The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA) has filed a class action suit against Oklahoma-based USIS Commercial Services Inc., better known in the trucking industry as DAC Services.

OOIDA filed the suit along with five of its owner-operator members in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
"For years, OOIDA has received numerous complaints from professional truckers of abuse and intimidation under the DAC system," said OOIDA President Jim Johnston, "especially with regard to the inaccuracy of reports, the ambiguity of the terminology used in the reports and the negative consequences of that coded language."
The suit alleges that USIS Commercial Services, a unit of U.S. Investigative Services, is a consumer reporting agency governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that it has failed to follow procedures required by that Act.
Among other things, OOIDA charges that USIS has failed to assure the maximum possible accuracy of data in its reports, has acquired consumer reports for employment purposes without notifying drivers or obtaining their permission, and has failed to adopt reasonable procedures to eliminate and correct errors.
"The information-gathering system established by USIS makes no provision for drivers to review or comment on carrier-submitted Termination Record forms or submit rebuttals to such reports before such forms are placed in the USIS database," OOIDA said. "Typically, drivers learn of the need to take such action only after experiencing adverse action based on a USIS report."
OOIDA and its member plaintiffs are challenging the use of certain phrases in USIS reports and asking the courts to declare those phrases inaccurate and therefore a violation of the FCRA. For example, they said the phrase "company policy violation" is inherently ambiguous since policies vary widely from company to company. Moreover, some may deal with important matters while others deal with trivial matters.
"But it does have a derogatory connotation," OOIDA said. "The use of the phrase is equivalent to saying, ‘He did something wrong.’ Because neither a prospective employer nor a driver can know what its author was trying to communicate, the phrase is meaningless, will be used inconsistently, and is therefore inaccurate."
Other phrases challenged in the suit include "unsatisfactory safety record," "excessive complaints," "cargo loss," "equipment loss," "quit/dismissed during training/orientation/probation," and "not eligible for rehire."
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the FCRA and asks that profits generated through obtaining reports and reporting inaccurate statements be restored to the class.