Eighth Circuit: Background Firm Could Rely on Court Website

Case: Fraase v. Advantage Credit Bureau
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Citation: No. 25-1872 (8th Cir. June 25, 2026)
Decided: June 25, 2026
Bottom line: When a public court record itself is wrong, a background check company may escape liability unless it had notice of problems with that source.

Background

Austin Fraase, a seasonal employee of the Fargo Parks District, applied for a full-time maintenance job. The employer ordered a background check from Advantage Credit Bureau. The criminal search section listed a conviction for “Speeding 24 Mph Over Limit.” The motor vehicle section of the same report showed a clean driving record.

The ticket belonged to his twin brother, Aaron. When Advantage searched the North Dakota courts’ public website using Austin’s full name and date of birth, the search returned Aaron’s case because a municipal court had grouped the brothers in a single “case jacket” listing Austin as an “also known as” for Aaron. A second background check repeated the error. Austin explained the mix-up, and the employer hired him on schedule.

Austin sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), which requires consumer reporting agencies to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.” The district court granted summary judgment for Advantage, finding its procedures reasonable and that Austin had no damages.

What the court held

The panel (Judge Kobes writing) affirmed on the procedures issue alone. Advantage admittedly reported inaccurate information; the only question was whether it followed reasonable procedures.

The court stressed that “[t]he FCRA is not a strict liability statute.” Under Eighth Circuit precedent, an agency is not liable for inaccurate information from a source it reasonably believes is reputable “unless the agency receives notice of systemic problems with its procedures.” Advantage reasonably treated the official state court website as reputable, and Austin offered no evidence of systemic problems with it. The court drew on the Seventh Circuit’s Henson v. CSC Credit Services decision about court judgment dockets.

The court rejected each of Austin’s other arguments. A boilerplate website disclaimer did not change the analysis. The conflict between the speeding conviction and the clean driving record did not require more digging, because Advantage’s witnesses testified those sections often conflict. Different first names and license numbers were not facial inaccuracies requiring investigation when the court’s own record grouped the two men together. And Advantage did follow its policy of matching full name and date of birth, because the court record listed Austin’s name as an alias.

Because the procedures were reasonable, the court did not reach damages.

Our take

We think this is a close case decided against the consumer on facts that should have raised a flag. The report itself contradicted the ticket: the motor vehicle section showed no violations. And the court record, according to the internal docket, showed two different driver’s license numbers. A process that treats an “also known as” entry as conclusive, even when the subject’s first name differs, invites exactly this kind of error with twins and family members who share names.

The opinion is careful to tie its holding to the record, including the absence of evidence that Advantage’s employees saw the license numbers. In a case with stronger proof that the agency saw conflicting identifiers, Cortez v. Trans Union, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010), which the court distinguished, remains good authority for liability.

Defendants will cite Fraase to argue that relying on any official court website is reasonable as a matter of law. We read it more narrowly. The court said things “might be different” with evidence of systemic problems in a source. Plaintiffs should develop that evidence in discovery, including prior disputes involving the same source.

What it means if your report is wrong

If a background check mixes you up with a relative or someone with a similar name, dispute it directly with the screening company and ask for the source of the record. Under § 1681g you can get your file and the sources of the information. If the error starts in a court record, ask the court clerk to correct it too, or the same mistake may reappear on future reports. A free case review can assess how this ruling affects your claim, with no fee unless we win.

Sources

Primary

Commentary we reviewed

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.