James A. Francis, Mark D. Mailman, John J. Soumilas, and Joseph L. Gentilcore were honored by the Super Lawyers selection committee, with Jim Francis earning additional recognition as one of the Top 100 attorneys in both Pennsylvania and Philadelphia.

Selection to the Super Lawyers list is a prestigious distinction reserved for attorneys who demonstrate excellence in practice, as evaluated through independent research, peer nominations, and professional achievement. Fewer than five percent of attorneys in the state are named to the list each year.

“We are proud to see our attorneys recognized for their hard work and their advocacy for consumer rights,” said managing partner Mark Mailman.

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. is widely regarded as one of the premier consumer law firms in the United States. The firm focuses on cases involving inaccurate credit reports, background check errors, identity theft, and illegal debt collection practices—helping consumers take on large corporations and credit reporting agencies.

This latest recognition builds on a long tradition of excellence for the firm’s attorneys, many of whom have received repeated accolades for their leadership in consumer protection law.

The post Four Attorneys from Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. Named to 2026 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers List appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

That report is the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange report, better known as the C.L.U.E. report. It is prepared by LexisNexis Risk Solutions, and when insurers pull it to decide whether to insure you and at what price, it is a “consumer report” governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). That matters, because the FCRA gives you the right to see the report, the right to dispute inaccurate information in it, and the right to hold LexisNexis and insurers accountable when they get it wrong.

What Is a C.L.U.E. Report?

The C.L.U.E. database is a claims history exchange. When you file a claim on your auto or homeowners policy, your insurer typically reports it to LexisNexis. That information then becomes available to other insurers when you shop for coverage or renew a policy.

A C.L.U.E. report generally includes up to seven years of claims history, such as:

• The date of each claim or reported loss
• The type of loss, for example, water damage, fire, theft, collision, or comprehensive
• The amount the insurer paid on the claim
• The policy number, insurer name, and claim number
• Property addresses for homeowners reports and vehicle information for auto reports

There are two versions: a C.L.U.E. Personal Property report covering homeowners claims and a C.L.U.E. Auto report covering vehicle claims. A similar competing product, the A-PLUS report from Verisk, serves the same function for some insurers and is also subject to the FCRA.

How C.L.U.E. Errors Cost You Money

Insurers use claims history as a core underwriting and rating factor. Statistically, applicants with recent paid claims are treated as higher risk. So when a C.L.U.E. report contains inaccurate information, the consequences are direct and financial:

Inflated premiums. A claim that was reported with the wrong payout amount, the wrong loss type, or the wrong date can push you into a higher rating tier. Even a single erroneously reported claim can add hundreds of dollars per year to an auto or homeowners premium.

Denials and non-renewals. Multiple claims on a report, accurate or not, can cause an insurer to decline your application outright or refuse to renew an existing policy. Consumers who are denied in the standard market are often forced into surplus lines or state high-risk pools at substantially higher cost.

Phantom claims. Some of the most common errors we see involve claims that should not be on the report at all. Examples include inquiries that were never actual claims, claims that were closed without any payment but reported as paid losses, claims belonging to a different person with a similar name, and claims attributed to the wrong property or vehicle.

Stale or duplicated entries. Claims older than the reporting window, or the same loss reported twice under different claim numbers, can artificially inflate your claims count.

Because most consumers never see their C.L.U.E. report unless something goes wrong, these errors can sit on the report for years, silently raising premiums at every renewal.

Your FCRA Rights: The C.L.U.E. Report Is a Consumer Report

The FCRA does not just cover credit bureaus like Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It covers any “consumer reporting agency” that assembles information about consumers for use in credit, insurance, employment, and similar decisions. LexisNexis Risk Solutions is a consumer reporting agency, and your C.L.U.E. report is a consumer report. That brings several important protections into play:

The accuracy requirement. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), a consumer reporting agency must follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information in your report. This is not a suggestion. It is a statutory duty, and when LexisNexis reports a claim that is not yours, overstates a payout, or mislabels a loss, that duty is squarely at issue.

The right to a free copy. Under the FCRA, you are entitled to one free copy of your C.L.U.E. report every twelve months, just as you are with your credit reports.

The right to dispute. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, if you dispute information on your report, LexisNexis must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, generally within 30 days, and must delete or correct information that is inaccurate or cannot be verified.

Adverse action notices. If an insurer charges you a higher premium, denies your application, or takes other adverse action based in whole or in part on your C.L.U.E. report, the FCRA requires the insurer to tell you so and to identify the consumer reporting agency that supplied the report. If you receive one of these notices, take it seriously. It is often the first clue, no pun intended, that something on the report is hurting you.

