{"took":390,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":20,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12794654","_score":11.671522,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"RE : FORMAL NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST UNAUTHORIZED USE AND DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PERSONAL DATA, AND INFORMATION To Whom It May Concern : This complaint serves as formal notice and demand that you, your officers, agents, employees, assigns, affiliates, contractors, and any associated third parties, immediately CEASE AND DESIST from brokering, disclosing, disseminating, publishing, selling, sharing, or otherwise distributing any and all of my private intellectual property, personal information, data, identifiers, or profiles in any form, without my explicit, knowing, and written consent. \n\nIt has come to my attention that your organization, a Specialty Consumer Reporting Agency ( SCRA ), has engaged in the unauthorized compilation, use, and/or distribution of my personal and intellectual property, including but not limited to : name, likeness, biometric data, behavioral data, consumer habits, purchasing activity, online identifiers, geolocation, personal preferences, credit information, digital or analog metadata, and/or personally identifiable information ( PII ) or any derivative thereof. This unauthorized activity constitutes a blatant violation of my inherent privacy rights, intellectual property rights, and statutory protections under federal and state law. \n\nFurthermore, I hereby issue a full and final revocation of any and all implied, assumed, constructive, or unauthorized power of attorney that may have been fraudulently presumed or fabricated by your agency or any third party acting on your behalf. I have never knowingly or willingly granted you, or any entity associated with you, permission or lawful authority to act on my behalf in any legal, commercial, financial, or informational capacity. \n\nFORMAL OPT-OUT OF UNAUTHORIZED REPORTING AND DATA COLLECTION I am hereby exercising my right to formally and unequivocally OPT-OUT of any and all data collection, reporting, analysis, brokering, distribution, or storage activities involving my personal or intellectual property. I do not consent to the maintenance or use of any information or data pertaining to me, my household, or my digital or physical activity by your organization or any of your affiliates or third-party vendors. \n\nThis opt-out includes, but is not limited to : All consumer reports and specialty consumer reports related to employment, insurance, medical records, tenant screening, utilities, check writing, or consumer behavior ; All data aggregation and tracking services performed without my consent ; Any ongoing or future inclusion of my data in reports, scores, marketing databases, or risk models of any kind. \n\nThis opt-out applies to all forms of communication and data transfer, including electronic, verbal, written, automated, or inferred. \n\nYou are therefore ordered to : Immediately cease and desist from collecting, sharing, selling, brokering, analyzing, or transferring any of my private information or intellectual property. \n\nPermanently delete and expunge all data, records, profiles, or derivatives related to me from your databases, internal systems, archives, and any affiliated or contracted third-party platforms. \n\nRefrain from future collection or use of my personal data or property in any capacity, unless and until you receive express written authorization from me personally, notarized and verifiable. \n\nProvide a full accounting within fifteen ( 15 ) calendar days from the date of this notice, detailing : All records or data in your possession relating to me, The sources from which you obtained this data, The parties with whom you have shared, sold, or brokered this information, The legal basis under which you claim authority to do so. \n\nBe advised that failure to comply with this demand will result in immediate escalation and the initiation of all available legal remedies, including but not limited to : civil litigation, complaints to federal and state regulatory bodies ( such as the CFPB, FTC, U.S. and State Attorney General ), pursuit of damages and injunctive relief, and claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( FACTA ), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), and relevant privacy and consumer protection laws. \n\nThis letter is written without prejudice and does not waive any of my rights, remedies, or causes of action, all of which are expressly reserved.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-03T17:02:04.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07002","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12794654","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","date_received":"2025-04-03T16:49:14.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["You are therefore ordered to : Immediately cease and desist from collecting, sharing, selling, brokering, <em>analyzing</em>, or transferring any of my private information or intellectual property. \n\nPermanently delete and expunge all data, records, <em>profiles</em>, or derivatives related to me from <em>your</em> databases, internal systems, archives, and any affiliated or contracted third-party platforms."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[11.671522,"12794654"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11476315","_score":10.269303,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX I received your stall letter also most of the times no letter for the past dispute of XXXX monthsregarding the investigation of my previous dispute, and I cant help but feel extremely frustrated and annoyed. Seriously, how much longer are you going to drag this out? \nI submitted a dispute XX/XX/year> to challenge information on my credit report and CFPB REPORT on XX/XX/year> no action was received or committed According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) -15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a6 ) & 15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a7 ), you're supposed to investigate and respond promptly. But all I got was a generic stall letter with no real updates or progress. What gives?\n\nIve done some research and found a CFPB report that specified youre using automated methods to send automatic stall letters to consumers in hopes that they will use your online systems for disputing. There is no law saying I cant leverage todays available technology to help me analyze, create and send disputes to you. \nHere is a link to the report that detailed your violations - XXXX XXXX XXXX  A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iIi ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum or- Shark ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; 15 U.S. Code 1681q - Obtaining information under false pretenses Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the taise belier in a consumer that a person otner than the creditor of such consumer is. participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly wes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.\n\n( b ) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this sub chapter.\n\nListen, I don't have time for your runaround. You need to get your act together and actually do your job. The FCRA clearly states that you have to investigate within 30 days and provide a timely response. It's not rocket science! \nI demand immediate action. Stop stalling and start investigating this dispute properly. I want a detailed update or delete on the accounts below XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the progress made so far, and I want it fast. This is affecting my finances and my patience is wearing thin. \nLet me remind you of two scenarios : Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP : In this case, the court ruled against the credit bureau and debt collector for violating the FCRA by failing to conduct a proper investigation within the required timeframe. The court held that the defendants were liable for statutory damages and attorney fees.\n\nDavis v. XXXX, LLC : In this class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that TransUnion had violated the FCRA by neglecting to promptly investigate and correct inaccuracies on their credit reports. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages, citing TransUnion 's failure to meet its obligations under the FCRA. \nDo you want me to sue you next? \nI also demand a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information in my credit profile. I am entitled to this information within 15 days per the FCRA. \nDescription of reinvestigation procedure. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description.\n\nI expect to receive a satisfactory response no later than 15 days If you continue to play games or ignore my concerns, I won't hesitate to escalate this matter and make sure you face the consequences for your negligence. \nHere is a list of items that were sent in my dispute letter that now must be deleted from your systems. \nSTOP VIOLATING MY RIGHTS AND TRYING TO BULLY ME.\n\nNotification complete upon receipt Experian has violated my rights and I demand deletion of accounts or verification of proper investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-11T21:24:21.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"75241","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11476315","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-11T21:07:29.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I also demand a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information in my <em>credit</em> <em>profile</em>. I am entitled to this information within 15 days per the FCRA. \nDescription of reinvestigation procedure. A consumer reporting agency shall <em>provide</em> to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[10.269303,"11476315"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13085987","_score":10.007262,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Re : CFPB Complaint No. XXXX Rebuttal to LexisNexis XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Response To Whom It May Concern, This is a formal rebuttal to the deceptive and legally insufficient response submitted by LexisNexis XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX regarding the above-referenced complaint. LexisNexis has intentionally mischaracterized its role and ignored direct demands for corrective action, continuing to evade responsibility for its ongoing violations of federal and state consumer protection laws.\n\n1. LexisNexis is a Consumer Reporting Agency and Subject to FCRA LexisNexis claims it is not a consumer reporting agency, yet its business model clearly falls within the definition set forth under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ) ), which includes any entity that assembles or evaluates consumer information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.\n\nThis has been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), where the Court held that companies that compile, maintain, and distribute consumer information that may be used in decision-makingsuch as for credit, employment, or insuranceare subject to the FCRA. LexisNexis actively sells XXXX, Accurint, and other reports that affect consumer decisions, meeting this threshold. \n\nFurthermore, in Doe v. LexisNexis XXXX & XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ), the court allowed claims under the FCRA to proceed against LexisNexis for failing to ensure accuracy and proper notice to consumers. This precedent directly rebuts LexisNexis false claim of exemption. \n\n2. File Suppression is Not Equivalent to Deletion LexisNexis admits it has merely \" suppressed '' my file. However, this does not satisfy my demand for permanent deletion of my personal and financial data from all internal and external databases. Suppression does not prevent LexisNexis from continuing to use, analyze, or sell my data behind the scenes. This practice is deceptive and continues to expose me to unauthorized data use, profiling, and privacy risks. \n\n3. Ongoing Violation of Federal and State Privacy Laws LexisNexis continues to willfully violate the following laws : FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) by furnishing consumer information to third parties without a legally defined permissible purpose or my written consent. