Bugoni v. Checkr Incorporated

Background

Piero A. Bugoni, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Checkr, DoorDash, InstaCart, Lyft, and Uber. The opinion describes Checkr as a consumer reporting agency and the other defendants as the delivery companies. Bugoni alleged that the delivery companies required independent contractors to consent to background checks by Checkr in order to receive work offers, and that this denied him and others economic opportunities.

The court had previously granted Bugoni permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. It therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal at screening if the case is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while reading Bugoni’s self-represented allegations liberally.

FCRA claims

The court concluded that Bugoni failed to state a claim under any of the Fair Credit Reporting Act provisions he cited.

For the claim under § 1681b(a), Bugoni alleged that Checkr unlawfully furnished reports for people working as independent contractors. The court explained that this claim requires an allegation that the defendant maintained a consumer report, provided it to a third party, and did so without a legally permitted purpose. Bugoni did not allege that Checkr actually furnished a report about him; he alleged only that he was denied business offers because he did not allow himself to be investigated and reported.

For the claim under § 1681b(f), Bugoni alleged that the delivery companies violated the Act by requiring independent contractors to consent to Checkr’s background check. The court held that this claim failed for the same reason: Bugoni did not allege that the delivery companies received a consumer report from Checkr.

For the claim under § 1681b(a)(2), Bugoni alleged that Checkr did not obtain or provide written instructions from the consumer to whom a report related. The court held that this provision identifies one circumstance in which a consumer reporting agency may furnish a report; it does not require a consumer to provide written instructions every time a report is furnished. The court also stated that, even if the provision could be read as imposing that requirement, Bugoni had alleged only a procedural violation and had not shown concrete harm.

Bugoni also alleged that Checkr violated §§ 1681g and 1681j by failing to provide a free annual copy of his consumer file. The court held that those provisions require disclosure upon the consumer’s request, and Bugoni did not allege that he made such a request. The court further held that his related allegation under § 1681e was insufficient because he did not plausibly allege that Checkr failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of information it collected about him.

Other claims

Bugoni alleged that Checkr tortiously and criminally interfered with prospective interstate commerce. The court said the factual and legal basis of this claim was unclear and that Bugoni did not identify a statute or other legal basis for it. The court therefore found that the claim was not legally cognizable as pleaded.

Bugoni also stated that the Fair Credit Reporting Act might be unconstitutional in its entirety. The court held that he did not identify the basis for that constitutional challenge, so this claim also failed to state a claim.

Disposition

The court concluded that the complaint failed the required screening review. It allowed Bugoni to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The order did not itself dismiss the complaint. It stated that if Bugoni did not respond, or if an amended complaint still failed to state a claim, the court could prepare a report and recommendation recommending that a district judge dismiss the complaint. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.