Remedies for violations. When a consumer reporting agency or insurer violates the FCRA, consumers can recover actual damages, including out-of-pocket losses like premium overcharges and emotional distress. The statute provides for statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. In other words, you generally do not pay out of pocket to enforce these rights.

How to Request Your C.L.U.E. Report

We recommend that every consumer review their C.L.U.E. report at least once a year, and always before buying a home, shopping for new insurance coverage, or after receiving an adverse action notice from an insurer. Here is how:

1. Online. Visit the LexisNexis consumer disclosure portal at consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com and request your free annual file disclosure. The C.L.U.E. report is included in the LexisNexis full file disclosure.
2. By phone. Call LexisNexis Risk Solutions at 1-888-497-0011 to request your report.
3. By mail. You can also submit a written request to LexisNexis Risk Solutions Consumer Center at the address provided on its consumer website.

If you were recently denied coverage or charged a higher rate based on your report, the adverse action notice triggers an additional right to a free copy, even if you already used your annual free report.

What to Do if You Find an Error

If LexisNexis fails to correct an inaccurate claim entry, or if you have been paying inflated premiums or were denied coverage because of reporting errors, you may have a claim for damages under the FCRA. These cases are fee-shifting, which means a prevailing consumer’s attorney’s fees are paid by the defendant.

The Bottom Line

Your insurance claims history is being bought and sold in the background every time you shop for coverage, and the companies compiling it do not always get it right. The FCRA gives you the tools to see what insurers see, demand accuracy, and recover damages when inaccurate reporting costs you money.

If a C.L.U.E. report error has caused higher insurance premiums, a coverage denial, or other financial harm, you may have rights under federal law. Francis Mailman Soumilas represents consumers nationwide in Fair Credit Reporting Act cases involving inaccurate consumer reports and failed investigations. Complete our free case review form or call us at 1-877-735-8600 now to find out whether you may be entitled to recover damages.

The post The Insurance Report You Have Never Heard Of: How Errors on Your C.L.U.E. Report Can Raise Your Premiums or Get You Denied Coverage appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

Then the answer came back:

Denied.

And the reason?

A background check.

For many people, that moment brings more than just confusion; it brings stress, urgency, and a lot of unanswered questions.

What was in the report? Was it accurate? And did it actually reflect your history?

We regularly hear from people who were ready to move, only to have a housing opportunity taken away because of something in a report they didn’t even know existed.

Understanding what happened, and whether it should have happened, is important.

What Happens When a Background Check Is Used for Housing

Landlords and property management companies often rely on tenant screening reports when deciding whether to approve an application.

These reports may include:

• Criminal history
• Eviction records
• Credit information
• Identity and background data

In many cases, these reports are used quickly to make decisions.

And once a decision is made, there may not be an opportunity to correct the information before the unit is given to someone else. For this reason, it is important to act promptly after a denial.

If you are denied, you should request a copy of the background check report from the landlord or property manager. You also have the right to obtain a copy directly from the tenant screening company. Reviewing the report without delay can help you identify any errors or inaccuracies and provide an opportunity to respond or dispute mistakes as soon as possible.

Why a Background Check Might Lead to a Denial

There are several reasons a housing application may be denied after a background check.

In some cases, the information is accurate and the decision reflects the landlord’s criteria.

But in other situations, the issue may involve incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information that affected the outcome.

Understanding the particular situation you are facing is critical.

Information That Doesn’t Belong to You

One of the most serious issues we see is a mixed file, where someone else’s information appears on your report.

This can happen because of:

• Similar names
• Shared identifying information
• Incomplete matching systems

When that happens, you may be judged based on someone else’s history.

Outdated or Incorrect Records

Sometimes the issue is not that the information belongs to someone else; it’s that it should not be there at all.

This can include:

• Old records that should no longer be reported
• Incorrect case outcomes
• Records that were not properly updated

Incomplete or Misleading Reporting

Even when information is connected to you, the way it is reported can create the wrong impression.

For example:

• Missing context
• Partial records
• Incomplete updates

These situations can still lead to a denial, even if the full picture would not.

What This Means for You

Being denied housing because of a background check is not just frustrating.

It can disrupt your plans, delay your move, and force you into difficult decisions, especially when time matters.

We regularly hear from people who had no idea there was an issue until they were denied housing, and by then, the opportunity was already gone.

In many cases, that decision is based on information you did not have an opportunity to review or correct beforehand.

That’s what makes these situations so serious.

It is not just about what is on the report; it is about how that information was used against you.

