# Screening Facts (screeningfacts.com) Checked 6 September 2026 > Measured public complaint data on the US consumer-screening companies behind rental, employment and banking denials, plus plain-English explanations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act rights that apply after an adverse action. 17 companies ranked by complaint mentions from a full scan of 28,377,895 rows of the federal CFPB Consumer Complaint Database, 8 situation guides with evidence lists and first moves, a free JSON API, and a free browser-only company identifier. > Publisher: Axion Labs. Independent — not a credit-repair company, not a law firm, not affiliated with any screening company, landlord, employer, bank or agency. > **Every page on this site is free to read, there is no paid consumer product, and there is no paid machine door either.** The one demand test this site ever ran — an assembly packet on /keep-the-job — was closed on 9 September 2026 after eight views, one click and zero sign-ups, and its price came down with it. No page here asks for an email address, and no endpoint here asks for payment. > This file is generated from the live dataset on every request. Figures match the site and the API exactly. > For agents — machine-first orientation (everything callable here, trust blocks, gateway, fair use, in one fetch): https://screeningfacts.com/for-agents (JSON: https://screeningfacts.com/for-agents.json) > Door Passport (machine-readable: provider, capabilities, data required/retained, pricing, trust, dispute contact): https://screeningfacts.com/.well-known/agent-door.json > Changes: https://screeningfacts.com/changes.json · https://screeningfacts.com/changes.atom — what moved, when, from where; newest first. OpenAPI: https://screeningfacts.com/openapi.json. Every machine surface here honours conditional requests: send If-None-Match with the ETag you were given (or If-Modified-Since with the Last-Modified date) and an unchanged document costs you a header, not a download. ## What this site uniquely holds Behind a rental denial, a failed background check or a refused bank account sits a screening company the applicant has never heard of, and a report they have never seen. We scanned the CFPB bulk complaint file end to end for every one of those companies and published what consumers actually say about each. - Source: CFPB Consumer Complaint Database bulk file (files.consumerfinance.gov), full-text row scan - Metric: complaint rows whose text mentions the company (case-insensitive); pattern counts are rows mentioning company AND pattern keywords - Rows scanned: 28,377,895 · scan wall time 258s · generated 2026-09-06 - 17 companies across 5 categories: Data broker, Banking history, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Property software + screening - 120,003 total complaint mentions across the tracked companies - 8 situation guides, each with the strongest fact pattern, an evidence list, and a first move **Honest caveat, stated up front and on every page:** these are text mentions in complaint narratives, not official per-company tallies. Not all complaints include narratives, so counts understate totals. They are a relative signal of where consumers report problems, not a scoreboard. Early Warning's number is inflated because it also operates Zelle and absorbs payment complaints — and a small number elsewhere is not a clean bill of health, only a smaller sample. ## Screening companies, ranked by CFPB complaint mentions | Company | Category | Complaint mentions | Top reported problems | |---|---|---|---| | LexisNexis Risk Solutions | Data broker | 70,462 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (23,109); dispute ignored or mishandled (151); cost someone a job (143) | | Early Warning Services | Banking history | 38,013 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (6,104); bank-account denial or closure (2,611); dispute ignored or mishandled (106) | | ChexSystems | Banking history | 4,601 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (1,281); bank-account denial or closure (1,074); paid debt still showing (85) | | First Advantage | Employment screening | 2,693 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (417); cost someone a job (151); eviction record problems (36) | | Checkr | Employment screening | 2,575 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (181); cost someone a job (162); bank-account denial or closure (29) | | HireRight | Employment screening | 601 | cost someone a job (64); that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (54); bank-account denial or closure (4) | | TransUnion Rental Screening | Tenant screening | 518 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (69); cost someone a job (48); eviction record problems (26) | | AppFolio | Property software + screening | 289 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (40); eviction record problems (13); cost someone housing (9) | | SafeRent Solutions | Tenant screening | 128 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (19); eviction record problems (11); cost someone housing (6) | | Experian RentBureau | Tenant screening | 75 