The Fernandez v. CoreLogic settlement is a $58.5 million class action resolution that compensated more than 700,000 consumers whose CoreLogic Credco reports were inaccurately flagged as possible matches to a federal terrorism and narcotics watchlist. A federal judge in the Southern District of California granted final approval on June 20, 2024, and payments have already gone out to eligible class members.1USCOURTS. 20-1262 – Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC – Content Details Every deadline to file a claim, opt out, or object has passed, and the case is now in its distribution and wind-down phase.
What CoreLogic Credco Was Accused of Doing
Marco Fernandez, a U.S. Navy veteran, applied for a mortgage and learned that CoreLogic Credco had flagged his consumer report as a “possible match” to a name on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Specially Designated Nationals list, which identifies terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and others whose assets the U.S. government has blocked.2Office of Foreign Assets Control. Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and the SDN List The person he supposedly matched was a Mexican trafficker with a similar name. Nothing else lined up.
According to the lawsuit, CoreLogic relied primarily on name similarity to match consumers to the OFAC list, even when identifiers like birthdate and Social Security number clearly did not match. When lenders pulled a consumer’s report, the “possible match” flag went with it, which could stall or sink a mortgage application. Fernandez also alleged that when he requested his own report, CoreLogic left the damaging OFAC flag out entirely and failed to list every company that had received his file. The company was sharing harmful information with lenders while hiding it from the consumer it was about.
The claims arose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy and to fully disclose a consumer’s file on request.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 USC 1681e – Compliance Procedures4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 USC 1681g – Disclosures to Consumers The complaint also included claims under California’s Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Unfair Competition Law.5FindLaw. Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco LLC (2022) CoreLogic agreed to the $58.5 million settlement without admitting wrongdoing.
Who Was Covered
The settlement split affected consumers into three groups, and one person could belong to more than one and collect from each.6CoreLogic Credco Settlement. CoreLogic Credco Settlement Home
Inaccurate Reporting Class
The largest group. It covers anyone whose CoreLogic Credco report was sent to a third party carrying a “possible match” OFAC flag between June 3, 2013, and August 28, 2023.
Failure to Disclose Class
Consumers who asked CoreLogic for a copy of their own report and were never told they had been flagged as a possible OFAC match.
Failure to Identify Class
Consumers who asked CoreLogic for a list of companies that had pulled their report within the prior year and received an incomplete list.
How Much Each Class Member Gets
Payment amounts vary sharply by class because the class sizes are so different. The smaller the group, the larger each person’s share.6CoreLogic Credco Settlement. CoreLogic Credco Settlement Home
- Failure to Disclose Class members receive $1,000 each.
- Failure to Identify Class members receive $500 each.
- Inaccurate Reporting Class members receive an initial payment of roughly $47, with a possible second payment of a similar amount if enough initial checks go uncashed, for a potential total near $94.
The Inaccurate Reporting Class holds the vast majority of the 700,000-plus affected consumers, which is why the per-person share is so much smaller there. Class counsel also sought legal fees not exceeding 25% of the fund, reimbursement of litigation costs, and a service award of up to $20,000 for Fernandez himself, all reviewed by the court before final approval.7Amazon S3. Notice of Class Action Settlement – Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco
Deadlines and Current Status
Every consumer-facing deadline in this case is closed.
- Opt-out and objection deadline: May 10, 2024
- Final approval hearing: June 10, 2024
- Claim form deadline for the Inaccurate Reporting Class: August 22, 2024
Members of the Failure to Disclose and Failure to Identify classes did not need to submit a claim form; if they received a mailed notice, their payment was automatic. Members of the Inaccurate Reporting Class had to submit a valid claim by August 22, 2024, to receive a check.6CoreLogic Credco Settlement. CoreLogic Credco Settlement Home
If you think you were a class member but never got notice and missed the claim deadline, your options are limited. The settlement website at OFACListSettlement.com may still post information about the status of distributions. If you received a check and did not cash it in time, most states require uncashed settlement checks to be turned over to the state’s unclaimed property fund after a dormancy period that varies by state, so searching your state’s unclaimed property database is worth a try.
Are the Payments Taxable?
Yes. The IRS treats settlement proceeds as taxable income unless they compensate for physical injury or physical sickness, and FCRA violations involve neither.8Internal Revenue Service. Tax Implications of Settlements and Judgments These payments replace statutory damages for inaccurate reporting and disclosure failures, which the IRS treats as ordinary taxable income.
For 2026 tax returns, the reporting threshold for Form 1099-MISC increased to $2,000.9Internal Revenue Service. Publication 1099 General Instructions for Certain Information Returns Since even the highest individual payment in this settlement is $1,000, many class members will not receive a 1099 at all. That does not make the money tax-free. You are still required to report it on your return, and settlement administrator records can be cross-referenced by the IRS if questions come up later.