Take This Seriously If Something Doesn’t Feel Right

Being denied housing is stressful, especially when the decision may have been based on inaccurate information.

If a tenant screening background check error played a role, it is important to take the matter seriously and not assume there are no options available to you.

You have the right to expect accurate reporting, and you have the right to act when that does not happen.

You have nothing to lose by finding out where you stand, and potentially everything to gain.

Request a Free Case Evaluation.

When a Housing Denial May Involve a Legal Issue

Not every denial leads to a legal claim.

However, certain patterns tend to appear in stronger cases.

A housing denial may become more serious when:

• The background check contained inaccurate information
• The issue was not identified until after the denial
• The information was not corrected
• The denial caused real harm

Such harm may include the following:

• Losing a housing opportunity
• Being forced to find alternative housing quickly
• Paying more due to limited options

When inaccurate information plays a role in that decision, it may involve more than just a denied application; it may involve your rights.

You Do Not Have to Accept a Decision Based on Incorrect Information

Most people do not know where that line is, between a valid denial and one that may involve inaccurate reporting.

And many assume there is nothing they can do once the decision has been made. This is not always the case.

You have the right to expect that accurate information will be used in decisions that affect your life. When this does not occur, you are entitled to take action.

As a renter, you have specific rights under laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). For example, you have the right to know if information in your tenant screening report led to a denial, the right to request a free copy of your report, and the right to dispute any errors or inaccuracies. Landlords are required to notify you if a background check results in a denial, and the screening company must investigate any disputes you raise. Understanding these rights can help you respond promptly and protect your housing opportunities.

Common Misconceptions About Apartment Denials

There is a lot of confusion around housing denials and background checks.

We often hear people assume:

• “The landlord must be right”
• “There’s nothing I can do”
• “This just happens sometimes”

But when inaccurate information is involved, those assumptions can prevent people from taking action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a background check really cause you to be denied housing?

Yes. Tenant screening reports are commonly used in housing decisions, and the information included in those reports can directly impact approval.

What if the information on the report is wrong?

If inaccurate information played a role in the decision, it may need to be addressed, and in some cases, it may involve your rights.

What counts as harm in a housing case?

Losing a housing opportunity, being forced to find alternative housing, or facing increased costs can all constitute harm.

Get Help After a Housing Denial

Being denied housing can feel like the end of the road, but if inaccurate information played a role, it does not have to be.

You have the right to accurate reporting. And when those rights are violated, you have the right to take action.

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., represents consumers who have been harmed by background check errors and issues with tenant screening reports.

Request a free case review to find out if you may have a claim. The review is completely free, and there is no obligation to move forward. Once you request a review, our team will contact you to ask a few questions about your situation and help you understand whether you might have a potential claim.

You have nothing to lose by understanding your situation, and everything to gain by taking the next step.

The post Denied an Apartment Because of a Background Check: What It Could Mean appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

This is the intended purpose of the dispute process.

However, disputes do not always result in corrections, even when errors are clear.

We regularly see situations where a dispute is submitted, the process moves forward, and the response comes back with no meaningful change.

The error remains. The account is “verified.” Or the explanation doesn’t reflect what was actually reported.

This raises an important question:

Why do credit report errors sometimes remain even after a dispute?

How an Unsuccessful Credit Report Dispute Can Affect You

Many people expect a clear outcome after filing a dispute. But when that doesn’t happen, it can have real consequences, since in many cases that information isn’t just sitting there; it’s being used.

Unresolved errors may affect:

• Credit approvals
• Interest rates
• Financial opportunities

At that point, the issue becomes what that credit report error is costing you.

If you have disputed a credit report error without resolution, you are not alone and may still have options.

Situations like this are exactly what the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is meant to address.

Don’t let a credit report error go unchallenged. Take action now. Get a free case review to learn if you could be entitled to compensation. Our team is ready to help you pursue what you deserve.

If your case qualifies after the review, the attorney will outline the next steps in detail. This typically includes collecting your documentation, such as your dispute letters and credit reports. The attorney will assess the impact of the error on your finances. They will then explain the legal process, including how your case will be pursued, your role, and the types of compensation that may be available.

When a Credit Report Error May Become a Legal Issue

Not all unresolved disputes are alike. The strongest cases typically involve clear errors, thorough documentation, and the credit bureau or furnisher’s failure to correct the mistake after you have provided an explanation.