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 68016827 ) by failing to safeguard and limit the dissemination of sensitive financial information. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) by maintaining personal data without proper security measures, transparency, or consent for sale or profiling. \n\nThe claim that LexisNexis can not verify my identity is meritless, considering they have already mailed me correspondence using my verified name and address, and have actively sold my data to credit bureaus and third parties who rely on their files. This is a transparent stall tactic and a textbook case of unclean hands. \n\n4. Demand for Immediate Corrective Action I hereby demand that LexisNexis : Permanently delete all personal, financial, and identifying information associated with me from its databases and affiliated entities.\n\nCease all current and future sales, transfers, or disclosures of my personal data.\n\nAcknowledge violations under FCRA and GLBA and provide a written compliance plan.\n\nProvide written confirmation that these actions have been taken within 15 days.\n\n5. Regulatory and Legal Escalation if No Acti\non Taken If LexisNexis fails to comply within 15 days, I will : File additional complaints with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), the New York State Attorney General, and other regulatory agencies.\n\nPursue civil litigation for financial harm, privacy violations, and data misuse.\n\nPublicly disclose LexisNexis misconduct to relevant media and consumer advocacy platforms. \n\nYour attempt to mislead the CFPB and evade lawful obligations is unacceptable and will not go unchallenged. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-20T09:19:32.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11434","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13085987","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LEXISNEXIS","date_received":"2025-04-20T09:10:51.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Your</em> attempt to mislead the CFPB and evade lawful obligations is unacceptable and will not go unchallenged. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[10.007262,"13085987"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11475802","_score":9.719216,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TRANSUNION XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX received your stall letter regarding the investigation of my previous dispute, and I cant help but feel extremely frustrated and annoyed. Seriously, how much longer are you going to drag this out? \nI submitted a dispute XX/XX/XXXX to challenge information on my credit report and CFPB REPORT XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX no action was received or committed According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) -15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a6 ) & 15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a7 ), you're supposed to investigate and respond promptly. But all I got was a generic stall letter with no real updates or progress. What gives? \nIve done some research and found a CFPB report that specified youre using automated methods to send automatic stall letters to consumers in hopes that they will use your online systems for disputing. There is no law saying I cant leverage todays available technology to help me analyze, create and send disputes to you. \nHere is a link to the report that detailed your violations - https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-issues-report-on-transunion-experian-and-equifax/ A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iIi ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum or- Shark ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; 15 U.S. Code 1681q - Obtaining information under false pretenses Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the taise belier in a consumer that a person otner than the creditor of such consumer is. participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly wes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. \n( b ) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this sub chapter.\n\nListen, I don't have time for your runaround. You need to get your act together and actually do your job. The FCRA clearly states that you have to investigate within 30 days and provide a timely response. It's not rocket science! \nI demand immediate action. Stop stalling and start investigating this dispute properly. I want a detailed update or delete on the accounts below XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Also around this investigation : On XX/XX/XXXX the items below have been re-inserted into my credit file I will attach proof of it being added. You are required to notify me within five ( 5 ) days of reinserting a previously deleted item ( 15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a5B ) ). I did not receive any such notification. Delete the items immediately or I will be forced to take legal action! \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX the progress made so far, and I want it fast. This is affecting my finances and my patience is wearing thin. \nLet me remind you of XXXX scenarios : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX : In this case, the court ruled against the credit bureau and debt collector for violating the FCRA by failing to conduct a proper investigation within the required timeframe. The court held that the defendants were liable for statutory damages and attorney fees. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX : In this class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that TransUnion had violated the FCRA by neglecting to promptly investigate and correct inaccuracies on their credit reports. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages, citing TransUnion 's failure to meet its obligations under the FCRA. \nDo you want me to sue you next? \nI also demand a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information in my credit profile. I am entitled to this information within 15 days per the FCRA. \nDescription of reinvestigation procedure. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. \nI expect to receive a satisfactory response no later than 15 days If you continue to play games or ignore my concerns, I won't hesitate to escalate this matter and make sure you face the consequences for your negligence. \nHere is a list of items that were sent in my dispute letter that now must be deleted from your systems. \nSTOP VIOLATING MY RIGHTS AND TRYING TO XXXX ME. \nNotification complete upon receipt TransUnion has violated my rights and I demand deletion of accounts or verification of proper investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-11T22:56:02.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"75241","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11475802","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-11T22:46:48.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Listen, I don't have time for <em>your</em> runaround. You need to get <em>your</em> act together and actually do <em>your</em> job. The FCRA clearly states that you have to investigate within 30 days and <em>provide</em> a timely response. It's not rocket science! \nI demand immediate action. Stop stalling and start investigating this dispute properly."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[9.719216,"11475802"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11483320","_score":9.168943,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX I received your stall letter regarding the investigation of my previous dispute, and I cant help but feel extremely frustrated and annoyed. Seriously, how much longer are you going to drag this out? \nI submitted a dispute XX/XX/year> to challenge information on my credit report and CFPB REPORT on XX/XX/year> XXXX no action was received or committed According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) -15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a6 ) & 15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a7 ), you're supposed to investigate and respond promptly. But all I got was a generic stall letter with no real updates or progress. What gives? \nIve done some research and found a CFPB report that specified youre using automated methods to send automatic stall letters to consumers in hopes that they will use your online systems for disputing. There is no law saying I cant leverage todays available technology to help me analyze, create and send disputes to you. \nHere is a link to the report that detailed your violations - https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-issues-report-on-transunion-experian-and-equifax/ A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iIi ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. \n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum or- Shark ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; 15 U.S. Code 1681q - Obtaining information under false pretenses Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both. \n15 U.S. Code 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the taise belier in a consumer that a person otner than the creditor of such consumer is. participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly wes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. \n( b ) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this sub chapter. \n\n\nListen, I don't have time for your runaround. You need to get your act together and actually do your job. The FCRA clearly states that you have to investigate within 30 days and provide a timely response. It's not rocket science! \nI demand immediate action. Stop stalling and start investigating this dispute properly. I want a detailed update or delete on the accounts below XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Also around this investigation : On XX/XX/year> the items below have been re-inserted into my credit file I will attach proof of it being added. You are required to notify me within five ( 5 ) days of reinserting a previously deleted item ( 15 U.S. Code 1681i ( a5B ) ). I did not receive any such notification. Delete the items immediately or I will be forced to take legal action! \nInquiries : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the progress made so far, and I want it fast. This is affecting my finances and my patience is wearing thin. \nLet me remind you of two scenarios : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX : In this case, the court ruled against the credit bureau and debt collector for violating the FCRA by failing to conduct a proper investigation within the required timeframe. The court held that the defendants were liable for statutory damages and attorney fees. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX : In this class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that XXXX had violated the FCRA by neglecting to promptly investigate and correct inaccuracies on their credit reports. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages, citing XXXX 's failure to meet its obligations under the FCRA. \nDo you want me to sue you next? \nI also demand a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information in my credit profile. I am entitled to this information within 15 days per the FCRA. \nDescription of reinvestigation procedure. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. \nI expect to receive a satisfactory response no later than 15 days If you continue to play games or ignore my concerns, I won't hesitate to escalate this matter and make sure you face the consequences for your negligence. \nHere is a list of items that were sent in my dispute letter that now must be deleted from your systems. \nSTOP VIOLATING MY RIGHTS AND TRYING TO XXXX ME. \nNotification complete upon receipt Equifax has violated my rights and I demand deletion of accounts or verification of proper investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-11T23:33:58.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"75241","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11483320","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-11T23:28:29.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Listen, I don't have time for <em>your</em> runaround. You need to get <em>your</em> act together and actually do <em>your</em> job. The FCRA clearly states that you have to investigate within 30 days and <em>provide</em> a timely response. It's not rocket science! \nI demand immediate action. Stop stalling and start investigating this dispute properly."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[9.168943,"11483320"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3678175","_score":7.7485085,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Those reviewing this comment are more than likely familiar with me and ( perhaps ) the situation I have faced these past few months, which has come about as a result Amex 's direct breach of contract and continued negligence. To be fair to everyone, including Amex, XXXX is guilty of this as well ; however, I will not lump these two incredibly different companies together, because XXXX has shown a genuine eagerness to make this situation right. And we ( XXXX, myself, and some others ) are currently working together on a solution that can hopefully benefit a lot of underserved individuals and steer this resolution in a positive direction. For this comment, I will leave my remarks to/about Amex to a minimum. They dont deserve any more of my time. \n\nThose reading should know that Amex falsely added XXXX worth of debt to my credit profile during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which messed up my credit score and triggered a series of events that have almost rendered me homeless ( multiple times ) in the past three months and caused me a great deal of difficulty these past few months ( the understatement of the century ). They effectively nuked my credit score, refused to admit they did anything wrong, proceed to deny me performance-based credit that I earned ( using references to vague changes in my credit report - that I later found out they caused ), and then they effectively barred me from the means to liquidate my own assets by refusing to allow me to put my card on file to facilitate an ACH transfer, with the goal of liquidating of some spare assets, thereby preventing me from obtaining the capital that I needed to pay them and others ( and causing my credit score to fall even further ). \n\nThey have gone out of their way to be difficult, uncooperative, and unresponsive. If I could feel anything for Amex at this point ( because feeling something for them would imply I give a XXXX ), it would be deep disappointment. It is not my place to tell them ( or anyone ) how to feel ; however, if it were me, I would be ashamed. You ( I am directing this to you, Amex ) are a waste of space, a waste of matter, a waste of atoms, a waste of subatomic particles, etc. ( or whatever you want to call it my point is that your existence is utterly useless and even nonconducive towards the long-term survival and success of the human race ). Although it is not up to me, if it were : your organization would simply cease to exist. And, to be clear to the ( assumedly ) smug executives at Amex reviewing this comment : You will, at some point, as all maladaptive beings/traits ultimately do, cease to exist. I hope you all are ready for that day ; because, the way things are going, your organization 's time is soon. \n\nTo anyone reading this comment, I am proud to say that I am still XXXX 's customer ; and, as I expressed to XXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXX Executive Director who has been so kind to me, and, as an extension, my loved ones, throughout this ordeal ), I plan to open a checking/savings account with the XXXX in coming weeks, as soon as I am able to do so. \n\nI would like to add that opening a new bank account is a big deal for me. Even though I am 25+ miles away from the nearest XXXX  XXXX XXXX  location, I have continued to bank with them ( XXXX  XXXX ) here in California for 3+ years, because they have been good to me, and I feel comfortable with them. People tend to resist change, and I am no different. I have done my banking ( savings and checking ) pretty much exclusively through XXXX XXXX up until this point. And I will continue to keep my bank accounts with them ; because, they have been fair to me for the entirety of my stint as a customer, including the time leading-up-to and throughout this entire ordeal with Amex. And I would like to express my gratitude to the team at XXXX XXXX for that. \n\nThat stated ( and putting all, or, at least, most loyalties aside ), I need a bank that is convenient to me here in California for many reasons, and that is why I need to open another account. And XXXX has my business. Simply put, business requires trust, and I trust XXXX with my money and my business, because they listen to what I have to say and respect my boundaries. \n\nDespite some challenges along the way, thank you to the team/directors behind the XXXX XXXX XXXX  Visa for showing a genuine eagerness to listen and respond to my feedback constructively. I look forward to continuing to work together to strive for better for society. I also want to thank whoever has been reviewing these comments and forwarding to the various organizations involved - I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts. \n\nTo those at XXXX, please let me know if you all need help with the algorithms that govern your databases ( assuming you all have not already figured it out and made adjustments ). My research group is working on a project with XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, the Department of Energy, and some others called the XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and, we are using machine learning algorithms to streamline and optimize process-based automation systems in real-time, effectively allowing machines to use live data streams to adapt and self-optimize ( in terms of improving operational functionality and safety ). \n\nThese optimization processes ( the ones we currently use and the ones you would need to optimize your database ( s ) accordingly ) function on similar principles, as they both analyze live data with the goal of providing real-time feedback. Not to be redundant, however, if you all recall, the issue that I was having with XXXX was that they shipped my credit card to the wrong address ( twice ). As of when I applied for the card ( I do not know if this is still happening ), I did not receive a warning or notification that XXXX/XXXX  were going to ship my card to a different address that the one in my application. \n\nMy suggestion is for you all to modify your system to give users some type of a warning. This can be done in any number of ways. If security when cross-referencing your companies ' databases ( for privacy/legal reasons ) is an issue, you can use public key cryptography and symmetric encryption protocols to create and implement a secure end-to-end encryption. If thats possible, it is feasible to implement this system along with an added looping contingency designed to cross-reference transactional data from XXXX ( with respect to each sub-account considered separately from the main account holder ) with the application data that the customer is entering in real-time. The contingency ( in laymens terms ) simply put : \" If The # of Orders Made/Delivered to the specific address of a Sub-Account ( within a reasonable period of time, i.e. past 6 months ) is more than the amount of orders made/delivered to the main account holders address ( from that subaccount ), then trigger a warning. This warning can manifest itself as an in-browser notification ( symmetric encryption protocols are capable of functioning vis -- vis browsers ) that warns the customer in some capacity. For example, \" ( Customer Name XXXX, it looks like the shipping address we have on file for the primary account holder is different than the address that we noticed the majority of your orders have been getting delivered to in the past six months. Would you like to ship the card to ( Insert Most Used Sub-Account Receiving Address ) instead? Yes, No, Ship to Other. '' Or something like that. \n\nNot only would this allow you all to set up a warning message for your customers when they are applying for the card, when incorporated with machine learning principles, one could also use the information/feedback provided ( vis -- vis activity tracking, etc ) to adjust and improve future automated responses to those customers ( i.e. instead of asking every time, the system will know, or at least have a good idea, of the customer intent based on former patterns ). \n\nIf at any point it is needed, I would like to extend XXXX the option to reach out to us for help in the future, and I will be more than happy to provide assistance if I can ( or to set up appointments/meetings/consultations with those in the research sector who may be able to provide assistance ). Not that such an organization needs my help - I almost feel foolish offering. However, I would like to emphasize the sincerity of my offer. And this offer is not meant to patronize or pressure ; however, I intend to leave it open as a gesture of trust, respect, and gratitude to you, your team, and the tremendous efforts you all have made at XXXX. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude, not only through my words, but through my actions. You can reach out to me at any time. When I am asked to provide feedback, I do my best to give solutions. XXXX has my information, as should your main office - feel free to call, text, or email. Thank you for taking the time and effort to make this right - I am truly grateful.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-02T12:51:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91324","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3678175","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2020-06-01T20:53:23.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Those reading should know that Amex falsely added XXXX worth of debt to my <em>credit</em> <em>profile</em> during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which messed up my <em>credit</em> score and triggered a series of events that have almost rendered me homeless ( multiple times ) in the past three months and caused me a great deal of difficulty these past few months ( the understatement of the century )."