Note 21 - Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	21. Commitments and Contingencies: We are a party to legal proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. With respect to ongoing matters, we are unable, at the present time, to determine the ultimate resolution of or provide a reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss attributable to ongoing matters or the impact these matters may have on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Although we believe we have strong defenses and intend to appeal any adverse rulings to us, we could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Xactware Solutions, Inc. Patent Litigation On October 8, 2015, we were served with a summons and complaint in an action titled Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Group, Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court" or “District Court”). The complaint alleged that our Roof InSight (now known as Geomni Roof), Property InSight product (now known as Geomni Property) and Aerial Sketch product in combination with our Xactimate product infringe seven patents owned by Eagle View and Pictometry namely, Patent Nos. 8,078,436 (the "436 patent"), 8,170,840 (the "840 patent"), 8,209,152 (the "152 patent"), 8,542,880 (the "880 patent"), 8,818,770 (the "770 patent"), 8,823,732 (the "732 patent"), and 8,825,454 (the "454 patent"). On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Patent Nos. 9,129,376 (the "376 patent") and 9,135,737 (the "737 patent") to the lawsuit. The First Amended Complaint sought an entry of judgment by the Court that defendants have and continue to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe, including by way of inducement, the Patents-in-Suit, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees. On May 19, 2017, the District Court entered a Joint Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing all claims or assertions pertaining to the 880 and 732 patents, and certain asserted claims of the 436, 840, 152, 770, 454, 376 and 737 patents (collectively the "Patents in Suit"). Subsequently, Eagle View dropped the 152 patent and the 737 patent and reduced the number of asserted claims from the five remaining Patents in Suit to six asserted claims. On September 25, 2019, following a trial, the jury determined that we had willfully infringed the six asserted claims, and assessed damages in the amount of $125.0 million. After trial, Eagle View moved for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a permanent injunction preventing our sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. The Court granted the motion for a TRO on September 26, 2019 and on October 18, 2019, issued an Order permanently enjoining our sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. On March 2, 2020, the Court signed an Order staying execution of the $125.0 million judgment pending our appeal, and we subsequently secured a supersedeas bond in the amount of $137.5 million to satisfy the New Jersey court rule requiring a bond in the amount of 110% of the monetary judgment. In addition, Eagle View asked the Court to award enhanced damages by trebling the jury's damages award, together with attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. We opposed all of Eagle View's requests and asked the Court for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Eagle View opposed our requests. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied our motion seeking judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. We timely filed our Amended Notice of Appeal on October 8, 2020. Eagle View filed a motion to dismiss or deactivate the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on November 4, 2020 which was denied by the Federal Circuit on December 15, 2020. We filed our appellate brief on December 24, 2020. On February 16, 2021, the Court granted Eagle View's motion for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. The Court trebled the jury's award of $125.0 million, awarding enhanced damages for a total of $375.0 million, and also awarded Eagle View pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Court's award of Eagle View's attorneys' fees was limited to the period just before the commencement of trial through the trial, and did not include the earlier approximately four-year period in the case. On March 17, 2021, we filed an unopposed application with the Federal Circuit seeking consolidation of our appeals addressing the trial Court’s findings on infringement, the denial of our motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, and the Court’s Order on enhanced damages. As of June 29, 2021, the appeal was fully briefed. Following the outcome of the trial in 2019, we established a $125.0 million reserve in connection with this litigation, which was included in selling, general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2019. On April 15, 2021, the Court signed an order continuing the stay of execution of the monetary judgment. In light of the Court’s Order enhancing damages, we posted an additional bond in the amount of $305.0 million. On July 2, 2021, Eagle View sent us a cease and desist letter claiming that our Roof Underwriting Report (“RUR”) product infringes its asserted patents, and therefore, violates the trial court’s permanent injunction. On July 15, we responded with a letter denying infringement and violation of the injunction, and explaining how our RUR is vastly different from the asserted patents. On August 9, 2021, Eagle View filed a motion to initiate contempt proceedings against us for alleged violation of the injunction, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting us from offering, marketing or selling our RUR and asking the court to grant discovery to assess our RUR and determine whether we were complying with the injunction. On October 8, 2021, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in our appeal. On November 5, 2021, the parties settled the entire litigation, thereby reversing the excess accrual amount. The Federal Circuit appeal was dismissed on November 9, 2021, and the District Court subsequently entered an Order dismissing the contempt action, as well as the parties’ underlying claims, counterclaims and defenses, and dissolving the permanent injunction. Upon a joint motion by both parties, on January 18, 2022, the Court entered an Order releasing the supersedeas bonds and discharging us and our sureties from any corresponding obligations. ERISA Litigation On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare, Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski ("Plaintiffs"), filed suit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF) against Defendants Insurance Services Office Inc. ("ISO"), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members ("Committee Defendants"), and the Trust Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ("ERISA"). The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("Plan"), at any time between September 24, 2014 through the date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all defendants are fiduciaries with respect to the Plan. Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid by Plan participants to maintain the investment funds in the plan portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants. Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees, the Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence and loyalty. Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary breaches cost Plan participants millions of dollars. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January 12, 2021, which the Court partially denied on April 13, 2021. The parties are currently proceeding with discovery. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter as the case is still in its early stages. Jornaya Litigation On December 10, 2020, we were served with a putative class action lawsuit brought by Erica Jackson in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya ("we" or "us"), Case No. 2020 CV 03695. The class complaint alleges that we violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act ("PWA"), 18 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5701 et seq. by "wiretapping" and "intercepting" the plaintiff’s communications on the website colleges.educationgrant.com. The plaintiff alleges a class of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted through the use of our wiretapping on the website. The complaint claims damages pursuant to the PWA for actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs. On February 16, 2021, we filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff opposed, and the Court ultimately denied our preliminary objections. We subsequently filed a petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay this action pending the completion of the parties’ arbitration proceedings. On September 30, 2021, the court denied our motions and directed the parties to proceed with discovery. On October 8, 2021, we filed a Notice of Appeal to seek review of the lower court’s decision with the Pennsylvania appellate court system. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Financial Services Government Inquiry We continue to cooperate with an inquiry by the civil division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia related to government contracts within our financial services segment. The inquiry is ongoing, we have voluntarily produced documents, and we cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the inquiry, financial or otherwise. Breach of Contract Litigation On April 2, 2021, Leica Geosystems ("Leica") and its subsidiary, Intergraph Corporation filed a lawsuit against Verisk Analytics and Geomni, Inc. ("we" "our" or "us") in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, titled Leica Geosystems AG, et al. v. Geomni, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Vexcel Imaging, Inc., et al. Co-Defendant, Vexcel Imaging, through its subsidiary, GV Air, is alleged to have breached a master lease agreement related to Leica’s aerial sensor units. The complaint further alleges breach of a license agreement for royalties earned from the sale of aerial imagery data, and breach of a mutual nondisclosure agreement related to the alleged disclosure of confidential information to co-defendant, Vexcel Imaging. Leica seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. We filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims and the hearing took place on January 7, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Wood Mackenzie Litigation On August 10, 2021, S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts filed a lawsuit against Wood Mackenzie (“we,” “us,” or “our”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, titled S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts v. Wood Mackenzie Ltd., Civil Action No. 21-cv-6739. The Complaint alleges that our use of Platts’ data exceeded the scope of the applicable licensing agreement between the two parties. Platts seeks to recover actual damages as a result of the alleged breach of the agreement, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief requiring Wood Mackenzie to cease all use of its proprietary data. The deadline to file our responsive pleading was extended to March 11, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. Data Privacy Litigation On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. (“we,” “our,” “us”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911. The Complaint alleges that we failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of our databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney’s fees and costs. We filed our responsive pleading on February 7, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter. LCI Litigation On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff William Norman Brooks filed a consumer class action lawsuit against Lundquist Consulting, Inc. (“LCI,” “us,” “we,” or “our”) in California Superior Court, San Matteo County, titled Brooks v. Lundquist Consulting, Inc., Case No. 21-CIV-06824. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law, and Defamation. LCI has not yet been served with the Complaint. Plaintiff claims that LCI inaccurately reported Mr. Brooks as bankrupt, and that this caused emotional harm and harmed his credit standing, credit score and reputation. Plaintiff alleges that LCI’s statements about his (and other class members’) bankruptcies to third parties amounted to defamation. It is also alleged that LCI did not provide Plaintiff and others an opportunity to review and dispute any accuracies in the information sold by LCI about them and did not disclose their consumer credit files when asked. Plaintiff seeks to certify Nationwide Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Classes, as well as California Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Subclasses. He also seeks to recover actual and punitive damages, restitution of funds suspended and the value of credit privileges revoked or terminated, injunctive relief ordering LCI to rectify the credit reporting errors and change its procedures for attributing bankruptcy information, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Note 21 - Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