Some of the strongest cases share these elements:

• The information reported is inaccurate
• You filed a dispute with the credit bureau
• The error wasn’t corrected after your dispute
• The error caused you real harm, like denied credit, higher interest rates, or lost financial opportunities

If your experience sounds similar, it’s worth finding out if you have a claim. Even if you’re not sure whether your situation qualifies, an experienced consumer protection attorney can help assess your case and explain your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

To be prepared when seeking help, it is a good idea to gather helpful documents, such as copies of your dispute letters, your credit reports, and any credit denial letters or notices about negative actions that resulted from the error. Having these documents ready can make it easier to understand your situation and take the next steps.

How to Get Help If a Credit Report Error Was Not Fixed

If you disputed an error that was not corrected and it affected you financially, you may have a case.

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., represents consumers dealing with these situations.

Take the next step to protect your rights. Complete the free case review form now or call 1-877-735-8600 to discuss your situation with us.

There is no obligation or out-of-pocket cost. We are only paid if we win your case. Act now to begin resolving your credit report issue.

The post What if Credit Report Errors Are Not Fixed After a Dispute? appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

Maybe it shows a criminal record that doesn’t belong to you. Maybe something outdated appears that should have been removed. Or maybe the report is incomplete in a way that makes it look worse than it actually is.

At that point, most people ask the same question:

Do you have to dispute a background check error before taking legal action?

In many cases, yes, but not always.

Do You Have to Dispute a Background Check Error First?

In many situations, background check companies are given the opportunity to investigate and correct inaccurate information before a legal claim can proceed.

This typically means reporting the error directly to the company that prepared the report and allowing time for them to respond.

In many cases, they have up to 30 days to investigate a dispute.

However, not every situation requires a dispute first. Whether a claim may exist often depends on what happened and whether harm has already occurred.

Employment & Housing Background Check Errors

Employment Background Check Errors

An error on an employment background check can lead to:

• A job offer being withdrawn
• A delayed start date
• A lost employment opportunity
• Disciplinary action or termination

Tenant Screening Report Errors

Errors on a tenant screening report can result in:

• A denied rental application
• Additional deposits or conditions
• Delays in securing housing

What Most People Do After Finding an Error

When someone finds an error on a background check, the first step is usually straightforward.

• They report the incorrect information to the background check company
• They provide documents or explanations showing the error
• They wait for the company to investigate and respond

This is what most people are told to do, and in many cases, it’s the right place to start.

What Happens When the Error Is Not Fixed

This is where many people run into problems with background check companies.

We regularly hear from people who did exactly what they were supposed to do, reported the error, submitted documentation, and waited, but the issue was still not corrected.

Sometimes it’s just that the information remains on the report. Other times, it continues to appear in future reports or is only partially corrected.

When that happens, the consequences can be serious, especially when it affects a job or a place to live.

When a Background Check Error Becomes a Legal Issue

Not every mistake leads to a legal claim. But certain patterns tend to show up in stronger cases.

A background check error may become a legal issue when:

• The report contains inaccurate or misleading information
• The error is reported in situations where a dispute is required
• The company fails to correct the problem
• The error causes real harm, such as losing a job or being denied housing

At that point, the issue is no longer just about correcting a report; it may involve the impact the error had on your life.

Are There Situations Where You Don’t Have to Dispute First?

Yes. While many cases involve a dispute process, there are situations where a claim may still be possible even if a dispute was not filed first.

This can happen when harm occurs before there was a meaningful opportunity to correct the report, for example, when a job offer is withdrawn, or a rental application is denied based on inaccurate information.

Each situation depends on its specific facts.

Why This Question Matters

There is a lot of misinformation online about background check errors. Some people are told they can simply remove negative information, while others believe they must follow a rigid process before anything else can happen.

In reality, these situations often depend on:

• Whether the information was actually inaccurate
• What steps were taken to address the issue
• What happened after the problem was reported
• Whether the error caused real harm

Understanding where your situation falls is key.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do you always have to dispute a background check error first?

Not always. Many cases involve a dispute process, but some situations may still support a claim without one, especially if harm has already occurred.

How long does a background check company have to investigate a dispute?

In many cases, companies have up to 30 days to investigate and respond.

What if I disputed the error and nothing changed?

If inaccurate information remains after it was reported and that error caused harm, the situation may involve more than just a correction issue; our consumer attorneys can help.

Can a background check error affect both jobs and housing?

Yes. Errors can affect employment opportunities and rental applications, depending on how the report is used.

Get Help If a Background Check Error Affected You

If a background check error caused you to lose a job, delayed your employment, or led to a housing denial, you may have legal options. Our consumer attorneys are here to help. Fill out the online form or call us now at 1-877-735-8600 for a free case review.

The post Do You Have to Dispute a Background Check Error Before Taking Legal Action? appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

It’s frustrating. It’s exhausting. And according to a recent investigation, it’s also happening a lot more often than it used to.

