Yes, Intelius was sued multiple times for using personal information in marketing without consent. Two major class action settlements prove this happened: a $10.5 million post-transaction marketing settlement in 2013 where Intelius deceptively enrolled consumers in paid memberships, and a pending right-of-publicity settlement where the company used people’s names, ages, addresses, photos, and relatives’ information in advertisements. A specific example from the right-of-publicity case shows how when someone searched for a person on InstantCheckmate.com or Intelius.com, their own name and photo could appear in ads promoting the service to others—without that person’s permission. These settlements represent two distinct ways the company misused consumer data. The post-transaction marketing case, Keithly et al.
v. Intelius Inc., covered charges from July 2007 through August 2013. The right-of-publicity case, Fischer et al. v. Instant Checkmate, involves conduct across seven states and is awaiting final court approval. Together, they document a pattern of using personal information—sometimes invisible to the people whose data was being exploited—to drive subscription sales.
Table of Contents
- What Was the Post-Transaction Marketing Scheme?
- How Did Intelius Use Names and Photos in Advertising?
- What Made These Practices Illegal?
- What Are the Settlement Amounts and How Do You Claim?
- Who Is Eligible to Claim, and What Are the Limitations?
- Timeline and Current Status of Both Settlements
- The Dismissed Keyword Advertising Case
What Was the Post-Transaction Marketing Scheme?
The 2013 settlement addressed how Intelius used deceptive post-transaction marketing to enroll consumers in paid membership programs without clear consent. After a consumer completed a transaction on a website—often an online shopping purchase or service signup—they would be redirected to pages promoting Intelius memberships like Family Safety Report, privacy Matters, and 24 Protect. The company would collect payment information without properly disclosing terms or obtaining affirmative consent. Class members reported being charged recurring monthly fees after what they thought was a one-time transaction or a free trial.
Some consumers did not discover the charges until they reviewed credit card statements weeks later. This practice was called “negative option billing” in regulatory terms—a practice where companies continue to charge customers unless they actively cancel. Intelius’s bundling of these enrollments with other transactions and burying the cancellation process made it difficult for consumers to stop the charges once they realized what had happened. The settlement required Intelius to cease these deceptive practices and compensate affected consumers.
How Did Intelius Use Names and Photos in Advertising?
The right-of-publicity settlement, pending final approval as of November 2024, documents a different misuse: Intelius and affiliated companies (Instant Checkmate, Truthfinder, USSearch) used consumers’ names, ages, addresses, relatives’ information, and photographs in targeted advertising without consent. When someone was searched in one of these people-search databases, that person’s information could be scraped and used in ads to promote subscriptions to other potential customers. For example, if your name appeared in a search result on Intelius.com, your photo and basic details might then appear in an ad saying “See what we found about John Smith” to entice strangers to buy a subscription to learn more about you.
This use of identity and likeness without permission violates what is called the “right of publicity”—a legal protection giving individuals control over how their name, image, and identity are used commercially. The affected consumers never consented to having their information used as marketing bait. The case covers individuals searched on InstantCheckmate.com, Intelius.com, Truthfinder.com, or USSearch.com, and the scope varies by state: Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, and South Dakota are specifically named.
What Made These Practices Illegal?
Both practices violated consumer protection laws. The post-transaction marketing scheme violated the Truth in Lending Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by failing to obtain clear, affirmative consent before charging consumers for memberships and burying cancellation instructions. Consumers had a statutory right to know what they were agreeing to pay for, how much they would be charged, and how to cancel.
Intelius’s design—burying terms in fine print, using misleading button labels, or using automatic enrollment after a click that appeared to be for something else—crossed the line from aggressive marketing into unlawful deception. The right-of-publicity violations were rooted in different law: using someone’s name, likeness, and personal information to promote a commercial product without their consent is illegal in California and many other states. Unlike the post-transaction marketing case, which centered on undisclosed billing, the right-of-publicity case argues that even if consumers knew Intelius had their information, they never agreed to having it used as the “face” of marketing advertisements. The limitation here is that right-of-publicity law varies significantly by state, which is why the settlement explicitly limits recovery to residents of the seven named states.
What Are the Settlement Amounts and How Do You Claim?
The post-transaction marketing settlement awarded a total of $10.5 million, split into $9.5 million in cash payments and $1 million in vouchers for future services. Class members could claim up to $225 per person without needing to provide proof of individual purchases—the court accepted that if you were part of the eligible time period and in the class, you likely experienced some unauthorized charges. To claim, eligible consumers had to file a claim form by the deadline specified in the settlement (the settlement was finalized on November 21, 2013). Many consumers filed claims years later, sometimes missing deadlines, which is why it’s important to act quickly on new settlements. The right-of-publicity settlement offers a different payout structure because it accounts for state-specific laws and damages.
The settlement provides compensation ranging from $82 to $1,058 depending on where you lived and how your information was used. Illinois residents, the state with the strongest right-of-publicity statute in this case, could receive $635 to $1,058. Alabama residents could receive $577 to $960. The variation reflects how each state’s laws value the misuse of identity and likeness. The key takeaway is that claiming requires meeting both the class definition (you must have been searched in the people-search databases during the relevant period) and the residency requirement (you must have lived in one of the seven affected states).
Who Is Eligible to Claim, and What Are the Limitations?
For the post-transaction marketing settlement, eligibility required proof that you were charged by Intelius for one of the deceptive memberships (Family Safety Report, Privacy Matters, 24 Protect, or others listed in the settlement) between July 2007 and August 2013, and that you did not affirmatively consent to the charge. The settlement was class-wide, meaning everyone in that time frame was presumed eligible unless Intelius had clear records showing they did consent. The limitation: if you filed a claim, you had to waive the right to sue Intelius individually for the same conduct. For the right-of-publicity settlement, eligibility is broader but geographically restricted.
Anyone who was searched on InstantCheckmate.com, Intelius.com, Truthfinder.com, or USSearch.com during the relevant class period and lived in Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, or South Dakota can potentially claim. You do not need to prove you suffered specific damages—merely that your information was included in the databases and used for marketing. However, there is a key limitation: you must have been a resident of one of those seven states during the time your information was allegedly misused. If you lived in a different state, you may not be eligible even if your information was in the database.
Timeline and Current Status of Both Settlements
The post-transaction marketing settlement was finalized on November 21, 2013, making it more than a decade old. Most claim deadlines for that settlement have long passed, and remaining unclaimed funds may be subject to cy pres (donated to consumer advocacy organizations) or returned to Intelius. If you believe you qualify but missed the deadline, contacting the settlement administrator might still yield results, though success depends on the specific claim window. The right-of-publicity settlement is much newer and was pending final court approval as of November 2024.
The final approval hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2024, before Judge Charles P. Kocoras in the Northern District of Illinois. This settlement is active, and eligible consumers should file claims during the open claim period. The payout structure and eligibility rules differ from the older settlement, so read the official settlement materials carefully before submitting.
The Dismissed Keyword Advertising Case
A third Intelius-related case, Dobrowolski v. Intelius, alleged that Intelius displayed targeted keyword advertisements where the person’s name was automatically inserted into ad copy shown in search results. For example, if someone searched “John Smith,” they might see an ad saying “See what we found about John Smith” without that John Smith’s permission.
The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in 2017. However, the court dismissed it without prejudice, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. This dismissal means the claims were not decided on the merits—the case simply couldn’t proceed in that court. The doctrine of this case illustrates an attempted exploitation of consumer information that never reached settlement because of procedural barriers rather than a final determination that the conduct was lawful.