LexisNexis 13.5M Settlement Over Consumers Wrongly Reported as Deceased

LexisNexis Risk Solutions, a major provider of identity-verification and fraud-prevention tools used by banks, insurers, and other businesses, was sued after some consumers were allegedly flagged in its systems as “deceased” even though they were alive. That kind of error can be more than a paperwork glitch: a “deceased” notation can trigger failed identity checks, blocked financial transactions, trouble obtaining credit or insurance, and time-consuming efforts to prove you’re living. The proposed settlement estimates about 60,700 affected people (split into “Contact Members,” who reached out to dispute the deceased notation, and “Product Members,” whose identity/fraud-prevention transactions returned a deceased result), with payments funded from a $13.5 million common pool after court-approved fees and costs. The lawsuit, Scroggins v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. in federal court in Virginia, claims LexisNexis violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a law that regulates “consumer reporting agencies” and requires reasonable procedures for accuracy plus a process to investigate and correct disputed information. LexisNexis denies wrongdoing and disputes that the reports at issue are governed by the FCRA, but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation—an important point because it reflects ongoing legal tension over when data brokers and risk/identity products cross the line into FCRA-regulated “consumer reports.” If approved, eligible class members are expected to receive at least $150 each (and potentially more depending on how many valid claims are filed), with Product Members generally needing to submit a claim by May 15, 2026 using a claim ID/PIN, while many Contact Members are slated for automatic payment. More broadly, the case highlights a recurring problem in the data-driven verification industry: “dead/alive” status often originates from a web of sources (including credit bureaus and public records), and an error can cascade across multiple screening and authentication systems used throughout the economy. Similar disputes have arisen against credit reporting agencies and data intermediaries when inaccurate identifiers (like death indicators, mixed files, or fraud flags) lead to real-world denials, and regulators have increasingly scrutinized how companies ensure accuracy and provide meaningful dispute mechanisms under the FCRA and related guidance. The settlement’s structure—separating people who complained from those who may never have known an adverse “deceased” hit occurred—also underscores a practical consumer-protection gap in invisible background identity checks, where the harm can happen without a clear notice to the person affected.