In March 2026, ProPublica published an in-depth report showing that two of the three major credit reporting agencies — TransUnion and Experian — have sharply pulled back on resolving consumer complaints in consumers’ favor. The numbers are striking. Experian resolved nearly one in five consumer complaints in the consumer’s favor in 2024. In 2025, that figure dropped to less than one percent. TransUnion’s relief rate held steady for years before falling off a cliff in the middle of 2025; by October, it was helping consumers about half as often as it had been. Since January 2025, more than 2.7 million credit reporting complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have gone without any relief at all.

If your dispute has been ignored or rubber-stamped, this isn’t just bad luck. It’s a pattern — and the law gives you tools to fight back.

Why this is happening now

For more than a decade, the CFPB was the federal agency consumers could turn to when the credit bureaus wouldn’t listen. It collected complaints, forwarded them to the bureaus, demanded responses, published the data, and — when patterns of misconduct emerged — brought enforcement actions that forced real change. By 2015, the big three credit bureaus had become the most-complained-about firms in the CFPB’s entire system, and the agency’s pressure was the main reason consumers got any relief at all.

That changed in early 2025. According to ProPublica, after the Trump administration took office, the CFPB was rapidly hollowed out. Its acting director ordered a stop to nearly all agency work. Investigations were frozen. Enforcement actions were dropped, including one that had been approved against TransUnion in July 2024 but never filed. One of the agency’s new lawyers leading the pullback had spent years representing Experian.

Equifax, interestingly, did not show the same drop in consumer relief — for one simple reason. Just days before the change in administration, Equifax entered into a $15 million consent order with the CFPB requiring it to overhaul its dispute process and remain compliant for five years. That order locked in protections that the other two bureaus successfully avoided.

What the FCRA gives you

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., has been on the books since 1970, and nothing about the changes at the CFPB has weakened it. The statute gives consumers powerful, enforceable rights that don’t depend on whether a federal agency is currently using its supervisory authority:

• The right to an accurate credit report. Credit reporting agencies are required to follow “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of the information they report.
• The right to a real investigation. When you dispute an item, both the credit bureau and the furnisher are legally required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. A reflexive “verified” response that ignores your documents does not meet this standard.
• The right to delete unverifiable information. If the bureau cannot verify a disputed item within the statutory window (generally 30 days), it must be deleted.
• The right to sue. If a credit reporting agency or a furnisher willfully or negligently violates the FCRA, you can bring a private federal lawsuit. Available remedies include actual damages (which in many circuits include emotional distress, frustration, and damage to reputation), statutory damages of up to $1,000 per willful violation, punitive damages, and recovery of your attorneys’ fees and costs.

That last point is critical. The FCRA was specifically designed so that consumers don’t have to pay out of pocket to enforce their rights. If you win, the bureau or furnisher pays your legal fees. That’s how Congress intended private enforcement to fill the gap when government enforcement falls short — exactly the situation many consumers are facing right now.

What you should do right now if your dispute has been ignored

Whether you ultimately decide to pursue a lawsuit or not, taking the following steps will protect your rights and preserve the evidence you may need later.

1. Save everything. Keep copies of every dispute letter, every response, every envelope, and every document you submitted. Certified mail receipts and tracking confirmations are especially valuable in court.
2. Pull your reports from all three bureaus. Errors often appear on more than one. You can get free copies at AnnualCreditReport.com.
3. Dispute in writing, not online. Many online dispute portals require you to agree to terms that may limit your rights or make later litigation more difficult. Mailed disputes (preferably certified) create a much cleaner paper trail.
4. Document the harm. Were you denied a mortgage, an auto loan, an apartment, a credit card, or a job? Did you pay a higher interest rate because of the error? Did the situation cause you stress, sleep loss, or embarrassment? All of this is potentially recoverable under the FCRA.
5. Don’t wait too long. The FCRA generally has a two-year statute of limitations from the date of discovery, with an outer limit of five years from the violation. Acting promptly preserves your options.
6. Talk to a consumer protection attorney. Most plaintiff-side FCRA firms — including ours — handle these cases on a contingency-fee basis. You don’t pay anything unless we recover for you, and the FCRA requires the bureau or furnisher to pay your reasonable attorneys’ fees if you win.

Why private FCRA lawsuits matter more than ever

With federal enforcement scaled back, private lawsuits have become one of the most powerful tools consumers have to hold the credit bureaus accountable — both for themselves and for everyone else stuck in the same broken system. Every successful FCRA case sends the same message the CFPB used to send: that ignoring real disputes has real consequences.