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (25); eviction record problems (2); cost someone housing (2) | | RealPage | Property software + screening | 20 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (3); cost someone housing (2); eviction record problems (1) | | RentGrow | Tenant screening | 15 | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (3); eviction record problems (1); paid debt still showing (1) | | CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions | Tenant screening | 13 | eviction record problems (2); cost someone housing (2); that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) (1) | ## What actually goes wrong, aggregated across all 17 companies | Reported problem | Complaint rows | |---|---| | that record isn't mine (mixed file / identity mix-up) | 31,306 | | bank-account denial or closure | 3,823 | | cost someone a job | 635 | | dispute ignored or mishandled | 302 | | paid debt still showing | 257 | | eviction record problems | 189 | | cost someone housing | 53 | **The mixed-file finding.** Across the 17 companies we publish, 31,306 of 120,003 complaint mentions — 26.1% — say the record belongs to somebody else, the single most fixable category of screening error, because a dispute must delete what cannot be verified as yours. It is not uniform: by company the share runs from 7% (Checkr) to 33% (Experian RentBureau). Here are the companies where a large sample and a high share coincide: - LexisNexis Risk Solutions: 33% of 70,462 mentions (23,109 rows) - ChexSystems: 28% of 4,601 mentions (1,281 rows) ## Company detail — who each one is, and how to get your file free ### /companies/lexisnexis-risk — LexisNexis Risk Solutions (Data broker) - Complaint mentions: 70,462 - Who they are: One of the largest consumer data brokers in the US. Its files feed tenant-screening, insurance, employment, and banking decisions across the industry — many denials trace back to a LexisNexis record even when the screening company that scored you has a different name. - Free report route: Request your free “Full File Disclosure” directly at consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com — it shows everything LexisNexis holds on you. ### /companies/earlywarning — Early Warning Services (Banking history) - Complaint mentions: 38,013 - Who they are: Owned by a group of the largest US banks (it also operates Zelle). Banks use its shared database to decide whether to let you open a checking or savings account. A negative entry here can follow you from bank to bank. - Free report route: Request your free consumer report from Early Warning Services via its consumer services pages at earlywarning.com. ### /companies/chexsystems — ChexSystems (Banking history) - Complaint mentions: 4,601 - Who they are: The best-known checking-account history bureau. Banks and credit unions across the US check it before opening an account. Entries — bounced checks, unpaid fees, suspected fraud flags — typically stay on file for years. - Free report route: Request your free ChexSystems consumer disclosure at chexsystems.com — you're entitled to one free copy every 12 months, plus another after any denial. ### /companies/firstadvantage — First Advantage (Employment screening) - Complaint mentions: 2,693 - Who they are: One of the largest employment background-check companies, screening millions of job applicants a year for employers worldwide. Criminal-record and employment-history errors here cost people job offers. - Free report route: Request your free file from First Advantage via the consumer/applicant section at fadv.com. ### /companies/checkr — Checkr (Employment screening) - Complaint mentions: 2,575 - Who they are: The background-check engine behind much of the gig economy — rideshare, delivery, and marketplace platforms. If a gig platform deactivated or rejected you after a background check, Checkr very likely produced the report. - Free report route: Use the Checkr candidate portal at checkr.com to get a free copy of your report and file disputes online. ### /companies/hireright — HireRight (Employment screening) - Complaint mentions: 601 - Who they are: A major global employment screener used by large corporate employers for criminal, employment, and education verification checks. - Free report route: Request your free file through the applicant section at hireright.com. ### /companies/transunion-rental — TransUnion Rental Screening (Tenant screening) - Complaint mentions: 518 - Who they are: TransUnion's rental-screening arm — landlords, especially smaller ones, use SmartMove to pull credit-based tenant scores, eviction records, and criminal checks. - Free report route: After a denial, request your free report via TransUnion — SmartMove reports at mysmartmove.com are built from your TransUnion file, so start there. ### /companies/appfolio — AppFolio (Property software + screening) - Complaint mentions: 289 - Who they are: Property-management software used by thousands of landlords; its built-in screening product generates the reports many applicants are judged on without ever seeing the AppFolio name. - Free report route: If your denial letter names