June 24, 2019

June 21, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Fair Credit Reporting Act Requirements Triggered by Use of Internet and Social Media Screening Services

There has been considerable debate regarding whether employers are bound to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when using reports compiled by third parties of public information available on social networking sites. A May 2011 letter issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding Social Intelligence Corporation (Social Intelligence), a social media background screening service, has confirmed that employers must comply with the requirements of FCRA when using public information furnished by Internet and social media background screening services like Social Intelligence.

In a previous alert, we discussed the implications of using third-party reports about applicants based on social media content and warned that the use of such reports will likely trigger the requirements of FCRA. As discussed in our earlier alert, applicants’ posts to social media reveal “personal characteristics” and “modes of living” which constitute “consumer reports” under FCRA if compiled on employers’ behalf by third parties. In the May 2011 letter, the FTC has taken the same position. Accordingly, Social Intelligence was determined by the FTC to be a “consumer reporting agency,” thus triggering the requirements of FCRA for all employers using reports provided by the company in their employment decisions.

Employers should be advised that using consumer reports furnished by third parties, even those comprised of publicly available information obtained from social networking sites, will require the employer to comply with FCRA by (1) notifying the applicant or employee that they will be requesting a consumer report for employment purposes, (2) obtaining the applicant’s written authorization to obtain a consumer report, (3) providing a summary of consumer rights to the applicant, and (4) complying with adverse action procedures in the event that an adverse action (e.g., denial of employment) is taken as a result of the report.

© 2019 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.


About this Author

Danielle Barbour Wilson, Litigation Attorney, Poyner Spruill Law Firm

Danielle’s practice is focused in the areas of Litigation and Employment Law. She represents private and public employers in a wide range of labor and employment matters. Danielle has assisted in defending putative class actions before federal district and appellate courts and defended claims against local government entities. She also advises clients regarding data protection and privacy issues.

Representative Experience

  • Defends employers in a wide range of employment litigation in both state and federal courts

  • ...
David L. Woodard, Employment Litigation Attorney, Poyner Spruill, Law firm

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully defended the judgment in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Williams v. City of Fayetteville - Obtained summary judgment on former employee’s claims of retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, violations of due process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.