If you’ve found an error on your credit report, sent in a dispute, and gotten nowhere — or if a credit reporting issue has cost you a loan, a job, an apartment, or peace of mind — we’d like to hear from you. Our firm represents consumers across the country in FCRA cases against the major credit bureaus, furnishers, and background check companies. Consultations are free and confidential, and you pay nothing unless we recover for you.

Reach out today at 1-877-735-8600 or fill out our online Free Case Review form. With the federal regulator largely on the sidelines, the law still has teeth — but only if consumers use it.

The post Credit Bureaus Are Ignoring More Disputes Than Ever. Here’s What the FCRA Still Lets You Do About It. appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

If you’ve experienced unauthorized transactions on a Chime Financial, Inc. account and were denied reimbursement, you are not alone—and the law may be on your side.

The Reality: Fraud Happens Fast—But Responses Shouldn’t Be Slow or Superficial

Consumers across the country report a familiar pattern:

• Unauthorized transactions appear
• A dispute is filed
• The claim is denied—sometimes within hours or days

Some consumers describe “investigations” that appear to be little more than automated denials.

From a consumer perspective, it raises a basic question:
How can a meaningful fraud investigation happen in minutes?

What the Law Requires: The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA)

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (implemented through Regulation E) governs debit cards, prepaid accounts, and fintech platforms like Chime.

When unauthorized transactions occur, the law imposes clear obligations:

Prompt Investigation

Financial institutions must:

• Conduct a reasonable investigation
• Complete it within specific timeframes

Provisional Credit

If more time is needed:

• The institution must provisionally credit your account while investigating

Written Explanation of Denial

If a claim is denied:

• The institution must provide a clear explanation and supporting documentation

Where Things Go Wrong

Regulators have already identified serious compliance issues involving Chime’s practices.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken enforcement action against Chime for:

• Failing to properly investigate and resolve errors
• Lacking adequate procedures for tracking and handling disputes
• Violating consumer rights under the EFTA

Separately, regulators found:

• Consumers waited weeks or even months to get their own money back
• Thousands were harmed by delayed access to funds

Real Consumer Experiences

Across consumer forums, similar stories appear again and again:

“They admitted my card was compromised… but refused to actually investigate the charges.”

“Denied not even a full day after ‘investigating.'”

“No details whatsoever as to why it was denied.”

These accounts reflect a common concern:
denials without meaningful investigation or transparency.

Why This May Violate Federal Law

If a company:

• Fails to conduct a reasonable investigation
• Denies a claim without evidence
• Refuses provisional credit when required
• Uses automated or superficial review processes

…it may be violating the EFTA and Regulation E.

Importantly, fintech companies like Chime don’t avoid these obligations just because they partner with banks. If they handle customer service and disputes, they are still responsible for compliance.

The Financial Harm Is Real

When fraud losses aren’t reimbursed:

• Rent goes unpaid
• Utilities are shut off
• Consumers turn to high-interest credit

Regulators have explicitly recognized that delayed or denied access to funds can cause significant financial hardship.

What You Can Do If Chime Denies Your Fraud Claim

If your claim was denied, you have options:

1. Request Documentation

Demand:

• The investigation file
• Evidence supporting the denial
• Transaction authentication data

2. File a Complaint

Submit a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

This creates regulatory pressure and a documented record.

3. Submit a Written Dispute

Reassert:

• The transaction was unauthorized
• The investigation was inadequate

4. Consider Legal Action

You may have claims for:

• EFTA violations
• Unfair or deceptive practices

The Bottom Line

If your Chime account was drained by fraud and your claim was quickly denied:

• That doesn’t mean the denial was lawful
• That doesn’t mean the investigation was adequate
• And it doesn’t mean you have no recourse

You should contact a consumer protection law firm to protect your rights and seek actual damages for economic and non-economic loss, including emotional distress and other damages.

The post When Your Chime Account Is Drained by Fraud—and You’re Left Holding the Bag appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

These obstacles are even more daunting for individuals with criminal histories. Many employers still view past criminal convictions as a significant red flag when evaluating job applicants. But Pennsylvania job applicants are not without protection. The commonwealth’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) help ensure job seekers with criminal records are treated fairly by limiting how those records can be used against them, and the notice they must receive when those records negatively affect their candidacy.

Recently, in Phath v. Central Transport, LLC, No. 25-1028, the Third Circuit was asked to answer a threshold question about the CHRIA: Do its protections apply when employers learn about an applicant’s criminal history directly from them? The court held that they do.