AppFolio, request your free report copy from AppFolio directly at appfolio.com. ### /companies/saferent — SafeRent Solutions (Tenant screening) - Complaint mentions: 128 - Who they are: Produces the “SafeRent Score” many large property managers use to accept or reject applicants. Formerly CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions — older denial letters may carry the CoreLogic name. MyRental, the screening site independent landlords use, is the same company: myrental.com's own footer, read on September 22, 2026, says MyRental is a trademark of SafeRent Solutions, LLC. - Free report route: Request your free consumer file at saferentsolutions.com after any denial. ### /companies/experian-rentbureau — Experian RentBureau (Tenant screening) - Complaint mentions: 75 - Who they are: Experian's rental-payment database. Property managers report rent-payment history here, and it flows into tenant-screening reports and some credit files. - Free report route: Your RentBureau data is part of your Experian consumer file — request it free at experian.com after any adverse action. ### /companies/realpage — RealPage (Property software + screening) - Complaint mentions: 20 - Who they are: Major property-management platform whose screening product (historically “LeasingDesk”) scores applicants for large apartment operators. - Free report route: Request your free screening file via the consumer section at realpage.com. ### /companies/rentgrow — RentGrow (Tenant screening) - Complaint mentions: 15 - Who they are: The screening engine inside Yardi, another of the big property-management platforms. Denial letters may say RentGrow or Yardi. - Free report route: Request your free report copy at rentgrow.com after an adverse action. ### /companies/corelogic-rental — CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions (Tenant screening) - Complaint mentions: 13 - Who they are: CoreLogic's former tenant-screening business — now part of SafeRent Solutions. If an older denial letter names CoreLogic, SafeRent is where the file lives today. The MyRental site people reach for when they search CoreLogic belongs to SafeRent now too: myrental.com's own footer, read on September 22, 2026, says MyRental is a trademark of SafeRent Solutions, LLC. - Free report route: Request your file from SafeRent Solutions at saferentsolutions.com, which took over CoreLogic's rental screening. ## Situation guides — 8 of them, each with a first move ### /eviction-on-my-record-is-not-mine — "There's an eviction on my record — and it isn't mine" - What is going on: Same name, different person — screening databases match records by name and birthdate at national scale, and people with common names collect strangers' evictions. In our scan of the federal CFPB complaint database, "that record isn't mine" is the most common pattern in complaints mentioning the biggest screening data brokers. - Strongest fact pattern: The court record names a different middle name, birthdate, address history, or state you've never lived in. - Evidence to gather: Your ID and proof of your addresses for the period in question (leases, utility bills) · The actual court record if you can pull it — the mismatched details are your proof · The screening report itself, requested free after the denial - First move: Request your free report copy from the screening company named in your denial (you have to be told who they are — ask in writing if the landlord didn't say). Then dispute in writing: identify the eviction entry, state plainly "this record belongs to a different person," attach the mismatch evidence, and ask for deletion. The company must investigate — typically within 30 days — and delete what it can't verify as yours. - Companies most often involved: LexisNexis Risk Solutions, SafeRent Solutions, TransUnion Rental Screening ### /eviction-case-dismissed-but-still-showing — "My eviction case was dismissed — but it still shows up" - What is going on: A filing is not a judgment. Screening databases often ingest the court filing and never update the outcome — so a case you won, settled, or got dismissed reads as an eviction to every landlord who pulls the report. Reporting a dismissed case as if you lost is exactly the kind of inaccuracy the dispute process exists for. - Strongest fact pattern: You have the court disposition showing dismissal, sealing, or judgment in your favor. - Evidence to gather: The court disposition document (the clerk's office can provide a certified copy) · The screening report showing how the case is being described - First move: Get the disposition from the court first — it's the whole dispute. Then send the screening company a written dispute: the entry, the actual outcome, the document attached, and a request to correct or delete. If the case was sealed or expunged, say so explicitly; sealed records generally shouldn't be reported at all. - Companies most often involved: LexisNexis Risk Solutions, SafeRent Solutions, CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions ### /paid-debt-still-on-screening-report — "I paid that debt — it's still showing as owed" - What is going on: Paid collections