We are a party to legal proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. With respect to ongoing matters, we are unable, at the present time, to determine the ultimate resolution of or provide a reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss attributable to ongoing matters or the impact these matters may have on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Although we believe we have strong defenses and intend to appeal any adverse rulings to us, we could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Xactware Solutions, Inc. Patent Litigation

On October 8, 2015, we were served with a summons and complaint in an action titled Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Group, Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court" or “District Court”). The complaint alleged that our Roof InSight (now known as Geomni Roof), Property InSight product (now known as Geomni Property) and Aerial Sketch product in combination with our Xactimate product infringe seven patents owned by Eagle View and Pictometry namely, Patent Nos. 8,078,436 (the "436 patent"), 8,170,840 (the "840 patent"), 8,209,152 (the "152 patent"), 8,542,880 (the "880 patent"), 8,818,770 (the "770 patent"), 8,823,732 (the "732 patent"), and 8,825,454 (the "454 patent"). On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Patent Nos. 9,129,376 (the "376 patent") and 9,135,737 (the "737 patent") to the lawsuit. The First Amended Complaint sought an entry of judgment by the Court that defendants have and continue to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe, including by way of inducement, the Patents-in-Suit, permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees. On May 19, 2017, the District Court entered a Joint Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing all claims or assertions pertaining to the 880 and 732 patents, and certain asserted claims of the 436, 840, 152, 770, 454, 376 and 737 patents (collectively the "Patents in Suit"). Subsequently, Eagle View dropped the 152 patent and the 737 patent and reduced the number of asserted claims from the five remaining Patents in Suit to six asserted claims. On September 25, 2019, following a trial, the jury determined that we had willfully infringed the six asserted claims, and assessed damages in the amount of $125.0 million. After trial, Eagle View moved for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a permanent injunction preventing our sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. The Court granted the motion for a TRO on September 26, 2019 and on October 18, 2019, issued an Order permanently enjoining our sales of the Geomni Roof, Geomni Property and Aerial Sketch products in combination with Xactimate. On March 2, 2020, the Court signed an Order staying execution of the $125.0 million judgment pending our appeal, and we subsequently secured a supersedeas bond in the amount of $137.5 million to satisfy the New Jersey court rule requiring a bond in the amount of 110% of the monetary judgment. In addition, Eagle View asked the Court to award enhanced damages by trebling the jury's damages award, together with attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. We opposed all of Eagle View's requests and asked the Court for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Eagle View opposed our requests. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied our motion seeking judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. We timely filed our Amended Notice of Appeal on October 8, 2020. Eagle View filed a motion to dismiss or deactivate the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on November 4, 2020 which was denied by the Federal Circuit on December 15, 2020. We filed our appellate brief on December 24, 2020. On February 16, 2021, the Court granted Eagle View's motion for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. The Court trebled the jury's award of $125.0 million, awarding enhanced damages for a total of $375.0 million, and also awarded Eagle View pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Court's award of Eagle View's attorneys' fees was limited to the period just before the commencement of trial through the trial, and did not include the earlier approximately four-year period in the case. On March 17, 2021, we filed an unopposed application with the Federal Circuit seeking consolidation of our appeals addressing the trial Court’s findings on infringement, the denial of our motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, and the Court’s Order on enhanced damages. As of June 29, 2021, the appeal was fully briefed. Following the outcome of the trial in 2019, we established a $125.0 million reserve in connection with this litigation, which was included in selling, general and administrative expenses in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2019. On April 15, 2021, the Court signed an order continuing the stay of execution of the monetary judgment. In light of the Court’s Order enhancing damages, we posted an additional bond in the amount of $305.0 million. On July 2, 2021, Eagle View sent us a cease and desist letter claiming that our Roof Underwriting Report (“RUR”) product infringes its asserted patents, and therefore, violates the trial court’s permanent injunction. On July 15, we responded with a letter denying infringement and violation of the injunction, and explaining how our RUR is vastly different from the asserted patents. On August 9, 2021, Eagle View filed a motion to initiate contempt proceedings against us for alleged violation of the injunction, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting us from offering, marketing or selling our RUR and asking the court to grant discovery to assess our RUR and determine whether we were complying with the injunction. On October 8, 2021, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in our appeal. On November 5, 2021, the parties settled the entire litigation, thereby reversing the excess accrual amount. The Federal Circuit appeal was dismissed on November 9, 2021, and the District Court subsequently entered an Order dismissing the contempt action, as well as the parties’ underlying claims, counterclaims and defenses, and dissolving the permanent injunction. Upon a joint motion by both parties, on January 18, 2022, the Court entered an Order releasing the supersedeas bonds and discharging us and our sureties from any corresponding obligations.

