Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Litigation and Investigations related to the 2017 Cybersecurity Incident

Following the 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class actions and other lawsuits were filed against us typically alleging harm from the 2017 cybersecurity incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief. We were also subject to investigations and inquiries by federal, state and foreign governmental agencies and officials regarding the 2017 cybersecurity incident and related matters. As described below, most of these lawsuits and government investigations have concluded or been resolved, including pursuant to the settlement agreements described below, while others remain ongoing. The Company’s participation in these settlements does not constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability, and the Company does not admit fault or liability.

Consumer Settlement.

On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, we entered into multiple agreements that resolve the U.S. consolidated consumer class action cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (Consumer Cases) (the “U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation”), and the investigations of the FTC, the CFPB, the MSAG Group and the NYDFS (collectively, the “Consumer Settlement”). Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the Company will contribute $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund (the “Consumer Restitution Fund”) to provide restitution for U.S. consumers identified by the Company whose personal information was compromised as a result of the 2017 cybersecurity incident.

The Consumer Restitution Fund will be used to (1) compensate affected consumers for certain unreimbursed costs or expenditures incurred by affected consumers that are fairly traceable to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, (2) provide affected consumers with an opportunity to enroll in at least four years of credit monitoring services provided by a third party unaffiliated with the Company or alternative compensation for affected consumers who already have other credit monitoring services, (3) provide affected consumers with additional benefits such as identity restoration services and (4) pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and reasonable costs and expenses for the plaintiffs’ counsel in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million) and administrative and notice costs.

The Company has agreed to contribute up to an additional $125.0 million to the Consumer Restitution Fund to cover unreimbursed costs and expenditures described in (1) above in the event the $380.5 million in the Consumer Restitution Fund is exhausted.

In accordance with the terms of the Consumer Settlement, in the third quarter of 2019, the Company paid $180.5 million to the MSAG Group and the following monetary penalties: (1) $100.0 million to the CFPB and (2) $10.0 million to the NYDFS. As part of the Consumer Settlement, the Company also agreed to implement certain business practice commitments related to consumer assistance and its information security program, including conducting third party assessments of its information security program.

In the third quarter of 2019, the agreements with the FTC and CFPB were approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The settlement with the MSAG Group, which consists of substantially similar agreements with each of the participating jurisdictions, was approved by courts in the relevant jurisdiction also in the third quarter of 2019.

On January 13, 2020, the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S. District Court overseeing centralized pre-trial proceedings for the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and numerous other federal court actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident (the “MDL Court”), entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in connection with the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation, from which several objectors have appealed. Until the appeals are finally adjudicated or dismissed, we can provide no assurance that the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation will be resolved as contemplated by the settlement agreement. If the MDL Court’s order approving the settlement were reversed by an appellate court, there is a risk that we would not be able to settle the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation on acceptable terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Other Settlements.

Securities Class Action Litigation. A consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with statements and alleged omissions regarding our cybersecurity systems and controls was filed against us and our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The consolidated complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities from February 25, 2016 through September 15, 2017 and unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The

Company moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On January 28, 2019, the court dismissed claims against certain individual defendants and claims challenging certain statements, but allowed other claims against Equifax and our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to proceed.

On February 12, 2020, we entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the securities class action lawsuit in which the Company agreed to create a settlement fund for the benefit of class members. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including certification of a settlement class, notice, and preliminary and final court approvals. We can provide no assurance that all conditions will be satisfied or that the necessary court approvals will be obtained.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation. A consolidated putative shareholder derivative action naming certain of our current and former executives, officers and directors as defendants and naming us as a nominal defendant was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Among other things, the consolidated complaint alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, corporate waste and insider selling by certain defendants, as well as certain claims under the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, plus certain equitable relief. We appointed a committee of independent directors (the “Demand Review Committee”) empowered to evaluate and respond in our best interests to the claims and related litigation demands.

On February 12, 2020, the Company, by and through the Demand Review Committee, and individual defendants entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs which, subject to court approval, will resolve the matter by agreeing to adopt certain governance changes and obtaining an insurance recovery for the Company. We can provide no assurance that the necessary court approvals will be obtained.

Government Lawsuits. Separate civil enforcement actions were filed against us in state court by the respective Attorneys General of Indiana and Massachusetts alleging violations of commonwealth/state consumer protection laws and seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, costs and other relief. The Company filed motions to dismiss the actions which were denied. On December 26, 2019, we filed a motion asking the court in the Indiana action to certify its order denying our motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal, and that motion was granted on February 6, 2019.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle with each of the Attorneys General of Massachusetts and Indiana to resolve their actions. These settlements, in which the Company has agreed to make a monetary payment and to injunctive relief consistent with the MSAG Group settlement, are subject to finalizing definitive settlement agreements and court approval in each respective jurisdiction.

Financial Institutions MDL Class Action. Certain class actions were filed by financial institutions and transferred to the MDL Court (the “Financial Institutions MDL Litigation”). These class actions allege that the financial institutions’ businesses have been placed at risk due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, generally assert common law claims such as claims for negligence, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims and seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief and other related relief. The Company moved to dismiss the financial institutions’ consolidated class action complaint in its entirety, and the MDL Court dismissed certain claims, while allowing other claims to proceed. The financial institution plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their class action complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on December 18, 2019. The majority of the claims which the financial institutions sought to revive by amendment, however, remained dismissed.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to enter into a class-wide settlement of the remaining financial institutions’ claims. Upon submission of the final settlement documents and necessary court approvals, the settlement will resolve any remaining claims that could be asserted by the financial institutions before the MDL Court. The settlement contemplates payment for claims up to a maximum amount and certain non-monetary relief. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including notice, and preliminary and final court approvals. We can provide no assurance that all conditions will be satisfied or that the necessary court approvals will be obtained.