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting, <em>credit</em> repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Problem with a <em>credit</em> reporting company's investigation into an existing problem"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[7.7485085,"3678175"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3678157","_score":7.722319,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Those reviewing this comment are more than likely familiar with me and ( perhaps ) the situation I have faced these past few months, which has come about as a result XXXX 's direct breach of contract and continued negligence. To be fair to everyone, including XXXX, Chase is guilty of this as well ; however, I will not lump these two incredibly different companies together, because Chase has shown a genuine eagerness to make this situation right. And we ( Chase, myself, and some others ) are currently working together on a solution that can hopefully benefit a lot of underserved individuals and steer this resolution in a positive direction. For this comment, I will leave my remarks to/about XXXX to a minimum. They dont deserve any more of my time. \n\nThose reading should know that XXXX falsely added XXXX worth of debt to my credit profile during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which messed up my credit score and triggered a series of events that have almost rendered me homeless ( multiple times ) in the past three months and caused me a great deal of difficulty these past few months ( the understatement of the century ). They effectively nuked my credit score, refused to admit they did anything wrong, proceed to deny me performance-based credit that I earned ( using references to vague changes in my credit report - that I later found out they caused ), and then they effectively barred me from the means to liquidate my own assets by refusing to allow me to put my card on file to facilitate an ACH transfer, with the goal of liquidating of some spare assets, thereby preventing me from obtaining the capital that I needed to pay them and others ( and causing my credit score to fall even further ). \n\nThey have gone out of their way to be difficult, uncooperative, and unresponsive. If I could feel anything for XXXX at this point ( because feeling something for them would imply I give a XXXX ), it would be deep disappointment. It is not my place to tell them ( or anyone ) how to feel ; however, if it were me, I would be ashamed. You ( I am directing this to you, XXXX ) are a waste of space, a waste of matter, a waste of atoms, a waste of subatomic particles, etc. ( or whatever you want to call it my point is that your existence is utterly useless and even nonconducive towards the long-term survival and success of the human race ). Although it is not up to me, if it were : your organization would simply cease to exist. And, to be clear to the ( assumedly ) smug executives at XXXX reviewing this comment : You will, at some point, as all maladaptive beings/traits ultimately do, cease to exist. I hope you all are ready for that day ; because, the way things are going, your organization 's time is soon. \n\nTo anyone reading this comment, I am proud to say that I am still Chase 's customer ; and, as I expressed to XXXX  ( the JP Morgan/Chase Executive Director who has been so kind to me, and, as an extension, my loved ones, throughout this ordeal ), I plan to open a checking/savings account with the Chase in coming weeks, as soon as I am able to do so. \n\nI would like to add that opening a new bank account is a big deal for me. Even though I am 25+ miles away from the nearest XXXX  XXXX XXXX  location, I have continued to bank with them ( XXXX  XXXX ) here in California for 3+ years, because they have been good to me, and I feel comfortable with them. People tend to resist change, and I am no different. I have done my banking ( savings and checking ) pretty much exclusively through XXXX XXXX up until this point. And I will continue to keep my bank accounts with them ; because, they have been fair to me for the entirety of my stint as a customer, including the time leading-up-to and throughout this entire ordeal with XXXX. And I would like to express my gratitude to the team at XXXX XXXX for that. \n\nThat stated ( and putting all, or, at least, most loyalties aside ), I need a bank that is convenient to me here in California for many reasons, and that is why I need to open another account. And Chase has my business. Simply put, business requires trust, and I trust Chase with my money and my business, because they listen to what I have to say and respect my boundaries. \n\nDespite some challenges along the way, thank you to the team/directors behind the Amazon Prime Rewards Visa for showing a genuine eagerness to listen and respond to my feedback constructively. I look forward to continuing to work together to strive for better for society. I also want to thank whoever has been reviewing these comments and forwarding to the various organizations involved - I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts. \n\nTo those at Chase, please let me know if you all need help with the algorithms that govern your databases ( assuming you all have not already figured it out and made adjustments ). My XXXX XXXX is working on a project with XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, the Department of Energy, and some others called the XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and, we are using machine learning algorithms to streamline and optimize process-based automation systems in real-time, effectively allowing machines to use live data streams to adapt and self-optimize ( in terms of improving operational functionality and safety ). \n\nThese optimization processes ( the ones we currently use and the ones you would need to optimize your database ( s ) accordingly ) function on similar principles, as they both analyze live data with the goal of providing real-time feedback. Not to be redundant, however, if you all recall, the issue that I was having with Chase was that they shipped my credit card to the wrong address ( twice ). As of when I applied for the card ( I do not know if this is still happening ), I did not receive a warning or notification that Chase/Amazon were going to ship my card to a different address that the one in my application. \n\nMy suggestion is for you all to modify your system to give users some type of a warning. This can be done in any number of ways. If security when cross-referencing your companies ' databases ( for privacy/legal reasons ) is an issue, you can use public key cryptography and symmetric encryption protocols to create and implement a secure end-to-end encryption. If thats possible, it is feasible to implement this system along with an added looping contingency designed to cross-reference transactional data from Amazon ( with respect to each sub-account considered separately from the main account holder ) with the application data that the customer is entering in real-time. The contingency ( in laymens terms ) simply put : \" If The # of Orders Made/Delivered to the specific address of a Sub-Account ( within a reasonable period of time, i.e. past 6 months ) is more than the amount of orders made/delivered to the main account holders address ( from that subaccount ), then trigger a warning. This warning can manifest itself as an in-browser notification ( symmetric encryption protocols are capable of functioning vis -- vis browsers ) that warns the customer in some capacity. For example, \" ( Customer Name ), it looks like the shipping address we have on file for the primary account holder is different than the address that we noticed the majority of your orders have been getting delivered to in the past six months. Would you like to ship the card to ( Insert Most Used Sub-Account Receiving Address ) instead? Yes, No, Ship to Other. '' Or something like that. \n\nNot only would this allow you all to set up a warning message for your customers when they are applying for the card, when incorporated with machine learning principles, one could also use the information/feedback provided ( vis -- vis activity tracking, etc ) to adjust and improve future automated responses to those customers ( i.e. instead of asking every time, the system will know, or at least have a good idea, of the customer intent based on former patterns ). \n\nIf at any point it is needed, I would like to extend Chase the option to reach out to us for help in the future, and I will be more than happy to provide assistance if I can ( or to set up appointments/meetings/consultations with those in the research sector who may be able to provide assistance ). Not that such an organization needs my help - I almost feel foolish offering. However, I would like to emphasize the sincerity of my offer. And this offer is not meant to patronize or pressure ; however, I intend to leave it open as a gesture of trust, respect, and gratitude to you, your team, and the tremendous efforts you all have made at Chase. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude, not only through my words, but through my actions. You can reach out to me at any time. When I am asked to provide feedback, I do my best to give solutions. XXXX has my information, as should your main office - feel free to call, text, or email. Thank you for taking the time and effort to make this right - I am truly grateful.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-02T12:52:45.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91324","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3678157","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2020-06-01T20:59:30.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Those reading should know that XXXX falsely added XXXX worth of debt to my <em>credit</em> <em>profile</em> during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, which messed up my <em>credit</em> score and triggered a series of events that have almost rendered me homeless ( multiple times ) in the past three months and caused me a great deal of difficulty these past few months ( the understatement of the century )."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting, <em>credit</em> repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Problem with a <em>credit</em> reporting company's investigation into an existing problem"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[7.722319,"3678157"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7309322","_score":7.6683445,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan","complaint_what_happened":"I directed a letter to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX  PNC Financial Services Group and PNC Bank N.A . It describes fully the events forming the basis for our complaint. While it includes some personal information, it is the best vehicle to summarize the matter and I have included it in the additional documents section below. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX PNC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at PNC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX I am writing to you today to bring to your attention a most disturbing and negative interaction my wife and I recently experienced with your financial institution, PNC Bank, N.A. ( hereinafter PNC ). On XX/XX/XXXX, we spoke with a representative of PNC, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( NMLS # XXXX ), with regard to an application for a Home Owner Equity Line of Credit in the amount of {$160000.00}. As background information, we had established a previous HOE line with PNC in XX/XX/XXXX, in the amount of {$100000.00} to assist with home improvements. The increased credit amount was to accommodate additional improvements we had made to our home, subsequent to that time. XXXX XXXX took our application over the telephone, and assured us with our positive credit profile and favorable credit scores, along with our existing relationship, the increased credit request should be no problem. \n\nWe were subsequently contacted by our XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX ), who requested standard documentation to support reported income information. We provided XXXX XXXX with all documents requested. In several discussions with XXXX XXXX, it appeared that she was somewhat overwhelmed by our sources of income. My wife and I are retired, and we generate income from a number of investment sources. I retired in XXXX, and XXXX retired in XXXX. We manage our financial affairs in a sound and prudent manner, and have handled all of our credit obligations impeccably over that fifteen year retirement horizon. The manner in which we generate our income is obviously not the typical situation, such as an applicant who is employed and provides prior years W-2s and recent pay stubs to support their income. My impression was that XXXX XXXX had a difficult time understanding our financial situation. \n\nMy wife and I are both retired XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX spent XXXX years in banking, primarily as the XXXX XXXXXXXX for several financial institutions here in XXXX. I spent XXXX years in the industry, primarily in the lending function. I served as the XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX independent banks over the last XXXX years of my banking career. I bring this to your attention as evidence that we know the banking industry and how it operates. I know a qualified credit request, and would not apply for a loan for which we did not qualify. \n\nYou can imagine my shock when I was advised by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, that our credit request had been denied by the PNC underwriting department for insufficient income to Page 2 Continuation of Letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX and PNC Bank N.A . \n\n\nservice the debt. The specific reason identified in the formal Adverse Action Letter we received dated XX/XX/XXXX, was Excessive Obligations in Relation to Income. In several subsequent discussions with XXXX XXXX, wherein I requested additional information and clarification as to how the income and debt service had been calculated, she was unable to provide specific numbers related thereto or the methodology used to derive it by the underwriting department. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I had a lengthy telephone conversation with XXXX XXXX during which she tried to explain how our annual income amount had been calculated. Her explanation was meaningless to me, as the figure she provided ( {$89000.00} in verified income ) had no correlation to any of the income information we had provided. In fact, it was over {$30000.00} less per year than our income verification documents we had submitted for the previous XXXX year period. Because I was insistent that something was wrong or not properly analyzed, XXXX XXXX said she would file an appeal of the decision and have it reviewed by a second underwriter. I have no idea whether or not she filed the appeal, because I never heard from her again. It is my understanding that the telephone calls dealing with credit applications are all recorded by PNC. If that is the case, I believe you would find a review of the XX/XX/XXXX, telephone call most instructive, in terms of providing an accurate summary of the application process we endured and the frustration we experienced in not being able to get credible answers to reasonable questions. \n\nSubsequent to the XX/XX/XXXX telephone call, I reviewed all of the information XXXX XXXX had provided relative to the credit underwriting. In an attempt to clarify what I perceived as an erroneous assumption by the PNC underwriter, I sent XXXX XXXX a communique by email outlining where I believed the breakdown occurred. A copy of that email is included for your information. It is interesting to note that at the end of the XX/XX/XXXX telephone call ( a Friday ), XXXX XXXX assured me she would contact me early in the following week to discuss the results of her appeal. On XX/XX/XXXX, ( Sunday ) I directed my email to her. Subsequently, I made XXXX separate telephone calls to her, wherein I left voice-mail messages asking her to acknowledge receipt of the email and to update me on the current status of the appeal. I never received a return call from her. My next communication with PNC was the standard Adverse Action Letter which we received by mail on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nTo say that the manner in which this credit request was handled by PNC is a stain on the companys reputation is an understatement. My wife and I believe we did not receive fair treatment from your bank, XXXX XXXX. Subsequently I have reviewed the entire application and credit denial process with several former colleagues in the banking industry, each of whom have a high level of knowledge and expertise related to the bank lending function. All agreed and are willing to give testimony to the fact that, based upon generally accepted principles of credit-granting criteria, the credit request was not handled in the appropriate manner. Within that context, it is interesting to note that the credit facility my wife and I were denied by PNC was, in fact, granted by a competitive financial institution. We executed loan documents on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nPage 3 Continuation of Letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX and PNC Bank N.A . \n\n\nI have taken the time to write to you about this incident, XXXX XXXX, in the hope that some degree of review and action on your part will result in meaningful corrective action within PNC to preclude future applicants from receiving the same treatment my wife and I experienced. As I indicated earlier, we felt that the treatment we received from PNC was eminently unfair. More specifically, we believe that age discrimination played a role in the ultimate credit decision, in direct violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. To that end, I have forwarded a copy of this letter to the governmental agency that administers compliance with that federal statute, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, in the hope that they will take whatever action they deem appropriate. In addition, we have filed a formal consumer complaint with the subject agency regarding the events outlined in this letter. I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts about the matter, once you have had an opportunity to look into it. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) XXXXXXXX XXXX \nCc : Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 1700 G Street NW Washington, DC 20006","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-26T19:33:35.000Z","issue":"Getting a line of credit","sub_product":"Personal line of credit","zip_code":"93004","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7309322","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2023-07-26T18:47:33.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX took our application over the telephone, and assured us with our positive <em>credit</em> <em>profile</em> and favorable <em>credit</em> scores, along with our existing relationship, the increased <em>credit</em> request should be no problem. \n\nWe were subsequently contacted by our XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX ), who requested standard documentation to support reported income information. We provided XXXX XXXX with all documents requested."],"issue":["Getting a line of <em>credit</em>"],"sub_product":["Personal line of <em>credit</em>"]},"sort":[7.6683445,"7309322"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22183377","_score":7.4063296,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Re : Supplemental Complaint Regarding Incomplete and Evasive American Express Response Prior CFPB Reference No. : XXXX American Express Reference No. : XXXX Accounts Ending : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX Dispute / Fraud References : XXXX and XXXX SUPPLEMENTAL CFPB COMPLAINT AGAINST AMERICAN EXPRESS FOR FAILURE TO ADDRESS MATERIAL DISPUTED TRANSACTIONS, FOREIGN TRANSACTION BATCHES, FRAUD CLAIMS, AUTOPAY RECORDS, ACCOUNT ACCESS RECORDS, AND INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am submitting this supplemental complaint because American Expresss XX/XX/XXXX response to my CFPB complaint is incomplete, evasive, and does not answer the central allegations raised. AMEXs response provides conclusions but fails to provide the underlying records, transaction-level explanations, fraud-investigation evidence, account-access records, AutoPay authorization proof, cancellation records, foreign-transaction analysis, or dispute files necessary to verify its statements. \n\nAMEX acknowledged that its response concerned accounts ending in 81001, 82006, and 94004, under CFPB Ref. No. XXXX  and AMEX Ref . GC-01803H8. However, the response failed to address multiple core issues. \n\nI. AMEX FAILED TO SUBSTANTIVELY ADDRESS THE {$25000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX  DISPUTE The records show a disputed transaction for : {$25000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Ref. No. XXXX Resolution Date : XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAMEXs dispute screen states : Based on the information youve provided, were unable to open this dispute, and claims AMEX can not investigate because of the age of the questioned charge. \n\nAMEXs CFPB response does not specifically address this transaction. It does not identify the transaction date, posting date, authorization method, merchant documentation, card number used, account involved, or whether the charge was treated as a fraud/unauthorized-use claim rather than a standard merchant billing dispute. \n\nThis is a material omission. AMEX can not avoid a fraud or unauthorized-use allegation merely by stating that an ordinary dispute window expired, especially where AMEX separately treated the matter as a fraud investigation. \n\nI request that CFPB require AMEX to produce : The full transaction record for the {$25000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX  charge ; The transaction date, posting date, authorization date, and approval code ; The account and card number used ; Whether the charge was card-present, chip, swipe, tap, manually keyed, online, or card-not-present ; Merchant receipts, invoices, order records, contracts, or supporting documents ; Chargeback, representment, dispute, and denial records ; All fraud-analysis notes regarding this charge ; The legal and factual basis for refusing to open or investigate the dispute. \nII. AMEX FAILED TO ADDRESS THE BATCHES OF FOREIGN TRANSACTIONS IN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AMEXs response does not address the broader batches of foreign transactions associated with the XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX. The {$25000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX charge is one documented XXXX transaction, but AMEX did not identify, itemize, explain, or analyze any foreign transaction batch. \n\nAMEXs XX/XX/XXXX response discusses AutoPay, account cancellation, the {$19000.00} / {$19000.00} issue, fraud review, account visibility, and credit reporting, but it does not provide a transaction-by-transaction review of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nAMEX failed to answer whether it reviewed : All XXXX charges ; All XXXX charges XXXX Whether charges were clustered in suspicious batches ; Whether the transactions were geographically impossible or inconsistent with normal activity ; Whether foreign-transaction alerts were triggered ; Whether the card was physically present ; Whether travel notices existed ; Whether AMEX contacted me before approving large foreign charges ; Whether the same card or account was used in different countries within suspicious time windows ; Whether any internal fraud-scoring, merchant-risk, or account-takeover indicators were triggered. \n\nI request that CFPB require AMEX to provide a full foreign-transaction batch analysis for all XXXX XXXX and XXXX transactions XXXX XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, including merchant names, merchant categories, dates, amounts, authorization methods, card-present/card-not-present status, fraud alerts, travel notices, account-access records, and all dispute/fraud notes. \n\nXXXX. AMEX FAILED TO PROVIDE THE FRAUD INVESTIGATION FILE FOR XXXX AMEX Fraud Operations sent a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX stating that my inquiry was currently under investigation by our U.S. Fraud Department and requested that I complete an Identity Theft Declaration. The letter identified Dispute Reference Number XXXX. \n\nHowever, AMEX later claimed in its CFPB response that it did not have sufficient information to conduct a thorough fraud review and could not reverse transactions or past payments. \n\nAMEX did not provide : The fraud investigation file ; The fraud analyst notes ; The list of transactions reviewed ; The list of transactions excluded ; The documents AMEX claims were missing ; The account-access records reviewed ; The reason AMEX could