Instant Checkmate Hit With ‘Bait and Switch’ Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Instant Checkmate, Inc. was hit with a deceptive marketing class action lawsuit alleging the background checks it sells only provide some of the information that it advertises, forcing customers to pay additional fees for more information.

The Instant Checkmate class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Milo Illich on Dec. 31, 2014 in a California federal court.

The background checks at issue are sold through the website www.instantcheckmate.com, which claims that that it sells background checks to consumers who want to learn more about their “family and friends.”

According to ads on the website, the company says that the reports include “REAL police records (driving citations, speeding tickets, felonies, misdemeanors, sexual offenses, mugshots, etc), background reports, marriage/divorce history, address information, phone numbers, a history of lawsuits and much more.”

Instant Checkmate describes the amount of information it is able to provide as so much that it “can be shocking.”

However, when customers enter a person’s name and tries to access a report, which takes about five minutes, they are then told that the search results are only provided for a monthly fee, at $9.86 per month at a minimum for six months of “unlimited reports,” which is not explained before making the search. Customers can also opt to pay $14.86 for three months of reports or $22.86 for one month of reports.

During the downloading process, Instant Checkmate says at one point that “we don’t believe in hidden fees” but that “we do believe in unlimited reports.”

But according to the class action lawsuit, that monthly fee does not provide full access to all of the information.

“When consumers pay the monthly fee, however, they are provided with only some of the information Defendant represented would be included in the background reports,” the Instant Checkmate class action lawsuit explains.

“Worse, Defendant informs consumers that the remainder of the advertised information is only available to consumers that pay an additional $19.99 per report,” Illich alleges.

“[Instant Checkmate] does not disclose in any manner prior to the submission of payment information for the monthly access fee that any information will be withheld until another payment is made,” the class action lawsuit states.

“It is, in essence, a classic ‘bait and switch’ marketing practice,” it adds.

Illich claims that Instant Checkmate has deceived thousands of individuals into paying more than the $22.86 monthly fee “to access reports that do not contain what was promised.”

In August 2014, Illich claims that he decided to use Instant Checkmate to conduct a background check on someone, paying the $22.86 monthly fee, only to find out if he wanted all the information he would have to pay an additional $19.99.

He says that if he had known that the monthly fee was not going to give him all the information advertised he would not have attempted to purchase the report.

Illich is seeking to represent a nationwide class of “all persons in the United States who paid an access fee for a background report on InstantCheckmate.com.”

The class action lawsuit is charging Instant Checkmate with violating California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising Law, fraud in the inducement, fraud by omission, and breach of contract.

The plaintiff is represented by Samuel M. Lasser, Rafey S. Balabanian, Benjamin H. Richman, Courtney Booth of Edelson PC and by Douglas J. Campion of the Law Offices of Douglass J. Campion APC.

There is no attorney information available for Instant Checkmate at this time.

The Instant Checkmate Deceptive Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Milo Illich v. Instant Checkmate, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-03026-DMS-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.