Welcome to our FAQ roundup from this year’s Screener’s Palooza! We’ve gathered all the questions you asked during our sessions on continuous monitoring, AI-driven automation, global hiring, and revenue diversification, and compiled the feedback from experts right here.
While California is a primary focus for disclosure requirements, other hotbeds for litigation include Florida, Virginia, and New York. This trend is largely driven by where plaintiffs' counsel are concentrated rather than specific jurisdictional disclosure nuances.
Yes. Your disclosures must be clear and conspicuous, and the written authorization must explicitly state exactly what is happening. Because continuous monitoring operates differently than a traditional background check—functioning as an always-on, automated system that sends a "ping" or alert when a relevant record (like an arrest or pending charge) surfaces—employers must clearly specify that this monitoring will occur throughout the individual's employment, rather than just in connection with an initial job application.
Real-time verification at the source of record is crucial to help ensure maximum possible accuracy. Screeners must also clearly communicate with clients about what "continuous" actually means for their service, including specifically how often data is refreshed.
The primary risk lies in the discrepancy between what the screener is selling and what the employer assumes they are buying. Negligent hiring claims often arise when employers falsely assume they are getting all possible records. Screeners must clearly define their services and standard operating procedures to help avoid these misunderstandings.
Because consumer reporting laws are designed to protect the individual, the applicable law is generally wherever the person can sue you. Screeners should clearly outline their standard operating procedures in their end-user services agreement to set forth which state laws they will apply and when.
Rechecks are valuable, but they only provide a retroactive snapshot at a specific point in time, which makes it harder to prevent risk. Continuous monitoring offers near real-time alerts, which allows employers to more proactively intervene often before a risk might escalate, particularly for employees interacting with consumers in private spaces.
Yes, because the consent required for ongoing monitoring differs from the consent used for a pre-employment background check. Employers are actively working with their legal teams to implement new consent protocols that align with their continuous integrity initiatives.
Human errors typically do not follow a set pattern, whereas AI errors often do. To help reduce AI defects, screeners must provide highly detailed prompts, strict guardrails, and standard operating procedures for the AI to follow.
Humans remain "in the middle" to review quality and use logic to help identify anomalies, such as a felony conviction that only lists fines.
When dates of birth are removed from public access terminals, AI can automatically pivot to alternative sites to help cross reference PII and help initially reduce manual searches. AI can also search documents for alternative identifiers like addresses, driver's licenses, or Social Security numbers.
Screeners can implement specific quality thresholds within the automation. If a document's visual quality does not meet the required threshold, the system immediately routes the file to a human for manual review.
AI reduces the manual data entry required to fetch identifiers across multiple sites, which could help reduce three to five minutes of work per order. This could help human agents to process the same volume of research without screeners having to absorb the costs of additional hiring.¹
As privacy concerns grow and public opinion shifts against having personal information readily available online, government redactions are expected to continuously increase. Screeners must remain agile to locate identifiers as more jurisdictions implement these changes.
Human intervention is most effective periodically throughout the process and especially at the final quality review stage. However, checking the work too early in the process can sometimes result in redundant, multiple checks of the same information.
The best approach is to ask questions during account reviews to find out what is causing that hyper-focus on price. By finding connections higher up in the organization (like a CFO or CEO), you can sometimes uncover the specific "pain chain" causing the financial squeeze. If you cannot demonstrate value or they refuse to listen to risk-mitigation benefits, you may simply have to let that customer go—often, they realize the grass isn't greener and will come back.
In addition to running an identity validation trace, screeners can return to the "old school" method of conducting manual employment verifications. Comparing what a past employer says directly against the applicant's claims is sometimes crucial for catching fabricated experience. Currently, only 25% of background checks ordered have an employment verification attached to them, making this a prime area for immediate security improvement.
Missed a session or want to revisit something we covered? All of the presentations from the 2026 Screener's Palooza are now available to view on-demand! Whether you want to review specific compliance tips or share these expert insights with your team, you can access the full library anytime.
Continuous Monitoring: Risk Mitigation Strategies
Navigating the 2026 Trust Economy in Global Hiring
How AI-Driven Automation Can Help You Navigate PII Redactions
AI and Revenue Diversification in a Cooling Hiring Market
¹Equifax Court Research Services
Equifax Workforce Solutions provides services that can help employers reduce their compliance risks. Details on our provision of these services and related support will be contained in your services agreement.
The material discussed herein should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The content is intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult a lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you may have.
Copyright © 2026, Equifax Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. All rights reserved. Equifax is a registered trademark of Equifax Inc.