that still show as open, rent balances cleared years ago, judgments satisfied but never updated — stale debt is one of the most common accuracy failures in screening reports, and one of the most fixable, because the paper trail is usually in your own records. - Strongest fact pattern: You have proof of payment: receipt, bank statement, settlement letter, or a satisfaction of judgment. - Evidence to gather: Proof of payment or settlement (the date matters — get it in writing if you only have a verbal settlement) · The report entry showing the debt as open - First move: Dispute in writing with the proof attached: identify the entry, state the debt was paid on [date], request the entry be updated or deleted. If a collection agency reported it, dispute with the screening company anyway — they carry the legal duty to investigate what they publish. - Companies most often involved: LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Experian RentBureau, TransUnion Rental Screening ### /denied-apartment-no-reason-given — "I was denied and nobody told me why" - What is going on: If a report influenced the denial, silence is not allowed: federal law requires the landlord to tell you an adverse action was based on a consumer report and to identify the company that supplied it. Many denials skip this step, and that notice is how a fixable error comes to light at all. - Strongest fact pattern: You applied, were rejected (or asked for a bigger deposit or co-signer — that counts as adverse action too), and got no notice naming a screening company. - Evidence to gather: Your application and the rejection message, however informal · A written request to the landlord asking whether a consumer report was used and by which company - First move: Email the landlord or agent: "Was my application declined based in whole or in part on a consumer report? If so, please identify the reporting company, as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act." Keep it polite and keep the reply — then you can request your free report copy — the real answer is in there. - Companies most often involved: SafeRent Solutions, RealPage, RentGrow, AppFolio ### /background-check-cost-me-the-job — "A background check cost me the job" - What is going on: Employment checks carry the strongest version of your rights: before rejecting you based on a report, an employer is required to give you a copy of it and a summary of your rights, with a real chance to respond — before the decision is final. Wrong criminal records, other people's cases, and outdated entries end job offers every day. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act you are entitled to see the report that did it. - Strongest fact pattern: The offer vanished after the check, and you were never shown the report — or you were, and the record is wrong, someone else's, or misreported. - Evidence to gather: The job offer or interview record and the withdrawal message · The report copy — from the employer's pre-adverse-action notice, or requested free from the screening company · For record errors: court documents showing the true disposition, or identity documents showing a mismatch - First move: If you got a pre-adverse-action letter, respond inside the window it gives: dispute the wrong entry with the screening company immediately and tell the employer a dispute is underway — investigations move faster when a job hangs on them. If you got nothing, request your free report from the checker named or from the major employment screeners directly, and dispute what's wrong in writing. - Companies most often involved: First Advantage, Checkr, HireRight ### /bank-account-denied-chexsystems — "The bank won't open an account for me" - What is going on: Behind an account denial sits one of two databases: ChexSystems and Early Warning Services. An old fee dispute, a bounced check from years ago, a fraud flag you never knew existed — or someone else's record entirely — follows you from bank to bank until you pull the file and deal with it. - Strongest fact pattern: You've been denied at more than one bank, or the denial mentioned a screening record you don't recognize. - Evidence to gather: The denial letter (it should name the database used) · Your free consumer disclosure from ChexSystems and Early Warning — request both; you're entitled to them · For paid/settled items: proof of payment; for unknown items: identity documents - First move: Request your file from both companies — after a denial the copy is free. Read every entry. Dispute what's wrong in writing with evidence; for accurate old items, many banks offer "second chance" checking accounts while the old record expires over time, so ask specifically for one. - Companies most often involved: ChexSystems, Early Warning Services ### /criminal-record-on-report-not-mine — "The check shows a criminal record — I don't have one" - What is going on: Name-only matching plus national databases equals strangers' convictions on your report. If you share a name with someone who has a record, cheap screening can hand you their history — for a job, an apartment, or a volunteer role. This is a known, documented