The CHRIA and FCRA require employers to inform your clients when they lost out on a job because of their criminal history

The CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 et. seq., requires criminal justice agencies to maintain accurate criminal history records that track an individual’s interactions with Pennsylvania’s criminal justice system. Under the statute, employers may request “information collected by criminal justice agencies concerning [job applicants], and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations or other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom.”

Section 9125 of the CHRIA permits employers to use that information to decide whether to hire an applicant. But felony and misdemeanor convictions “may be considered by the employer only to the extent to which they relate to the applicant’s suitability for employment in the position for which he has applied.” If an employer decides not to hire an applicant “based in whole or in part on” their criminal history, the employer must notify the applicant in writing that they did so.

At the federal level, the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., applies to criminal background checks when an employer obtains an individual’s criminal history through a third‑party consumer reporting agency (CRA) and uses it for “employment purposes.” Given the breadth of the term “employment purposes,” the FCRA governs when an employer uses an individual’s criminal history in connection with any employment action, including hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, reassignment, and compensation changes.

Under the FCRA, employers must provide applicants and employees a clear written disclosure explaining that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. Employers must also obtain individuals’ written authorization before requesting their criminal history.

When employers intend to take an adverse action against an applicant or employee based on information in a background check, the FCRA requires them to follow a two-step process. First, they must send a pre-adverse action notice to the individual, which must include both a copy of the background check/consumer report and a copy of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s “Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA” document. Second, employees must give individuals a reasonable opportunity—commonly at least a week—to review the report and dispute any inaccurate information with the CRA.

When employers proceed with an adverse action against an individual based on their criminal history, they must send the affected individual a final adverse action notice. This notice includes contact information for the CRA that provided the criminal history, and information about the individual’s right to dispute the accuracy of the report and obtain a free copy of it.

Together, the CHRIA and the FCRA regulate employers’ use of criminal records during their hiring process, but the statutes address different concerns. The CHRIA limits what information Pennsylvania employers may consider when hiring an employee, generally restricting use to conviction records. The FCRA, on the other hand, focuses on how criminal background information is obtained and used for a broad array of employment purposes when sourced from CRAs. It also requires employers to disclose to and seek authorization from an individual before requesting their criminal history, and to give notice before taking adverse action based on that criminal history.

The Third Circuit expands when the CHRIA applies to an employer’s discovery of an applicant’s criminal history

In Phath v. Central Transport, LLC, No. 25-1028, the Third Circuit recently clarified how the CHRIA’s protections apply when criminal history information is disclosed by a prospective employee during the hiring process. The court confirmed that the statute’s protections apply when employers learn about an applicant’s criminal history directly from the applicant.

Rodney Phath, a Pennsylvanian, applied for a truck‑driver position with Ohio-based Central Transport, LLC. Phath was qualified for the position and held a valid commercial driver’s license. During the hiring process, Phath voluntarily disclosed a 15‑year‑old armed robbery conviction. Central Transport immediately informed Phath it would not hire him because of the conviction.

Phath sued under the CHRIA, alleging that Central Transport improperly used his criminal history and failed to provide the required written notice. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the CHRIA applies only when an employer obtains a criminal history from a state agency. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case back to it for further proceedings.

The Third Circuit’s decision turned on the language from the CHRIA stating that when “an employer is in receipt of information which is part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file, the employer may use the applicant’s prior convictions for the purpose of deciding whether or not to hire the applicant.”

First, regarding the information an employer must be “in receipt of,” the court found that the statute covered information that “is part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file.” Second, the court reasoned that a “criminal history record information file” is “a compilation of criminal history facts collected and maintained by state agencies.” Third, the court reasoned that felony convictions like Phath’s are included in that file, and that Central Transport was “in receipt of” that information when he disclosed it. Finally, the court observed that nothing in the CHRIA’s text required information that was “part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file” to come from a state agency’s file.

Thus, according to the court, Central Transport was “in receipt of information” that is “part of” Phath’s “criminal history record information file” when it received his voluntary disclosure of his conviction, and is subject to the notice requirements of the CHRIA for taking an adverse action against Phath. Had the Third Circuit not held as it did, it would have allowed employers to sidestep the CHRIA by asking applicants directly about their criminal histories and taking adverse action against them when they voluntarily disclosed prior convictions.

Your clients’ unsuccessful job applications might give rise to claims under the CHRIA and/or the FCRA

The Third Circuit’s decision in Phath expands employers’ liability for violations of the CHRIA. It also reinforces that the CHRIA and the FCRA provide your Pennsylvania-based clients a two-pronged approach for challenging employers’ decisions not to hire them when those decisions are based on their criminal histories.

