CFPB: Name-Only Matching Violates the FCRA (Withdrawn)

Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Citation: Fair Credit Reporting; Name-Only Matching Procedures, 86 Fed. Reg. 62468 (Nov. 10, 2021) (withdrawn, 90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025))
Decided: November 4, 2021
Bottom line: The advisory opinion is withdrawn, but the FCRA's accuracy duty is unchanged, and courts have long treated name-only matching as a sign of unreasonable procedures.

Background

Mismatched records are a serious kind of reporting error. They happen when a credit bureau, background check company, or tenant screening company attaches someone else’s debts, court records, or criminal history to your report, often because you share a name.

The problem was well known by 2021. In Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit upheld a ruling that TransUnion’s practice of comparing only consumers’ names to the Treasury Department’s OFAC list did not satisfy the FCRA’s accuracy requirement. The same practice was at issue in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, decided by the Supreme Court in June 2021 on standing grounds. The CFPB and FTC had also brought enforcement actions against background screening companies over loose matching criteria.

What the rule does

On November 4, 2021, the CFPB released an advisory opinion, which it described as an interpretive rule, addressed to all consumer reporting agencies as defined in the FCRA. It was published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2021.

The opinion’s core points were:

Accuracy includes identity. The CFPB read 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), which requires “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates,” to require that the information actually pertain to the person the report is about.
Name-only matching fails. The Bureau concluded “it is not a reasonable procedure to use name-only matching to match information to the consumer who is the subject of the report in preparing a consumer report.” It defined name-only matching as matching based solely on whether first and last names are identical or similar, without verifying with other identifying information.
More may be required. The opinion stated that “multiple additional elements beyond names may often be required” to meet the standard, and that “nothing in this analysis creates a safe harbor” for matching.
Name-only sources. When a data source has nothing but names, the agency may not simply include the information without taking additional steps to match it, such as consulting other sources with more identifiers.

The opinion pointed to enforcement history, including a 2015 CFPB consent order against General Information Services and a 2019 CFPB action against Sterling Infosystems, and to research showing some background screening companies still relied on name-only matches.

Later history: On May 12, 2025, the CFPB withdrew this advisory opinion along with 66 other guidance documents (90 Fed. Reg. 20084). The withdrawal did not change the FCRA itself.

Our take

The advisory opinion did not create a new duty. It restated what courts had long said: matching people to records by name alone produces predictable errors, and the cost of using a date of birth, address, or Social Security number is small compared with the harm to someone who loses a job or apartment because of another person’s record. Industry commentators fairly noted that the opinion did not say which combination of identifiers is enough.

The withdrawal means the CFPB is unlikely to enforce this position in the near term, and companies can no longer be told the opinion reflects current federal policy. But the opinion’s reasoning rested on the statute’s text and on court decisions like Cortez, and those remain. Consumers can still prove an FCRA violation by showing a company’s matching procedures were unreasonable.

What it means if your report is wrong

If your credit report, background check, or tenant screening report includes accounts, judgments, evictions, or criminal records that belong to someone else, dispute the report in writing with the company that prepared it, explain that the records are not yours, and include identifying details such as your date of birth and middle name. Ask for a copy of your full file. Keep any denial letters from employers, landlords, or lenders. A free case review can assess whether the company’s matching procedures were reasonable, and there is no fee unless we win.

Sources

Primary

Commentary we reviewed

Troutman Pepper — CFPB issues advisory opinion on name-only matching

Updated November 1, 2026. "Our take" is the firm's opinion. This page is general information, not legal advice, and later decisions may change the law.