Get back to me about this issue. I’ve conducted some legal research and there appears to be a viable legal claim here for DAC abuse. For example, the following lawsuit mentioned DAC abuse based on “defamation”. The defendant relied on a “qualified privilege” to make statements to DAC against the employee,which protects them against any false statements. However,if the statements to DAC were made with the knowledge that they were false, the element of malice would defeat the privilege and the defendant would be held liable for the false reporting to DAC.

.
.
Read it for yourself.
.
.

THE FOLLOWING LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN 2009 BY A TRUCK DRIVER ACTING PRO SE (without an attorney). HE DEFEATED THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS HIS LAWSUIT. IT INVOLVED “DAC” ABUSE.
.
.

” Plaintiff is a pro se litigant pursuing a claim related to losing his job as a truck driver. …Plaintiff has accused Raven of making defamatory statements about him to the EEOC and the DOL as well as to a potential employer, D. Krutiak Trucking (“Krutiak”). Raven has also been accused of releasing defamatory statements in a DAC Report, an employment-history database for motor carriers. Raven has moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statements that they made were privileged and not subject to liability. Plaintiff claims that these statements were knowingly false and have made it difficult for him to secure other employment….. (a) An employer or any person employed by the employer who discloses information about a current or former employee’s job performance to a prospective employer is presumed to be acting in good faith; and unless lack of good faith is shown, is immune from civil liability for such disclosure or its consequences. For purposes of this section, the presumption of good faith may be rebutted upon a showing that the information disclosed by such employer was knowingly false, was deliberately misleading or was rendered with malicious purpose; or that the information was disclosed in violation of a nondisclosure agreement, or was otherwise confidential according to applicable federal, State or local statute, rule or regulation…….This privilege carries a rebuttable presumption of good faith. Qualified privilege will not attach to the DAC Report or Raven’s communications with Krutiak if they were knowingly false, deliberately, misleading, or rendered with malicious purpose……..Plaintiff has alleged that Raven’s statements were knowingly false and rendered with malice. Since this Court must assume that these allegations are true for the purposes of this motion…Plaintiff’s defamation claim for the DAC Report and for communications with Krutiak cannot be dismissed now… Considering the foregoing, Raven’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED”
.

Eaton v. Miller Brewing Co.
Not Reported in A.2d, 2009 WL 1277991
Del.Super.,2009.
.
.

The above case teaches that to hold the trucking company liable, the allegation MUST not only allege that the trucking company made a false report to DAC; but that there MUST be sufficient evidence showing that the trucking company knew their report to DAC was false when it was made to DAC.
.
.

Again, I believe that there is a viable and strong class action claim here for DAC abuse. Which includes punitive damages for the harm the trucking companies caused drivers. After reading a number of complaints, it appears the trucking companies are using the DAC report as their own personal “black list” to retaliate against drivers and that the administrator of DAC may be assisting them. For example, drivers who completely lose their income due to false DAC reporting. Please get in touch with me so I can take this to the next level with the law firms I work with.
.
.

http://www.Badisse.com
.
.

Let me know if you want me to look into it. I’m a scout for a number of class action law firms.

http;//www.Badisse.com

I’ve no doubt that false information exists on many reports but the reporting agencies, like credit reporting agencies, are covered by the FCRA and FACTA. There are remedies.