Though the statutes vary regarding their notice requirements and the sources of a client’s criminal history, the CHRIA and FCRA are powerful weapons your clients can use to ensure that if they don’t receive a job offer because of their criminal history, the employer followed both Pennsylvania and federal law regarding the manner in which it used that criminal history and the notice it was required to give them.

John Soumilas is a partner at Center City-based Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., a leading consumer rights law firm. He can be reached at jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com.

The post Third Circuit Strengthens Your Clients’ Right to Know When Their Criminal History Cost Them a New Job appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

The post Jim Francis Presents Oral Argument at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

One of the most significant of these lesser-known reporting agencies is Early Warning Systems, LLC (EWS).

EWS reports are widely used by banks and financial institutions when determining whether to allow a consumer to open a checking or savings account. When the information in an EWS report is inaccurate, the consequences can be severe. Consumers may suddenly find themselves unable to open a bank account, having their existing accounts closed, or being treated as high-risk customers.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) provides important protections to consumers when consumer reporting agencies such as EWS report inaccurate information.

What Is Early Warning Systems?

Early Warning Systems is a consumer reporting agency owned by several major banks. Financial institutions use EWS reports to evaluate the risk associated with opening or maintaining deposit accounts.

EWS reports may contain information such as:

• Prior bank account closures
• Allegations of account abuse
• Returned deposits
• Fraud flags
• Negative balances or unpaid overdrafts
• Suspicious account activity

Banks often rely heavily on these reports when deciding whether to allow a consumer to open a checking or savings account.

Because of this, errors in an EWS report can have immediate and devastating consequences.

How Inaccurate EWS Reports Harm Consumers

Unlike traditional credit reporting issues, inaccuracies in an EWS report can impact a consumer’s ability to access basic financial services.

When a bank reviews an EWS report containing negative or inaccurate information, it may:

• Deny a consumer the ability to open a bank account
• Close an existing bank account without warning
• Restrict access to financial services
• Flag a consumer as a fraud risk
• Prevent the consumer from accessing mobile payment platforms or financial apps

For many consumers, losing access to a bank account can disrupt nearly every aspect of daily life.

Consumers may be unable to:

• Receive direct deposits from their employer
• Pay bills electronically
• Cash checks easily
• Access debit card payments
• Maintain automatic payments for mortgages, utilities, or insurance

In extreme cases, inaccurate EWS reporting can push consumers toward expensive alternatives such as check-cashing services or prepaid debit cards.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act Applies to EWS

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) governs consumer reporting agencies such as Early Warning Systems. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must follow strict rules to ensure the accuracy of the information they report.

Among other things, the FCRA requires that consumer reporting agencies:

• Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy
• Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes inaccurate information
• Correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable information
• Provide consumers with access to their reports upon request

When a consumer disputes inaccurate information in an EWS report, the agency must conduct a reasonable investigation. Simply relying on automated responses or failing to meaningfully investigate the dispute may violate the FCRA.

Common EWS Reporting Errors

Consumers frequently encounter problems in EWS reports such as:

• Accounts reported as fraudulent when they were legitimate
• Accounts attributed to the wrong consumer
• Accounts reported as closed for cause when they were closed voluntarily
• Negative balances reported after the consumer paid the balance
• Identity theft accounts appearing on the report
• Duplicate reporting of the same account issue

Because EWS reports are not as widely known as credit reports, many consumers are unaware of these errors until a bank denies their application or closes their account.

Your Right to Dispute EWS Errors

Consumers have the right to dispute inaccurate information appearing in an Early Warning Systems report.

Once a dispute is submitted, EWS must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the disputed information. If the information cannot be verified as accurate, it must be corrected or removed.

If EWS fails to properly investigate a dispute or continues reporting inaccurate information, the consumer may have a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The FCRA allows consumers to recover damages for harm caused by inaccurate reporting. This can include compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and other damages resulting from the reporting errors.

When to Speak With a Consumer Protection Attorney

If inaccurate information in an Early Warning Systems report has caused you to be denied a bank account or led to the closure of your existing account, you may have legal rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

A consumer protection attorney can help you:

• Obtain and review your EWS report
• Identify inaccurate or misleading information
• Submit disputes to the reporting agency
• Pursue legal claims when reporting agencies fail to follow the law

Contact Our Consumer Protection Law Firm

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. represents consumers whose rights have been violated by inaccurate reporting from consumer reporting agencies, including Early Warning Systems.

If you have been denied a bank account or had an account closed because of inaccurate information on an EWS report, you may have a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Get started with a free case review today. Complete our online case review form or call us at 1-877-735-8600 to tell us what happened.

The post Early Warning Systems Reports and the Fair Credit Reporting Act: What Consumers Need to Know appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..