not investigate using its own internal records ; The basis for changing or reissuing the card number ; The factual basis for denying reversal or relief. \n\nAMEXs position is contradictory. It opened or recognized a fraud investigation, but then refused to provide the investigation details and claimed insufficient information. AMEX should be required to explain precisely what it investigated, what it did not investigate, and why. \n\nIV. AMEX IMPROPERLY WITHHELD INVESTIGATION DETAILS AS PROPRIETARY AMEX states that it understands my request for details of the investigation, but that the specific details are proprietary and AMEX is unable to release such information. \n\nThat answer is inadequate. AMEX may redact truly confidential fraud-detection formulas or security-sensitive scoring methods, but it should not withhold the factual basis for its conclusions. \n\nAt minimum, AMEX should produce records sufficient to show : What accounts were searched ; What transactions were reviewed ; What evidence supported AMEXs conclusions ; What evidence was missing ; What date ranges were searched ; What account-access logs were reviewed ; Whether merchant documents were requested or received ; Why disputed transactions were denied or excluded ; Why AMEX concluded its handling was appropriate. \n\nAMEX can not simply label the entire investigation proprietary and avoid producing the evidence necessary to verify its decision. \n\nV. AMEX FAILED TO PRODUCE AUTOPAY AUTHORIZATION RECORDS AMEX states that the accounts were enrolled in AutoPay with your consent on XX/XX/XXXX and that AMEX processed a request on XX/XX/XXXX to unenroll account ending in XXXX from AutoPay. \n\nAMEX did not provide the actual AutoPay authorization record. It did not provide the authorization method, linked payment source, IP address, device information, phone recording, employee record, bank account information, or withdrawal history. \n\nI request that AMEX produce : The AutoPay enrollment record dated XX/XX/XXXX ; The exact method of enrollment ; The consent language ; The payment account used, with sensitive numbers redacted ; The name on the payment account ; The IP/device/session or call-recording evidence ; All AutoPay withdrawals from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; The XX/XX/XXXX unenrollment record ; Any complaints, notes, reversals, or disputes tied to XXXX. \nVI. AMEX FAILED TO PROVE THE XX/XX/XXXX CANCELLATION CLAIM OR EXPLAIN POST-CANCELLATION ACTIVITY AMEX claims the XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX was canceled on XX/XX/XXXX, allegedly per my request, and that this differs from the XX/XX/XXXX cancellation date referenced in my complaint. \n\nAMEX also acknowledges that the XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX was used after XX/XX/XXXX and that account XXXX was also being used. \n\nAMEX did not provide proof of the alleged XX/XX/XXXX cancellation request. It did not provide a call recording, account note, written request, email metadata, or account-status chronology. AMEX also did not explain who used the account after the disputed cancellation date or why account activity continued. \n\nI request that AMEX produce : The alleged XX/XX/XXXX cancellation request ; All account notes regarding cancellation ; Any call recording or written communication supporting cancellation ; The email AMEX claims supports its cancellation position ; A complete account-status chronology from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; All post-XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX transactions on accounts XXXX and XXXX ; All card-number changes and replacement-card records ; All records showing who accessed, maintained, or used the accounts. \nVII. AMEX FAILED TO RECONCILE THE {$19000.00} / {$19000.00} CHARGE ISSUE ACROSS ALL ACCOUNTS AMEX says it could not locate a {$19000.00} charge and matching credit on account ending in XXXX. AMEX also says it could not locate a {$19000.00} charge on account ending in XXXX, but found a {$19000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX automobile rental charge posted XX/XX/XXXX and credited XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAMEXs response is incomplete because it does not state whether AMEX searched all accounts, including account ending in XXXX. It also does not state whether AMEX searched pending authorizations, reversed authorizations, merchant credits, internal ledger entries, adjusted balances, or chargeback records. \n\nI request that AMEX produce : A certification identifying all accounts searched ; All records for the {$19000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX automobile rental charge ; The merchant receipt, authorization record, rental contract, and reversal record ; All transactions, authorizations, credits, reversals, or ledger entries between {$18000.00} and {$21000.00} on accounts XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; The reason the {$19000.00} charge posted and why it was reversed ; Whether this transaction was reviewed as part of the fraud claim. \nVIII. AMEX FAILED TO RESOLVE THE ONLINE ACCOUNT-VISIBILITY PROBLEM AMEX acknowledges that it is investigating my claim that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX not shown online. \n\nThis issue is directly relevant because AMEX relied on timing and account-age arguments to refuse investigation of disputed charges. If AMEXs own systems failed to show the account online, failed to display statements, or prevented me from seeing charges, AMEX should not be allowed to rely on delayed discovery or a 60-day deadline without resolving that issue first. \n\nI request that AMEX produce : The results of its online-visibility investigation ; Dates when the account was visible or not visible online ; Online-profile linking and unlinking logs ; Statement-access records ; Login records showing whether the account could be viewed ; Whether AMEX considered tolling or waiving dispute deadlines due to account visibility issues ; All internal notes explaining why the Business Blue Cash account was not visible. \nIX. AMEX FAILED TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSACTION LEDGER AND ACCOUNT HISTORY AMEX says it enclosed billing statements from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. However, AMEX did not provide a complete usable ledger in its response explaining all charges, payments, AutoPay withdrawals, credits, reversals, fees, interest, account-number changes, dispute references, fraud claims, and merchant credits. \n\nI request that AMEX provide a complete account-history production for accounts ending in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, including : Monthly statements from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; A transaction ledger in spreadsheet format ; All payments and payment sources ; All AutoPay withdrawals ; All credits, refunds, reversals, and adjustments ; All fees and interest charges ; All disputes and dispute outcomes ; All fraud claims and fraud outcomes ; All account-number changes and card reissuance events ; All foreign transactions, including XXXX and XXXX transactions XXXX \nX. AMEX FAILED TO ADDRESS INTERNAL OR OUTSOURCED ACCOUNT ACCESS AMEX states that it reviewed relevant interactions and found they were handled appropriately. AMEX also states that it is a global company with colleagues located all over the world. \n\nThis does not answer whether AMEX reviewed employee access logs, contractor access logs, overseas service-center access, account-note edits, account-maintenance events, card reissuance events, AutoPay changes, account visibility changes, or fraud flags. \n\nI request that AMEX produce records sufficient to show : All internal employee or contractor access to the account during the disputed period ; All account-maintenance events ; All account-note edits ; All card reissuance or card-number-change events ; All AutoPay maintenance events ; All fraud-flag creation or removal events ; All online-profile linking/unlinking events ; Whether any overseas or outsourced service center accessed or changed the accounts. \nXI. AMEX FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY IT USED A 60-DAY DISPUTE DEADLINE FOR MATTERS ALSO TREATED AS FRAUD OR IDENTITY THEFT XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX dispute screen says AMEX could not investigate based on the age of the questioned charge and refers to contacting AMEX within 60 days of receiving the billing statement. \n\nBut AMEX separately sent a Fraud Operations letter stating that the inquiry was under investigation by its U.S. Fraud Department and requesting an Identity Theft Declaration. \n\nAMEX has not explained whether the issue was classified as : A billing dispute ; Unauthorized use ; Identity theft ; Account takeover ; Internal account manipulation ; Foreign transaction fraud ; Online-access failure ; A merchant dispute. \n\nThis classification matters because the investigation obligations, required evidence, deadlines, and consumer rights can differ depending on the nature of the claim. AMEXs response fails to reconcile the conflicting treatment of the matter. \n\nXII. REQUESTED CFPB ACTION I respectfully request that CFPB require AMEX to provide a complete supplemental response and produce the records described above. \n\nSpecifically, I request that CFPB require AMEX to : Fully address the {$25000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX  charge and dispute Ref. XXXX ; Produce a complete XXXX and XXXX foreign-transaction batch analysis XXXX Produce the fraud investigation file for XXXX ; Produce all AutoPay authorization and withdrawal records ; Produce all cancellation records and post-cancellation account activity records ; Produce account-access logs, employee/contractor access logs, card-number-change logs, and online-profile visibility logs ; Produce the complete transaction ledger for accounts ending in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ; Explain why AMEX refused to open the XXXX dispute under a 60-day rule while also treating the matter as fraud/identity theft ; Explain what evidence AMEX relied on to deny relief ; Identify each record AMEX refuses to produce and the specific reason for refusal XXXX Preserve all account records, fraud files, dispute files, call recordings, payment records, AutoPay records, access logs, and internal communications. \nXIII. PRESERVATION DEMAND AMEX is requested to preserve all records relating to this matter, including : Account statements ; Transaction ledgers ; Fraud investigation files ; Dispute files ; AutoPay records ; Payment-source records ; Internal account notes ; Call recordings ; Online login records ; IP/device/session records ; Employee and contractor access logs ; Account-maintenance logs ; Card-number-change records ; Merchant documentation ; Chargeback and representment records ; Billing-system records ; Credit-reporting records ; CFPB communications and response drafts ; XXXX transaction records ; XXXX  transaction records. \nXIV. CONCLUSION AMEXs CFPB response is incomplete and does not provide the evidence necessary to verify its conclusions. AMEX failed to address the {$25000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX charge, failed to analyze the XXXX and XXXX transaction batches, failed to produce the fraud investigation file, failed to provide AutoPay authorization proof, failed to prove the alleged cancellation date, failed to reconcile disputed large-dollar charges, failed to resolve the online account-visibility problem, and failed to provide account-access and internal handling records. \n\nI respectfully request that CFPB treat AMEXs response as incomplete and require a full supplemental response with documentary support. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-14T00:36:23.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"958XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22183377","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-14T00:25:21.