Yes, in most cases. If you use a background check company, what the law calls a consumer reporting agency or CRA, to screen an unpaid intern or volunteer, the FCRA's disclosure, consent, and adverse action rules apply the same way they'd apply to a paid hire. A paycheck was never the trigger. Using a third party to pull the report is.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, FCRA for short, is the federal law that covers most background checks employers run. It regulates something specific: a "consumer report" pulled by a third-party company for an "employment purpose."
Nowhere in that definition does it say the position has to be salaried. An employment purpose covers hiring, promotion, reassignment, and retention, and courts and the FTC have read that broadly enough to include internships, volunteer roles, and board positions.
So to say that a different way: the FCRA is watching the transaction, not the paycheck. A company compiled a report about a real person and handed it to someone making a decision about that person. That's the thing it regulates.
Here's the rule I'd want you to walk away with. If you order the report from a background check company, a real CRA, you owe that person the same three things you'd owe a paid employee.
A standalone written disclosure telling them you're going to run a check. Their written authorization before you run it. And if you're thinking about turning them away because of what the report shows, a pre-adverse action notice with a copy of the report, time to respond, and a final adverse action notice if you still say no.
None of that changes because the role is unpaid. I've watched small nonprofits skip this step because "they're just a volunteer, not really an employee." That's not how the statute reads, and it's not a fight worth having with a regulator.
This is where it actually does shift. If you personally search someone's name, call a reference, or look up court records yourself, without paying a company to compile a report for you, the FCRA generally doesn't apply. You're not using a CRA, so its rules aren't in play.
That doesn't mean you're free of every rule. Anti-discrimination law still applies to how you use whatever you find. And plenty of "free" online background check sites are themselves CRAs under the law, so read the fine print before you assume you're in the clear.
| Situation | FCRA obligations apply? |
|---|---|
| You order a report from a background check company, paid or unpaid role | Yes, disclosure, authorization, and adverse action all apply |
| You personally check references or search public records yourself | Generally no, though other laws still govern how you use what you find |
| A state-mandated volunteer screening program (see below) | Follow that program's own process, which runs alongside or instead of the FCRA |
Use the same clean, standalone form you'd use for a paid hire. A single page, separate from any application, saying plainly that you're going to run a background check and naming the company doing it.
Get their signature before you order anything. Not after, not "we'll get to it." Before.
Don't reuse language written for W-2 employees if it's confusing for a volunteer. "This position" or "this role" works fine in place of "employment," as long as the substance, disclosure and authorization, stays intact.
This is where I want to be careful, because I don't want to hand you a list I haven't verified. A lot of states have their own mandatory screening laws for volunteers working with children, the elderly, or people with disabilities, separate from anything the FCRA requires.
These often run through a state agency rather than an ordinary CRA, and some require fingerprinting or a sex offender registry check that a standard background check package won't cover on its own.
If your organization is a school, camp, youth sports league, or a nonprofit serving vulnerable populations, don't assume your regular screening process covers this. Check your state's specific requirement, or ask a lawyer who knows nonprofit compliance in your state. That part's not optional to look into, even if the answer turns out to be "you're already covered."
FCRA violations carry statutory damages, meaning a court can award money even if the volunteer can't point to a specific dollar amount they lost. "They weren't getting paid anyway" isn't a defense that shows up anywhere in the statute.
I'd treat every unpaid role you screen through a CRA exactly like a paid one. Same disclosure, same authorization, same adverse action steps. It's not more work, it's the same form with a different name typed into the role field.