ERISA Litigation

On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare, Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski ("Plaintiffs"), filed suit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF) against Defendants Insurance Services Office Inc. ("ISO"), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members ("Committee Defendants"), and the Trust Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ("ERISA"). The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("Plan"), at any time between September 24, 2014 through the date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all defendants are fiduciaries with respect to the Plan. Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid by Plan participants to maintain the investment funds in the plan portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants. Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees, the Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence and loyalty. Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary breaches cost Plan participants millions of dollars. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January 12, 2021, which the Court partially denied on April 13, 2021. The parties are currently proceeding with discovery. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter as the case is still in its early stages.

Jornaya Litigation

On December 10, 2020, we were served with a putative class action lawsuit brought by Erica Jackson in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya ("we" or "us"), Case No. 2020 CV 03695. The class complaint alleges that we violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act ("PWA"), 18 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5701 et seq. by "wiretapping" and "intercepting" the plaintiff’s communications on the website colleges.educationgrant.com. The plaintiff alleges a class of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted through the use of our wiretapping on the website. The complaint claims damages pursuant to the PWA for actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs. On February 16, 2021, we filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff opposed, and the Court ultimately denied our preliminary objections. We subsequently filed a petition to compel arbitration and a motion to stay this action pending the completion of the parties’ arbitration proceedings. On September 30, 2021, the court denied our motions and directed the parties to proceed with discovery. On October 8, 2021, we filed a Notice of Appeal to seek review of the lower court’s decision with the Pennsylvania appellate court system. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Financial Services Government Inquiry

We continue to cooperate with an inquiry by the civil division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia related to government contracts within our financial services segment. The inquiry is ongoing, we have voluntarily produced documents, and we cannot anticipate the timing, outcome or possible impact of the inquiry, financial or otherwise.

Breach of Contract Litigation

On April 2, 2021, Leica Geosystems ("Leica") and its subsidiary, Intergraph Corporation filed a lawsuit against Verisk Analytics and Geomni, Inc. ("we" "our" or "us") in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, titled Leica Geosystems AG, et al. v. Geomni, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Vexcel Imaging, Inc., et al. Co-Defendant, Vexcel Imaging, through its subsidiary, GV Air, is alleged to have breached a master lease agreement related to Leica’s aerial sensor units. The complaint further alleges breach of a license agreement for royalties earned from the sale of aerial imagery data, and breach of a mutual nondisclosure agreement related to the alleged disclosure of confidential information to co-defendant, Vexcel Imaging. Leica seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. We filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims and the hearing took place on January 7, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Wood Mackenzie Litigation

On August 10, 2021, S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts filed a lawsuit against Wood Mackenzie (“we,” “us,” or “our”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, titled S&P Global Inc. d/b/a Platts v. Wood Mackenzie Ltd., Civil Action No. 21-cv-6739. The Complaint alleges that our use of Platts’ data exceeded the scope of the applicable licensing agreement between the two parties. Platts seeks to recover actual damages as a result of the alleged breach of the agreement, attorney’s fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief requiring Wood Mackenzie to cease all use of its proprietary data. The deadline to file our responsive pleading was extended to March 11, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

Data Privacy Litigation

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. (“we,” “our,” “us”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911. The Complaint alleges that we failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of our databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney’s fees and costs. We filed our responsive pleading on February 7, 2022. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.

LCI Litigation

On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff William Norman Brooks filed a consumer class action lawsuit against Lundquist Consulting, Inc. (“LCI,” “us,” “we,” or “our”) in California Superior Court, San Matteo County, titled Brooks v. Lundquist Consulting, Inc., Case No. 21-CIV-06824. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law, and Defamation. LCI has not yet been served with the Complaint. Plaintiff claims that LCI inaccurately reported Mr. Brooks as bankrupt, and that this caused emotional harm and harmed his credit standing, credit score and reputation. Plaintiff alleges that LCI’s statements about his (and other class members’) bankruptcies to third parties amounted to defamation. It is also alleged that LCI did not provide Plaintiff and others an opportunity to review and dispute any accuracies in the information sold by LCI about them and did not disclose their consumer credit files when asked. Plaintiff seeks to certify Nationwide Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Classes, as well as California Inaccuracy and Failure to Disclose Subclasses. He also seeks to recover actual and punitive damages, restitution of funds suspended and the value of credit privileges revoked or terminated, injunctive relief ordering LCI to rectify the credit reporting errors and change its procedures for attributing bankruptcy information, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter.