a landmark case, All of Us or None – Riverside Chapter v. Hamrick (64 Cal.App.5th 751 [2021]), which prohibited the Riverside Superior Court from allowing its electronic criminal case index to be searched using an individual’s DOB. Record searching options like LexisNexis’ Accurint can provide a mountain of data on an individual, especially one with a common name. These results are helpful in flagging potential criminal cases associated with an individual, but it is then the responsibility of a background check company to verify whether the results match the individual being researched. In the past, background check companies have relied heavily on DOBs to narrow down search results—particularly with common names—to match criminal records with candidates based on their name and DOB. Just as important, DOBs were used to disconfirm cases as not belonging to candidates.
The intent of the change is to protect individuals’ privacy by limiting public access to personal information, thereby preventing identity theft, and it is part of an emerging trend in the background screening industry. We saw the same removal of DOBs from Michigan records statewide in 2023. However, since LA County is the most populous county in the nation, this shift has a particularly significant impact on background checks for employers, landlords, law firms/attorneys, and their respective industry groups.
LA County has multiple access points for public records—online, in court terminals, and through in-person requests to court clerks. DOBs have been removed from ALL of these search methods. Unsurprisingly, this change has led to a much higher demand for court document orders as background check companies seek additional identifying information to confirm candidates’ identities. This has resulted in a backlog of court record requests, placing added strain on already under-resourced court clerks.
Unfortunately, reporting results on the basis of a “potential match” or “name match only” isn’t an option under current Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) interpretation. Court opinions have held that presenting cases as belonging to the candidate as a “potential match”—a practice once common in the background check industry—violates Section 607(b) of the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), to exercise “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of reports (see, e.g. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021)). The most clear summary of this requirement is laid out in a 2021 CFPB Advisory Opinion which confirms that including records based solely on a “name match only” violates Section 607(b) of the FCRA.
In light of these changes in LA County, Michigan, and additional jurisdictions likely to follow, we highly recommend revisiting the communication and training provided to team members responsible for managing the background check process. It is now more important than ever to have clear communication with candidates about the purpose of their background checks and the importance of completing their background forms accurately and honestly.
As the landscape of background checks continues to evolve with changes such as the removal of DOBs in LA County record search, it’s crucial to stay ahead and ensure compliance with legal requirements like the FCRA. While this article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice, guidance or counsel, we recommend consulting with employment counsel to determine the appropriate next steps for your organization.
Checkers International specializes in thorough and accurate background screenings, even in challenging environments. If you have any questions about background checks, our team is here to help. Contact us today to ensure your background check processes remain compliant and efficient.
Erica Lucero Alden spent over a decade doing unscripted and scripted Business & Legal Affairs and Production Legal for NBCUniversal and Netflix. Her first job was Diligence Counsel at NBCUniversal, and she couldn't resist returning to her roots as COO and General Counsel at Checkers International. She enjoys wandering her Los Angeles neighborhood with her partner and two sons, improving her tennis game and watching the sky change during sunset with a seasonal beverage in hand.
