Overview

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) imposes specific requirements on employers who use third-party consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) like Verified First to conduct background checks on applicants or employees. Among the most foundational of these requirements are the rules governing disclosure and authorization — what you must tell applicants before running a background check, and how you must obtain their permission to do so.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision — Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc. (A172921, June 4, 2026) — reinforces why getting these forms right is not optional. The ruling confirmed that employers in California can face class action liability for technical violations of the FCRA's disclosure requirements, even when no applicant suffered a concrete, provable injury. A paperwork misstep alone is enough to trigger litigation exposure.

This article explains what the FCRA requires, what Askins means for your organization, and what practical steps you should take to protect yourself.

What the FCRA Requires: Disclosure and Authorization

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A), before an employer may obtain a consumer report for employment purposes, two conditions must be met:

• A clear and conspicuous written disclosure must be provided to the applicant before the report is obtained, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.
• The applicant must provide written authorization before the report is procured.

The key phrase is "a document that consists solely of the disclosure." Congress was explicit: the disclosure must stand alone. It cannot be embedded within a job application, an offer letter, an onboarding packet, or any other form that contains additional information, questions, or unrelated content.

The Askins v. CRST Expedited Decision — What Happened

Terry Askins applied online for a position with CRST Expedited, a trucking company. During the application process and his subsequent employment, CRST provided him with background check disclosure and authorization forms. Askins filed a class action complaint alleging that those forms did not comply with FCRA requirements — specifically that they were lengthy, confusing, and contained extraneous information, and that he was not aware CRST would conduct a background check.

The San Mateo County Superior Court initially certified the class. After the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued Limon v. Circle K Stores (2022), which held that FCRA plaintiffs in California must show a concrete injury for standing, CRST successfully moved to decertify the class. The trial court agreed that Askins's confusion about the forms was purely informational — not a cognizable concrete harm — and decertified the class.

The Court of Appeal reversed. Its core holding: California courts are not bound by the federal Article III standing requirement that demands a concrete injury before a plaintiff can sue. Because the FCRA's willful violation provision (15 U.S.C. § 1681n) authorizes statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation even without proof of actual harm, a disclosure violation alone is sufficient to confer standing to bring an FCRA claim in California state court.

What This Means for Employers

The practical consequence of Askins is straightforward: employers who conduct background checks on California applicants or employees — or who use background check forms that reach California applicants — now face an increased class action risk based solely on technical deficiencies in their disclosure and authorization documents.

This is not a new FCRA requirement. The stand-alone disclosure rule has been in place since 1996. What Askins changes is the litigation landscape — it removes a procedural hurdle that had been limiting class action plaintiffs in California state courts, and it opens the door for plaintiffs to seek $100 to $1,000 per violation across an entire class, without needing to demonstrate that anyone was actually harmed.

Common disclosure form problems that create this exposure include:

• Embedding the background check disclosure within a job application or onboarding document
• Including authorization language for unrelated purposes in the same form (e.g., drug screening, reference checks, I-9 employment eligibility verification)
• Adding liability waivers, release language, or policy acknowledgments to the disclosure document
• Using a combined background check and drug test consent form
• Including employee handbook acknowledgments or other onboarding content in the same document
• Using outdated forms that predate the 1996 FCRA amendments or subsequent case law developments

Verified First's Role

As your background screening provider, Verified First's responsibilities are centered on our role as a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA). We are responsible for the accuracy and legal compliance of the consumer reports we produce and deliver to you. We conduct background searches in accordance with applicable federal and state law, and we apply our own internal compliance standards to the reports we generate.

The disclosure and authorization forms used in your hiring process, however, are your responsibility as the employer. The FCRA places the obligation to provide a compliant, stand-alone disclosure — and to obtain valid written authorization — on the employer, not the CRA. Verified First does not review your internal hiring forms, and we cannot verify that the authorization your applicants sign meets the FCRA's technical requirements. The forms provided in the Applicant Invite Process comply with the stand alone requirements of the FCRA.

Practical Steps to Reduce Your Exposure

Given the Askins ruling, now is a good time to review your background check disclosure and authorization process. The following steps can help reduce your risk:

1. Audit Your Current Forms

Review every document applicants receive before a background check is initiated. Ask: Does the disclosure stand alone? Does it contain any content beyond the disclosure itself? If the answer is no to the first question or yes to the second, the form should be revised.

2. Separate Disclosure from Authorization

While the FCRA permits the authorization to appear on the same document as the disclosure, many employers choose to keep them separate for added clarity. At minimum, ensure the disclosure document itself is a clean, single-purpose form.

3. Review Your Authorization Language

Confirm that the written authorization you obtain clearly identifies the scope of the consumer report being requested and that it is signed before any report is initiated.

4. Consider State-Specific Requirements

Several states impose additional requirements beyond the federal FCRA. California, for example, has its own Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) with separate disclosure requirements for investigative consumer reports. If you hire applicants in multiple states, your forms may need to account for state-specific requirements on top of federal FCRA compliance.

5. Consult Your Legal Counsel

Verified First recommends that you consult with your own legal counsel to review your disclosure and authorization forms and confirm they meet current FCRA requirements, as well as any applicable state law requirements for your hiring locations. This is particularly important for employers who hire in California.

Reference

Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., No. A172921 (Cal. Ct. App. June 4, 2026): 

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A172921.PDF 

15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A) — FCRA Employer Disclosure and Authorization Requirements: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/fcra-may2023-508.pdf 

15 U.S.C. § 1681n — Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/fcra-may2023-508.pdf