Mark Steven Fellows of West Columbia, South Carolina, earned between $1,000 and $1,500 per week driving for Uber from March through November 2025, when SambaSafety's motor vehicle report erroneously showed both his commercial and personal driver's licenses as "invalid." In reality, Fellows held a valid personal driver's license required for Uber driving, while only his separate commercial driver's license (CDL) had restrictions—a distinction irrelevant to his Uber eligibility since the platform requires only a standard personal license.
The lawsuit alleges SambaSafety violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy in consumer reports. "Defendant's inaccurate reporting could have easily been avoided had Defendant performed a cursory review of the widely available DMV records from South Carolina prior to publishing Plaintiff's report to his employer, Uber," the complaint states. Fellows claims the company "does not employ reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports regarding consumers."
According to the filing, SambaSafety's November 2025 report listed both Fellows' commercial and personal licenses with "Status: INVALID," when South Carolina DMV records showed his personal license had "NO SUSPENSION" status, meaning it was "valid and active." The complaint alleges SambaSafety "does not have reasonable procedures in place to understand how to read and interpret South Carolina driver records" and that the company "places its business interests above the rights of consumers and reports such inaccurate information because it is cheaper for Defendant to produce reports containing information that is inaccurate and incomplete."
After Uber suspended Fellows' account in December 2025, he disputed the report with SambaSafety multiple times. The company initially acknowledged in January 2026 that "your personal license status should be reported as valid" and said it was "working closely with the appropriate parties to accurately reflect the personal license status." However, SambaSafety then issued a second inaccurate report to Uber on January 2, 2026, again showing Fellows' license as invalid, prompting additional disputes from Fellows.
SambaSafety refused to directly provide a corrected report to Uber, instead requiring Fellows to request that Uber order an entirely new background check. The complaint alleges this violated FCRA requirements that consumer reporting agencies provide corrected reports to both the consumer and any entity that received the inaccurate information. Fellows argues the company's approach caused unnecessary delays and "refused to send a corrected report to Plaintiff in violation of the FCRA."
The case illustrates broader issues in the background check industry, which the complaint says generates over $3 billion annually with 95% of employers conducting background screening. Fellows alleges companies like SambaSafety "collect, among other things, countless motor vehicle records from a number of sources" but create reports "with little to no manual, in-person review" to maximize automation and minimize costs, leading to widespread inaccuracies that harm consumers seeking employment.
Fellows wasn't able to return to Uber until February 2026, by which time he had secured employment with a local trucking company and now plans to use Uber only for weekend income. He seeks actual damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and damage to his reputation, plus statutory and punitive damages under the FCRA. The case highlights the significant economic impact background check errors can have on gig economy workers who depend on platform approval for their livelihoods.