A California appeals court has delivered a significant ruling on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, finding that plaintiffs do not need to show a concrete injury to establish legal standing.
The case, Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 5th 1190 (2026), centres on a class action lawsuit brought against CRST, a trucking company operating in the United States.
Terry Askins applied online for a position with CRST and was provided with a disclosure form informing him that a background check would be conducted.
Both before and during his employment with the company, CRST carried out background checks on Askins as part of its standard procedures.
Askins subsequently filed a putative class action on behalf of all current, former, and prospective applicants of CRST, raising serious concerns about the legality of those checks.
The lawsuit alleged that CRST conducted background checks without providing legally compliant disclosure and authorization forms as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
A trial court initially granted class certification, giving Askins and fellow claimants the green light to pursue their case collectively against the trucking firm.
However, the trial court later decertified the class, relying on the earlier precedent set by Limon v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 671 (2022), which held that plaintiffs must allege a concrete injury to establish standing under the FCRA.
The Court of Appeal stepped in and reversed the decertification order, directly contradicting the reasoning applied in the Limon decision and restoring the class action status.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal concluded that, contrary to Limon, the FCRA does not require a concrete injury for standing, a finding that could have broad implications for employment-related background check litigation across California.
The decision is particularly significant for employers who conduct background checks during the hiring process, as it lowers the threshold claimants must meet to bring FCRA class actions.
Workers and job applicants who believe they received non-compliant disclosure forms may now have a clearer path to pursuing claims even without demonstrating tangible harm.
Legal experts are likely to monitor how this ruling reshapes the landscape of employment screening litigation in California and whether it influences courts in other jurisdictions considering similar questions of FCRA standing.