By Sharon 
CoreLogic Credco — commonly referred to as Credco — is one of the largest credit reporting and data reselling agencies in the United States. It provides credit and identity information to lenders, auto dealerships, mortgage companies, and financial institutions. But in recent years, the company has found itself at the center of two major class-action lawsuits that have drawn national attention.
These lawsuits allege serious violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) — the federal law designed to ensure fairness, accuracy, and privacy in the use of consumer information. The first case accused Credco of incorrectly reporting people as deceased, while the second alleged that the company falsely linked consumers to the U.S. government’s terrorism and sanctions watchlist.
Together, these two lawsuits resulted in settlements exceeding $60 million — a powerful reminder of how crucial accuracy is in the world of credit reporting.
Understanding the Credco Lawsuits
Though both lawsuits targeted Credco, they involved different types of reporting errors.
1. The “Deceased” Reporting Error
In the first case, consumers claimed that Credco’s reports falsely labeled them as deceased — even though they were very much alive. This error appeared on credit reports provided to lenders and financial institutions.
For those affected, the consequences were devastating. A “deceased” notation can effectively cut someone off from the financial system. It can prevent them from obtaining loans, credit cards, or mortgages, and may even cause confusion or denial when they try to open new accounts.
The lawsuit alleged that Credco failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information it sold. Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies are legally obligated to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. The plaintiffs argued that Credco did not verify its data properly before distributing it to lenders.
To resolve the case, Credco agreed to a $5.7 million settlement. Affected consumers were offered compensation, and Credco pledged to improve its data accuracy and verification processes.
2. The OFAC “Watchlist” Matching Error
The second and much larger lawsuit accused Credco of wrongfully identifying consumers as potential matches to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list — a federal database of individuals and entities subject to economic sanctions.
The OFAC list includes names associated with terrorism, money laundering, and other national security concerns. When a consumer is mistakenly linked to this list, the results can be catastrophic. Lenders may immediately deny loans or freeze accounts to avoid potential legal and regulatory risks.
According to the lawsuit, Credco’s system matched consumers to the OFAC list based solely on name similarity — without cross-checking birthdates, addresses, or other identifying data. As a result, ordinary individuals found themselves flagged as potential security risks, all because they shared a common name with someone on the list.
The plaintiffs argued that Credco’s practices violated the FCRA by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy and by not providing adequate disclosures when consumers requested their reports.
Ultimately, Credco agreed to a $58 million settlement, one of the largest FCRA-related class-action settlements in recent memory. In addition to monetary compensation, the settlement required Credco to change how it handles OFAC matches, improve transparency in its reports, and clarify how consumers can dispute incorrect information.
Why These Lawsuits Matter
At first glance, data errors like these might seem like technical glitches. But for consumers, they can have life-changing consequences. A single inaccurate entry on a credit report can lead to:
-
Denied mortgage or car loan applications
-
Higher interest rates
-
Job application rejections (since some employers review credit reports)
-
Reputational damage
-
Emotional distress and lost opportunities
The FCRA was written to prevent exactly these kinds of harms. It gives consumers the right to access their credit reports, dispute inaccurate information, and expect timely corrections. When companies like Credco fail to uphold these standards, they can be held legally and financially accountable.
The Legal Framework: The Fair Credit Reporting Act
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, enacted in 1970, regulates how consumer reporting agencies collect, use, and share personal information. Under the FCRA, agencies must:
-
Ensure Accuracy – They must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report.
-
Provide Disclosures – Consumers have the right to know what’s in their reports and to obtain a copy upon request.
-
Allow Disputes – When an error is found, agencies must investigate and correct it promptly.
-
Maintain Privacy – Agencies must restrict access to consumer data and protect it from misuse.
Violations can lead to statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation — or actual damages if consumers can prove harm. In class-action cases, those numbers multiply quickly, leading to large settlements like the ones Credco faced.
Lessons for Consumers
The Credco lawsuits highlight how important it is for consumers to monitor their credit information regularly. Errors can happen — and sometimes, they’re serious. Here are key takeaways for protecting yourself:
-
Check All Credit Reports Regularly
You’re entitled to one free credit report per year from each major bureau — Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion — through AnnualCreditReport.com. But also be aware that resellers like Credco may hold data that differs from those reports. -
Dispute Inaccuracies Immediately
If you find an error, file a written dispute with both the reporting agency and the creditor that supplied the data. Keep copies of all correspondence. Agencies have 30 days to investigate. -
Look for Red Flags
Unusual notations like “deceased,” “possible OFAC match,” or unexplained account closures should be addressed immediately. These could signal serious underlying errors. -
Document Everything
In any dispute, documentation is key. Save letters, emails, and call records in case the issue escalates. -
Know Your Rights
Under the FCRA, you can sue for damages if a credit reporting agency fails to correct errors or violates your rights.
Industry Implications
The Credco settlements carry significant implications for the broader credit reporting industry. They underscore the growing demand for accuracy, transparency, and accountability in consumer data management.
As technology advances, credit reporting agencies rely increasingly on automated matching systems to link consumer data. While these systems improve efficiency, they also raise the risk of false matches — particularly when data quality or identity verification standards are weak.
The Credco cases have pushed companies across the industry to review their processes. Many are now investing more heavily in data governance, machine learning validation, and human review to reduce the risk of errors. Regulators, too, are paying closer attention to how resellers handle consumer information, especially when it comes to high-risk identifiers like OFAC lists.
A Broader Message on Data Responsibility
The Credco lawsuits are about more than settlements or compliance; they’re about trust. Credit reporting agencies hold enormous power over consumers’ financial lives. A single misstep — like labeling someone as deceased or associating them with a sanctions list — can ripple through banks, lenders, and employers.
In an age where data drives nearly every financial decision, these cases remind us that accuracy isn’t optional — it’s essential. Companies that collect and distribute personal data must treat that responsibility with the highest level of care.
For consumers, the takeaway is equally clear: stay informed, review your credit reports, and don’t hesitate to challenge errors. Laws like the FCRA exist to protect you — but they only work when you exercise your rights.
Conclusion
The Credco lawsuits reveal both the vulnerabilities and the accountability mechanisms within the modern credit reporting system. A $5.7 million settlement for falsely marking consumers as deceased, followed by a $58 million settlement for incorrect OFAC flagging, underscores just how high the stakes can be when data goes wrong.
These cases have forced one of the largest data resellers in the nation to reevaluate its practices and have sent a message to the entire industry: consumer data accuracy is not negotiable.