failure mode of bulk background checking, and the dispute process is built for it. - Strongest fact pattern: The record's identifiers don't match — different birthdate, middle name, physical description, or a county you've never set foot in. - Evidence to gather: Your identity documents · The report entry with its identifying details · If obtainable, the court record of the actual case showing the other person's identifiers - First move: Dispute with the screening company in writing: "This record belongs to a different individual" plus every identifier that doesn't match. Ask what matching criteria were used. Request deletion, not just annotation. If a job is at stake, tell the employer a mixed-file dispute is in progress and ask them to hold the decision. - Companies most often involved: First Advantage, Checkr, LexisNexis Risk Solutions ### /tenant-score-too-low-to-rent — "They said my 'score' was too low — what score?" - What is going on: Some screening companies compress your file into a single tenancy score, and large property managers auto-decline below a cutoff. You're entitled to know a report drove the decision, to see the file behind the number, and to fix anything in it that's wrong — the score itself isn't disputable, but every input to it is. - Strongest fact pattern: The file behind the score contains anything inaccurate — an eviction that isn't yours, a paid debt showing open, a wrong balance. Fix the input and the score follows. - Evidence to gather: The adverse-action notice naming the screening company · Your free report copy — request it; the score's inputs are in there - First move: Request the report behind the score from the company named in your denial. Go through it line by line against your own records. Dispute every inaccurate input in writing with evidence. If everything is accurate, the honest path is different: bigger deposit offers, a co-signer, landlord references, and applying with smaller landlords who read applications instead of scores. - Companies most often involved: SafeRent Solutions, TransUnion Rental Screening, RealPage ## Questions this site answers, with the data behind each **Which company screened me?** Your denial letter must name it — that is the starting point, and if the landlord, employer or bank gave no explanation, ask in writing. If you still do not know, /which-company asks three questions (what were you denied, by whom, what kind of check) and narrows it to the likely companies. It runs entirely in your browser and we never see the answers. The CFPB also keeps the authoritative directory of consumer reporting companies and their contact routes at consumerfinance.gov. **What are my rights after a screening report costs me housing, a job or an account?** Three, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (1) You must be told adverse action was taken because of a consumer report, and told who supplied it. (2) You are entitled to a free copy of that report from the screening company after the adverse action — federal law says request it within 60 days, and it is the actual report, not the landlord's summary. (3) You can dispute an inaccurate item, and the screening company is generally required to investigate — typically within 30 days — and correct or delete what it cannot verify. All three are free. Anyone charging you to exercise them is selling you a letter you can write yourself. **Which screening company generates the most complaints?** LexisNexis Risk Solutions — 70,462 complaint mentions in the CFPB database, ahead of Early Warning Services (38,013) and ChexSystems (4,601). Read that as a relative signal from a 28,377,895-row text scan, not an official tally, and note that mention volume tracks company size as much as company conduct. **What is a mixed file, and how common is it?** A mixed file is when a screening database attaches somebody else's record to you — screening companies match by name and date of birth at national scale, so people with common names collect strangers' evictions and criminal records. Across the tracked companies, "that record isn't mine" accounts for 31,306 complaint rows and is the largest single error pattern we can detect. It is also the most winnable: a dispute must delete what cannot be verified as belonging to you. **My eviction case was dismissed but it still shows. Is that fixable?** Yes, and it is a reporting inaccuracy rather than a matter of opinion. A court filing is not a judgment, but screening databases routinely ingest the filing and never update the outcome, so a case you won, settled or had dismissed reads as an eviction. Get the disposition from the court clerk first — that document is the whole dispute — then dispute in writing with it attached. If the record was sealed or expunged, say so explicitly; sealed records generally should not be reported at all. **Can I get a true record removed?** No, and this site will not pretend otherwise. Disputes fix errors: records that are not yours, debts you paid, cases that were dismissed. A screening company verifies accurate records and they stay. If the eviction or the debt is real, what actually helps is settling and documenting it, second-chance rental and hiring programs, and time. We built this site for honest people hit by wrong records — that boundary is stated on every page. **Does this site sell anything?