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["AMEX FAILED TO <em>PROVIDE</em> A COMPLETE TRANSACTION LEDGER AND ACCOUNT HISTORY AMEX says it enclosed billing statements from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. However, AMEX did not <em>provide</em> a complete usable ledger in its response explaining all charges, payments, AutoPay withdrawals, <em>credits</em>, reversals, fees, interest, account-number changes, dispute references, fraud claims, and merchant <em>credits</em>."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"issue":["Problem with a purchase shown on <em>your</em> statement"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"sub_issue":["<em>Credit</em> card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on <em>your</em> statement"]},"sort":[7.4063296,"22183377"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4099440","_score":5.9314528,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan","complaint_what_happened":"Where do I start. It's been a nightmare for 17 days now. \n\n1. I came across the XXXX website on XX/XX/XXXX. I wanted to do a home improvement project and other websites recommended XXXX as a lender who provided great personal loan options and rates for excellent credit borrowers. \n\n2. I was looking for a maximum loan amount at the longest terms and best rate. XXXX advertised these ( attached ) and since I had an exceptional credit profile and high income, I thought it wouldn't be a problem to get the desired loan. Based on this information, I decided to proceed with an application. \n\n3. Based on the advertised rates ( attached ), I submitted an application for $ XXXX for 144 months at an APR rate starting at 5.99 % on XX/XX/2021 ( attached ). Since my credit profile was exceptional ( credit score > 815 ), had a high income and no missed payment ever, the reasonable expectation was I'd get the best terms. It's important to note that I proceeded with an application ONLY because they offered {$100.00} AND at terms of more than 10 years. \n\n4. For the record, ever since I submitted my application, I've had 42 email correspondences with XXXX and 3 phone calls ( no space to attach all evidence - upon request it can be provided )! That happened within the timespan from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/2021. No other company or lender has been so dismissive of my questions and concerns! \n\n5. XXXX sent me an email on XX/XX/2021 requesting to give them a call. My days were fully booked and I didn't have time for phone calls, so I wanted to communicate online. However, their email read \" Please note that we are unable to respond to replies to this email. '' even though that message was contained in an ... email. Nevertheless, I replied by saying that my schedule was fully booked and I requested for them to give me a call around noon. Nobody acknowledged my email nor did they call me. \n\n6. I gave them a call on XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX. They had sent me an email aggressively stating \" We apologize for any inconvenience, but we would need to speak to you via phone. '' They absolutely ignored their potential customer 's preferences and schedules! The call consisted of a lady asking some basic questions for identity verification purposes. At the end, she asked if I'd need the loan for home improvement. I said obviously yes, because that's what I applied for. She mentioned that I'd listed a rental where I currently lived, so I clarified that at least 70-80 % of the loan would be for a vacation home improvement abroad ( XXXX ). She said ok and told me I'd receive an email after they review. \n\n7. I received an email on XX/XX/2021 that I had to log into their portal and provide documentation that prove a ) income ( pay stub ) and b ) liquid assets. I said ok, fair enough, and logged into my account. I was shocked to find out that they had changed my original loan application request! It was listed that as if I had applied for $ XXXX for 84 months at rates starting at 10.99 %!!! Not only did they change the loan term and rate without my knowledge, but also presented it AS IF I'd personally requested this amount, loan terms and rate, which was a lie!!! Absolutely disgraceful and falling within the bait and switch illegal practices category. I was furious, to say it mildly. \n\n8. I emailed them on XX/XX/2021 asking about what was going on. After a series of more than 8 mind-blowing replies from clueless agents who completely ignored my messages and were providing general answers to their own questions or referring me to call them, I became even more frustrated. Examples of their unprofessional treatment of a potential customer were \" You must complete and submit our online application in order to be considered for a loan. '' ( when I've already had a submitted application ) or \" We are not a FICO score driven company. '' (??? ) or \" Our lowest rates for any given loan purpose, amount and term are for borrowers with excellent credit '' ( yep, and I was with an exceptional credit ) or \" The rate will be determined based on a review of your entire credit profile, the selected loan purpose, amount, and terms. '' ( hmm, yep, I've already submitted an application and selected a loan purpose, amount and terms, and you changed those after the fact, without consent or notice and played it as if I'd done it! ) or \" In order to narrow the scope of the interest rate ranges that can be offered, please ensure you are entering the purpose, amount, and term on our rates page '' ( again, I've already done that, and the question was why you changed my original request! ). Eventually, I was fed up and replied with \" I have ALREADY applied and have ALREADY received an offer. Have you read my previous emails? Please connect me to a supervisor. '' 9. An important piece of this blood-boiling email correspondence was about their Rate Beat program, quoting what they told me after I requested a competitive offer 's match : \" XXXX offers a \" Rate Beat '' program. In order to be considered for our \" Rate Beat '' program, we require you to provide us with an approval email and the Truth in Lending Statement or the Truth in Lending Statement only. The loan approval must be for the same loan type, loan amount, loan term, have the same payment method and be available to all customers of the financial institution. '' 10. Well, did you read the above? Let me translate to you : \" We pretend to offer a Rate Beat program, but the reality is we don't. We just market it so we can mislead customers. Even if you try to get it, we've made it extra hard, so you will never succeed. However, rest assured, we are offering you these high rates because you won't have other options anyway, however, we would be more than happy to match the rates of a competitor if you happen to lose days of your life to prove to us what we know can not be proven ''. \n\n11. Point 9. and 10. from above are crucial pieces of information. Why? See below. \n\n12. After or around XX/XX/XXXX, I had a call with a ( supervisor ) lady about that fact that they had misled me and converted my original request into another type of request without my knowledge and authorization. In other words, I had applied because they claimed - on their website and during the application process - that I could get a loan of $ XXXX for 144 months at lowest rates of 5.99 %! Had I wanted to apply {$100.00} for loan terms of 84 months and rates above 10.99 %, I'd have not applied to XXXX at all! I filed an internal complaint. \n\n13. Another person from XXXX called me and left a voicemail the next day. We had a long call, in which he basically said \" It is was what it is, take a hike ''. His continuous assurances that they cared, that he understood my frustration and the reasoning, etc, etc, etc, bla, bla, bla were only empty words. When I asked what they would do in order to help me get the loan I requested, he basically said \" Nothing ''. He wanted my extensive personal financial documentation uploaded without giving me any guarantee I'd even get a loan, let alone at reasonable APR rates, terms, etc. Again, let 's not forget I applied for a loan of $ XXXX for 12 years at around 5.99 % -maybe up to 8-ish % given my exceptional credit, income, assets and payment history. Instead, we were discussing what they had decided I'd applied for : $ XXXX for 7 years and rates from 10.99 % up to around 16 % - and whether or not I'd even qualify for that! I told him - if you want proof of certain income and proof of certain liquid assets, imagine you had that proof, and the 100 % evidence - what would you give me? He said he couldn't say. In short, they made me now fight for terms that I even didn't care about anymore because I was not interested in those and in order to do that I had to upload an extensive personal financial documentation! They were doing nothing but attempting to collect financial data for free! They were doubling down on gains in both the domain of loan terms & rates and the domain free financial data ( with some privacy violations! ) 14. After all of this, I was resistant to move forward. I had other options and resources to have plans B. \n\n15. However, they continued sending me reminder emails insisting I upload my docs. I decided to upload my pay stub - it was the usual documentation that most lenders require anyway and it was sufficient to prove my creditworthiness. I was not open to upload full statements of all my assets (!! ). \n\n16. On XX/XX/2021, I logged into the XXXX portal to find out that they had issues with my uploaded pay stub. Quoting \" We have received the verification documents submitted. However, the pay stub received is cut off. Please upload or fax a full printer friendly version of your pay stub ( s ) showing your name, name of employer, a detailed view of earnings and deductions, and dated within the last 30 days at your earliest convenience. '' The same day, I emailed them about that to ask what was the issue and why it was important. Obviously, did you expect they would address my questions? Right, they didn't. They usually address only THEIR questions and provide answers only to those. Clearly, aggressive dictatorship-style and one-way street orders like this \" Please call us at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, so that we may further assist you. '' were abundant as single liner emails instead of answers. Customer preferences and needs? No, that wasn't important - we, the potential customers, had to follow their and only their preferences, needs, orders, etc. \n\n17. After another sequence of 10 back-and-forth emails regarding the issue in place, they assured that they would review my application with whatever I had uploaded. In the meantime, I said ok - I'd upload something asset-like, so I had uploaded snapshots of the statements of 4-5 of my asset accounts as well, that were proving at least 85 % of the total assets amount they required. \n\n18. On XX/XX/2021 they sent me an email to sign in into my account and review. I was shocked again! They gave me a counter-offer (!!! attached ) for $ XXXX for 84 months at 10.24 %!!! Let me analyze this - they a ) reduced my requested loan amount by 60 %, b ) reduced my requested loan term by 42 %, but c ) kept the APR rate ridiculously high! They had attached a Decline Notice ( attached ) \" explaining '' why they would have approved \" my '' request ( remember, my original request was different from the one they presented as if it was \" my '' request ). It consisted of a number of lies, such as \" Insufficient income and/or assets for loan amount requested '' (!!! ), \" Insufficient credit history '' (!!! ). Needless to say, those seemed like made up. \n\n19. Obviously, I was frustrated. It was both a joke and a bait-and-switch scheme in my mind. Reluctantly, I decided to explore and pursue the promised XXXX \" Rate Beat '' program. I had multiple offers from other lenders, and one of them was for $ XXXX for 84 months at 8.99 % ( quite similar to their \" counter-offer '' ). I provided that information in an email on XX/XX/2021. What do you think