Pennsylvania State Court Financial Institution Class Action. One of the initial named plaintiffs in Financial Institutions MDL Litigation filed a purported class action suit against us in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania on behalf of financial institutions headquartered in Pennsylvania. The claims being asserted in this matter are substantially similar to claims that previously were dismissed in the MDL proceeding for lack of standing. We filed preliminary objections to the complaint on September 5, 2019, and a hearing on the preliminary objections is scheduled for June 29, 2020. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter. The settlement is subject to court approval, and we can provide no assurance that the necessary court approval will be obtained.

Indian Tribes Class Actions and City of Chicago Lawsuit. Three Indian Tribes and the City of Chicago filed separate suits with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity incident, which were subsequently transferred to the MDL Court. The Indian Tribes brought their claims purportedly on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and

Nations. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the three Indian Tribes’ claims as well as an agreement in principle to resolve the City of Chicago’s lawsuit.

Other Matters.

We face other lawsuits and government investigations related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident that have not yet been concluded or resolved. These ongoing matters may result in judgments, fines or penalties, settlements or other relief. We dispute the allegations in the remaining lawsuits and intend to defend against such claims. Set forth below are descriptions of the main categories of these matters.

Georgia State Court Consumer Class Actions. Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity incident were filed against us in Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia citizens. These cases were transferred to a single judge in the Fulton County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company’s motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company’s motion to stay the consolidated case. These cases remain stayed pending resolution of the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation.

Canadian Class Actions. Eight Canadian class actions, six of which are on behalf of a national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have been filed against us in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident. In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf of a larger group of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident or earlier and were not impacted by the incident.

On October 21, 2019, the court in the Quebec case dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for authorization to institute a class action. On December 13, 2019, the court in the active Ontario case granted certification of a nationwide class that includes impacted Canadians as well as Canadians who had subscription products with Equifax between March 7, 2017 and July 30, 2017. We have sought leave to appeal this decision. All remaining purported class actions are at preliminary stages. In addition, one of the cases in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan case have been stayed. The court’s order staying the Saskatchewan case is on appeal.

Individual Consumer Litigation. We have several hundred individual consumer actions pending against us in state (general jurisdiction and small claims) and federal courts across the U.S. related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs/claimants in these cases have generally claimed to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by Equifax in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking primarily monetary damages. Where possible, actions filed in or removed to federal court were noticed for transfer to the MDL Court. We believe that many of the remaining individual consumer actions will be subject to the settlement in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation discussed above, unless the individual consumers submitted a valid and timely request to be excluded from the settlement.

Government Investigations. We have cooperated with federal, state and foreign governmental agencies and officials investigating or otherwise seeking information, testimony and/or documents, regarding the 2017 cybersecurity incident and related matters.

The FCA opened an enforcement investigation against our U.K. subsidiary, Equifax Limited, in October 2017. The investigation by the FCA has involved a number of information requirements and interviews. We continue to respond to the information requirements and are cooperating with the investigation.

The New York State Attorney General Investor Protection Bureau (“IPB”) issued a subpoena in September 2017 relating to its investigation of whether there has been a violation of the Martin Act. We have cooperated with the IPB in its investigation, and the IPB has not contacted us regarding the investigation since January 2019.

Although we continue to cooperate in the above investigations and inquiries, an adverse outcome to any such investigations and inquiries could subject us to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business or our results of operations.

ACCC Investigation

In March 2017, the ACCC commenced an investigation to determine whether the Company has been or is engaged in unlawful acts or practices relating to advertising, marketing and sale of consumer reports, credit scores or credit monitoring products in violation of the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct and false representations. The ACCC issued a number of notices to produce documents and information. On March 16, 2018, the ACCC commenced proceedings against the Company. The proceedings were settled on October 2, 2018. Pursuant to the settlement, Equifax paid a monetary penalty and provided refunds to certain impacted consumers. As it was not possible to refund all impacted customers, Equifax has undertaken to the ACCC to refund those customers if and when their current address and/or bank account details become known. The proceedings formally concluded on November 30, 2019.

California Bankruptcy Litigation

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC, et al., plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy discharge. On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs’ claims for damages. On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the settlement and required the settling parties to send a supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs’ counsel fee award. Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15, 2011 and the deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011. On July 15, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order vacating the settlement and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify counsel for the settling plaintiffs and granted the motion of counsel for the settling plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class counsel. On March 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s lead counsel appointment. On January 9, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the objectors’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The parties re-engaged in settlement discussions, including participation in mediations in August 2016 and November 2016, and reached an agreement to again settle the monetary claims. Settlement documents were filed with the District Court on April 14, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, conditionally certified the settlement class, and appointed class counsel and administrator. A Final Fairness Hearing was held on December 11, 2017 and on April 6, 2018, the Court granted final approval. A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 7, 2018. Following the Notice of Appeal, the parties reached a Stipulation Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs with the District Court subject to affirmance of the settlement with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 12, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the settlement and remanded to the District Court for recalculation of the attorneys’ fee award to class counsel. On January 10, 2020, the objecting plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc which was denied.

Other

Equifax has been named as a defendant in various other legal actions, including administrative claims, regulatory matters, government investigations, class actions and other litigation arising in connection with our business. Some of the legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. We believe we have defenses to and, where appropriate, will contest, many of these matters. Given the number of these matters, some are likely to result in adverse judgments, penalties, injunctions, fines or other relief. We may explore potential settlements before a case is taken through trial because of the uncertainty and risks inherent in the litigation process.

For information regarding our accounting for legal contingencies, see Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K.