** No. There is no paid product, no subscription, no dispute service and no priced API, and no payment is taken anywhere on the site. We do not collect your name, your Social Security number, or a payment method, and there are no accounts or uploads. The one demand test this site ever ran, an assembly packet on /keep-the-job, was closed on 9 September 2026 after eight views, one click and no sign-ups; the box and the price are gone. Every page here ends with the same optional box asking what you came to find out, and it is the only thing an ordinary page collects: if you type in it, we store what you type, the page you were on, and the time you sent it. That is the whole record. We do not ask for and do not store your name, your email address, your IP address, or your postal address. Answers are kept for four months and then deleted automatically. **I was deactivated by a gig platform over a background check. What do I do today?** Send two letters the same day, not one. (1) Dispute the report in writing with the screening company that produced it — Checkr for the big rideshare and delivery platforms — classifying each error as *inaccurate* or, where a case was filed but its outcome is missing, as *incomplete*, with evidence attached. This is the only step that starts a binding clock: 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1)(A) gives the agency 30 days from receipt, extended by up to 15 further days — 45 days in total — under §1681i(a)(1)(B) if you send relevant information during the window. (2) Write to the platform itself asking it to **hold the final decision** until the reinvestigation concludes, quoting the dispute reference and attaching the same evidence. Guides cover the first letter. The second is the one they leave out, and it is the only one addressed to the party actually deciding whether you work next week. A third letter, to whoever supplied the bad data — court clerk, former employer's HR — stops the agency re-verifying with the same wrong source. Full letters, an evidence table by error type, and the deadline table: /keep-the-job. **Is there a legal 5-to-7-day window to respond to a pre-adverse action notice?** No, and this is the most commonly repeated error in this subject. 15 U.S.C. §1681b(b)(3) requires an employer to give you a copy of the report and a written summary of your rights *before* taking adverse action, and specifies no waiting period at all. The familiar five-business-day figure originates in an FTC staff advisory opinion to Weisberg dated June 27, 1997, which described five days as reasonable while noting that the facts of a particular situation may require a different time. It is guidance to employers, not an enforceable entitlement, and state or local law may require more. The only deadlines in this area that are statutory are the reinvestigation clocks in §1681i and the free-report entitlement after an adverse action. **Do I have to dispute with the screening company before complaining to the CFPB?** Since June 24, 2026, effectively yes. The CFPB announced an overhaul of its consumer complaint system stating that consumers must first exhaust their dispute rights directly with consumer reporting agencies before coming to the Bureau, added administrative routes for returning complaints that skipped that step, and introduced relationship categories requiring third parties — including automated tools acting as a consumer's agent — to disclose their involvement. Practical consequence: the direct dispute is step one and the CFPB complaint is a later escalation, not an opening move. Source: consumerfinance.gov newsroom, June 24, 2026. **What is NOT in this data?** Official CFPB per-company complaint counts (we scan narrative text, which understates), complaints without narratives, outcome data on disputes, and anything about an individual. We publish aggregates only. ## The statutory clocks, and the documents that say so Every day-count on this site comes from the Fair Credit Reporting Act itself, not from a summary. The CFPB's own consumer pages answer HTTP 403 to non-browser clients, so the citations below are to govinfo (the US Code text) and consumer.ftc.gov, both of which any agent can fetch and check. - 60 days from the adverse-action notice to request the report free — 15 U.S.C. §1681j(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title15/html/USCODE-2023-title15-chap41-subchapIII-sec1681j.htm - 30 days for the reinvestigation, extended by up to 15 further days — 45 days in total — 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title15/html/USCODE-2023-title15-chap41-subchapIII-sec1681i.htm - One free file disclosure every 12 months — 15 U.S.C. §1681j(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title15/html/USCODE-2023-title15-chap41-subchapIII-sec1681j.htm - The adverse-action notice you were sent is required to indicate that 60-day period — 15 U.S.C. §1681m(a)(4): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title15/html/USCODE-2023-title15-chap41-subchapIII-sec1681m.htm - Plain English: https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/free-credit-reports and https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/disputing-errors-your-credit-reports - 45 days is not a literal in §1681i: it is the 30-day period plus the 15-day extension, and every page that prints it shows that sum. ## URL index Pages (all free, all indexable): - / — the three FCRA rights after an adverse action, in plain English - /companies — all 17 screening companies ranked by complaint mentions - /companies/{slug} — per-company page: what it does, its error-pattern breakdown, the free-report route. 17 of these. Example: /companies/lexisnexis-risk - /situations — the 8 situation guides - /{slug} — one situation with evidence list and first move, at the site root. Example: /eviction-on-my-record-is-not-mine - /which-company — free identifier, three questions, runs entirely in the browser, nothing transmitted - /keep-the-job — gig deactivation and employment screening: the three-letter sequence (CRA dispute under §1681i, hold request to the platform, correction at the furnisher), an evidence table by error type, a proof-of-service log, and the deadline table separating statutory clocks from FTC guidance. Nothing on it is for sale and it asks for no email address - /about, /privacy, /terms — operator identity and publishing principles - /sitemap.xml, /robots.txt Free JSON API (CORS open, no key, no rate limit, attribution requested): - /api/companies — every company with category, complaint mentions, full error-pattern breakdown and page URL, wrapped in an attribution block naming the source and the methodology string - /api/answer?company={slug}&situation={slug}&state={XX} — one composed answer: that company's verified dispute route with the date each field was read from the company's own site, the FCRA clock, what the federal complaint record shows happened to people who complained about it, and which party — the screening company or the platform — can actually fix a given error. All parameters optional and combinable; a bare call answers with the national picture. Never a 404: an unresolved parameter returns an "unresolved" block naming the free index instead - /api/bulk — the same corpus in one response, free, no key, no payment. Was priced and dormant until 9 September 2026; see below - /.well-known/agent-door.json, /for-agents.json, /openapi.json, /changes.json, /changes.atom, /api/companies — all free, all under the return contract (ETag, Last-Modified, 304) ## Pricing, honestly - **Everything on this site is free, including the machine surface. There is no paid door of any kind.** - **There is no paid consumer product.** Selling dispute help to people already being charged for their own federal rights is the thing this site exists to argue against. One demand test was ever run — an assembly packet on /keep-the-job — and it is **closed as of 9 September 2026** after eight lifetime views, one click and zero sign-ups. The box, the price and the email collection are gone; the method it would have assembled was always published free on that page and still is. - **/api/bulk was priced at $5 per pull and never took a payment.** It returned HTTP 402 with a dormant x402 body for 26 days because no payment rail was ever wired behind it, and this file told every machine so. A door that advertises a price it cannot accept is a shut door with a price list on it, so on 9 September 2026 the price was removed rather than the rail added: /api/bulk now returns HTTP 200 with the free payload. If you want the whole corpus in a shape we do not publish, write to hello@getaxionlabs.com and a person answers. - **/api/changes has been deleted, and the reason is in the data, not in the traffic.** It diffed narrative-derived counts since a date. The CFPB ceased discretionary publication of complaint narratives on August 14, 2026, so those counts are a closed series and the diff is permanently empty. An endpoint whose pitch is "the database updates continuously" is false about the thing it diffs. /changes.json and /changes.atom — what moved on this site, free — are unaffected. - Nothing that was ever free has been moved behind a price, and nothing will be. ## Citation and license Computed figures are free to use with attribution and a link to https://screeningfacts.com. Underlying data: the federal CFPB Consumer Complaint Database (public). Preferred citation: "Screening Facts (screeningfacts.com), computed from a full-text scan of the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database bulk file, 2026-09-06." Corrections: hello@getaxionlabs.com — we fix errors the same day. ## Standing caveat General information based on the US Fair Credit Reporting Act as explained in FTC and CFPB consumer guidance, checked August 2026. Not legal advice. Your denial letter and the agencies' official pages govern your case. Free help: your state attorney general, and complaints at consumerfinance.gov. Operator: Axion Labs — hello@getaxionlabs.com. Sister sites: denialfacts.com, nycticketfacts.com, appealsdesk.co.uk.