A staffing firm orders a report from a third-party agency that interviews a candidate's former neighbours and colleagues about the candidate's character, general reputation, and mode of living for a managerial role. Under the FCRA, how should this report be classified, and what extra duty does that classification trigger?
- AIt is an ordinary consumer report, so the standard stand-alone disclosure and authorisation fully satisfy every FCRA obligation for this type of inquiry.
- BIt is a credit report, which means the employer must certify a permissible purpose tied to the candidate's outstanding debts.
- CIt is an investigative consumer report, which obliges the employer to notify the candidate that such a report may be obtained and to disclose the nature and scope on request. Correct
- DIt is a public-record-only report, so the agency need not maintain procedures to ensure the interviewed information is accurate or current.
Why A is wrong: This is tempting because every investigative consumer report is also a consumer report, but the interview-based character information triggers the additional investigative disclosure duties that the ordinary process alone does not meet.
Why B is wrong: Candidates may assume any agency report is credit-based, but interviews about reputation are not credit data, so framing this as a credit report and a debt-related permissible purpose misreads the report type.
Why C is correct: When information about character, reputation, or mode of living is gathered through personal interviews, FCRA treats it as an investigative consumer report and adds a duty to give a clear and accurate disclosure of its nature and scope on request.
Why D is wrong: This sounds plausible because reputation feels like public knowledge, but interview-derived character information is not a public record and the agency still owes reasonable-procedure accuracy duties.