Courts Implementing PII Redaction

What Is PII and Why Are Courts Removing It?

PII stands for Personally Identifiable Information — specifically details like date of birth, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers that appear in court records. Historically, these identifiers were accessible in public court filings and were essential to background screening: they allowed researchers to confirm with certainty that a criminal record belonged to the right person.

That's changing. Courts across the country have begun redacting PII from publicly viewable records in the name of consumer privacy protection. The intent is reasonable — reducing identity theft risk and protecting sensitive data in public documents. The unintended consequence is that it makes accurate background screening significantly harder.

California: A Ruling That Set the Tone

California has been at the forefront of this shift. The state's Court of Appeal issued a ruling that could severely restrict employment background checks by limiting how consumer reporting agencies access and use court record information. The decision has raised significant concern in the screening industry about the long-term ability to produce accurate, compliant reports for California applicants.

Underpinning this is California Rule of Court 1.201, which requires courts to redact personal identifiers — including dates of birth and driver's license numbers — from documents filed in court proceedings. Without these identifiers, matching a court record to a specific individual becomes a much more labor-intensive process requiring direct researcher access to court personnel.

Michigan: Accuracy on the Line

Michigan followed a similar path. After the state's courts began redacting date of birth information from public records, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce warned that background check accuracy was at serious risk unless legislative action was taken. Date of birth is one of the primary identifiers used to match a criminal record to an individual — without it, the risk of both false positives (assigning a record to the wrong person) and false negatives (missing a record entirely) increases substantially.

Michigan's solution involved a PBSA-verified researcher program, requiring only credentialed screening companies with approved access to retrieve records with full identifiers. Research Services holds this access, which means our Michigan searches continue to return accurate, complete results — but the process takes longer and requires more direct coordination with court staff.

Which States Are Moving in This Direction

California and Michigan are the most active, but they are not alone. Courts in several other states have begun exploring or implementing similar redaction policies. The trend is driven by a combination of state-level privacy legislation and individual court administrative decisions. Employers with applicants in multiple states should be aware that the screening landscape is shifting — and that turnaround times in affected jurisdictions will continue to extend as more courts adopt these rules.

What Does This Mean for Our Clients?

Delays can be expected in states where redaction has begun. Federal law requires at least two identifiers to apply a record to an applicant. We require all of our clients to have a signed consent form from their applicants, and this consent becomes particularly valuable in matching records when PII has been redacted from the public file. Having applicants provide additional identifiers — such as middle names and middle initials — is strongly encouraged.

We also advocate including a social security trace on all reports, as this may surface additional identifiers — prior addresses, alias names — not previously listed on the release form, which can be critical when court records have been partially redacted.

How Research Services Is Handling These New Rules

We are committed to staying FCRA compliant regardless of how individual states manage their court records. We continue to have researchers work directly with court personnel to verify with certainty that a record pertains to a specific applicant. We will not apply a record to an individual without more than one corroborating identifier — full stop.

For clients submitting searches in California, Michigan, or other states with active redaction policies, please factor in additional processing time. The extra research effort required is not optional — it's what separates a compliant, accurate report from one that could expose your organization to liability. We will remain current on any additional states that begin implementing similar policies and will communicate changes as they occur.