Consent comes before the review
For employment decisions, a clear standalone written disclosure and the candidate's written authorization should come before a profile is requested. Burying it in an application packet does not satisfy a responsible standard, and it invites disputes.
Tenant screening, insurance underwriting, and financing decisions each carry their own authorized-purpose expectations. The common thread: you must be able to state, on the record, why you were entitled to the information.
What a real screening process pulls from
A defensible review is built from primary sources rather than aggregated scrapes of unknown vintage.
- Federal and state court records, including civil and criminal dockets.
- Bankruptcy, lien, and judgment filings.
- Regulatory and licensing databases relevant to the role.
- Federal exclusion and sanctions lists.
- Verified identity information tying the records to the right person.
- Authenticated firsthand reports that survived human review.
Notice is a process, not a rejection email
If a profile contributes to a negative decision, best practice is a pre-decision notice with a copy of the report and a summary of rights, a reasonable waiting period for the person to respond, and then a final notice.
Skipping the middle step is the single most common failure in screening programs. The waiting period exists so a person can correct a mistake before it costs them the job or the apartment.
Human review is the difference
Automated matching produces false positives, and false positives on a court record are catastrophic for the person on the other end. Every finding on a Hub or Dub profile is reviewed by a human investigator against the source document, and anything that cannot be tied to the correct verified identity is rejected.
Access to another party's profile is limited to verified business accounts with a documented and consented purpose recorded at the time of the request.