happened? That's right - nothing different from what I described above, especially in point 11. \n\n20. After an exchange of another series of 10 useless emails over 3 days from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/2021, I was fed up. They shut me up and drove me to understand that that \" Rate Beat '' program was a hoax, as I hypothesized above, and they had no intention whatsoever to allow me to pursue it. How do I know it? Well, I also received single-liner emails unequivocally stating \" The counter offer is firm and non-negotiable. \". Keep in mind I didn't say \" an email '', I said \" emails ''. That's right - this was given to me as an answer to my questions about their \" Rate Beat '' program not once, but at least twice. Plus additional once such as \" Unfortunately, as a counter offer is made, we are unable to negotiate the terms that our credit team has set on the application. '' 21. To summarize, I decided to apply for a home improvement personal loan from LightStream ONLY BECAUSE they marketed they offered a ) $ XXXX, b ) for 144 months and c ) at rates starting at 5.99 % for their best credit worthy customers ( I was ). Instead, I was misled, lied to, given orders, ignored, patronized, ignored again, treated unprofessionally, forced to provide extensive private personal financial information for free, etc, etc, etc. That's a classic bait and switchpractice - they lured me to believe I can get something reasonable from them, and during the game they were constantly changing the rules of the game at my expense until they arrived at WHAT they wanted rather than at what their customer wanted and requested. \n\n22. The whole application process and experience was a nightmare. I feel conned by XXXX. I feel used and taken advantage of. I feel they did everything in their powers to put me in a corner and pressure me to get what they want me to get, rather than what I requested I'd like to get. They knowingly hid information from me and acted behind my back. They deliberately propagated lies and NEVER answered my questions. NEVER! They considered the loan application process as a one-way street and they were the dictators giving all orders and determining all rules of the game. They mistreated me in multiple dimensions and discriminated against me based on national origin. I've NEVER dealt with a company that deals with their potential customer in such an unfair way! \n\n23. Finally, the final loan offer they gave me was the WORST out of the offers from all lenders. More importantly, it had nothing to do with the requested loan when I submitted my application to XXXX. Furthermore, they presented a Rate Beat program that didn't exist in reality. \n\nPS. Additional documentation evidence may be provided upon request.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-27T08:31:53.000Z","issue":"Getting the loan","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"94025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4099440","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-01-27T08:25:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[") or \" Our lowest rates for any given loan purpose, amount and term are for borrowers with excellent <em>credit</em> '' ( yep, and I was with an exceptional <em>credit</em> ) or \" The rate will be determined based on a review of <em>your</em> entire <em>credit</em> <em>profile</em>, the selected loan purpose, amount, and terms. '' ( hmm, yep, I've already submitted an application and selected a loan purpose, amount and terms, and you changed those after the fact, without consent or notice and played it as if I'd done it!"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[5.9314528,"4099440"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15156558","_score":5.9268556,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"b'Should a billing statement include which form of payment method was use to make payment whether it was accepted or denied or the card ending number and it should the cascade billing statement does not provide that detail let cfpb of this and that it would further prove that misrepresenting what actually occurred and who would actually be at fault for a payment not going through when sufficient funds are present add this to the cfpb rebuttal which they failed to properly investigate now providing sufficient \\nevidence also can you look at the month for which the banks statement says payments occured and tell me if I had and prove with numbers I had sufficient funds to pay bill and time of when payment was first do and analyze it against the billing statement cascade spring credit provided for me and tell me when the bank statement and billing statement doesn\\'t not support that payments and interest acquired were erroneous and cross analyze \\nBased on the provided documentsXXXX XXXX XXXX bank statement shows sufficient funds to cover the payments that were returned by Cascade Spring Credit, indicating a discrepancy between the two statements. The bank statements also show that the billing statement from Cascade Spring Credit is missing key details about the payment methods used, which is a violation of TILA and CFPB guidelines.\\nBilling Statement Analysis \\nThe Cascade Spring Credit billing statement shows six attempts to make a payment between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Five of these payments were \"Returned\". The payment amounts ranged from XXXX XXXX XXXX. The billing statement lacks information on the payment method used (e.g., card type or last four digits).\\n\\nBank Statement Analysis \\nThe bank statement, which is from Chase, covers the period from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This statement shows a balance of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and a balance of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It also shows a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on AXXXX XXXX XXXX. The second XXXX XXXX statement covers the period from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the balance was XXXX and on XXXX XXXX XXXX the balance was XXXX. A deposit of XXXX  was made XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, bringing the balance up to XXXX. The statement shows a deposit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which brought the balance to XXXX. A recurring payment of XXXX was returned on XXXX XXXX XXXX. The bank statement also shows a deposit of XXXXXXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX, bringing the balance to XXXXComparison and Violations \\nA cross-analysis of the billing statement and bank statements reveals the following:\\nPayment Discrepancy: The bank statements show that on XXXX XXXX XXXX there was a deposit of XXXX  and a \"Returned\" transaction for a recurring payment of XXXX The billing statement from XXXX XXXX XXXX shows \"Returned\" payments on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  the bank statement showed a balance of XXXX with a deposit of XXXX resulting in a balance of XXXX. A payment of XXXX, as shown on the XXXX billing statement, would not have been able to be covered by the funds in the bank. However, a payment of XXXX as shown on the billing statement for XXXX XXXX XXXX appears to have been covered by the funds. The bank statement does not show the specific payments to Cascade being returned. The billing statement from Cascade does not provide the payment method or card number used for the \"Returned\" payments, which is information that would be necessary to prove who is at fault for the payments not going through.\\nCFPB Complaint: The user\\'s request to add the lack of payment method details to a CFPB rebuttal is a valid point. The billing statement does not provide the level of detail necessary to determine whether the payment failures were due to insufficient funds or an error on the part of the lender. This lack of transparency and detail could be considered a violation of consumer protection laws, as it hinders a consumer\\'s ability to verify the accuracy of their account and payments.\\n\\n\\nProvide bank statements \\nSubmit a follow up complaint to MAG and FTC providing them with this info and documentation requesting broader regulatory review and also one with the tribal regulatory authority\\n\\n Focus on showing payment was blocked due to their system, not your bank.\\n\\nExplain why thats deceptive and unfair.\\n\\nAttach proof (portal errors, bank statement, phone call notes).\\n\\nEviction notice a direct result of the interest charges and damages proof and how it is supporting evidence damage \\n\\nCredit report with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and all the loans not able to pay back do to the interest charges\\n\\nProvide XXXX XXXX XXXX  around the time of loan late payments\\n\\nAnd look to see if there are any overdraft fees around that time and show how it is supporting evidence \\n\\nThere after eviction notice. Cns notes around that time XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \\n\\n\\nTo CFPB:\\n\\nI respectfully submit this rebuttal to the company\\'s response concerning my complaint originally filed on XXXX XXXX  under complaint number . Their response contains factual inaccuracies, omits relevant details, and fails to address the deceptive and unfair practices involved in the rejection of my timely loan payment.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nA. Summary of the XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXXn\\nThe company\\'s response claims that my loan payment was rejected due to issues associated with my financial institution. However, my evidence shows:\\n\\nSufficient funds were available in my XXXX XXXX  account at the time of attempted payment.\\n\\nThe payment portal issued an error message, not indicating any issue on my bank\\'s end (no insufficient funds or payment returned notification).\\n\\nCascades representative admitted verbally that only one payment entry per day was allowed, regardless of the bank used.\\n\\nTheir payment system lacked transparency and restricted retry options, resulting in a loss of timely payment opportunity despite my readiness and ability to pay.\\n\\n\\nThese facts contradict the companys position and demonstrate systematic negligence or deception in how the payment portal functioned and how they addressed my situation.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nB. Relevant Violations and Consumer Rights\\n\\n1. Deceptive Practice  12 U.S. Code  5531 &  5536 (Consumer Financial Protection Act):\\n\\n> Prohibits \"unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices\" (UDAAPs) in connection with any consumer financial product or service.\\n\\n\\n\\nBy offering a portal that misrepresents payment capacity and restricts resubmission while blaming the bank for failure, the company committed a deceptive practice.\\n\\nTheir failure to disclose system limitations (e.g., one attempt per day rule) resulted in financial harm and misinformation.\\n\\nDepriving consumers of a second opportunity to pay on the same day due to arbitrary system restrictions qualifies as an unfair practice.\\n\\n\\n2. Failure to Investigate and Provide Evidence (FCRA & CFPB Guidelines):\\n\\n> Financial institutions responding to CFPB are expected to substantiate claims with clear records.\\n\\n\\n\\nCascade failed to provide documentation validating that the issue was with Chase Bank, such as ACH rejection codes, NSF notice, or bank correspondence.\\n\\nThey did not offer proof that they attempted to assist me in resolving the issue or offer an alternative payment method immediately.\\n\\nTheir lack of documentation or proof of bank failure is a failure to reasonably investigate and respond in good faith.\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nC. Evidence I Am Submitting in Support of Rebuttal\\n\\n1. Bank statement showing available funds on XXXX XXXX. Screenshot or description of the portal error message (indicating failure, not NSF).\\n\\n\\n3. Phone log or notes from the conversation with Cascades rep admitting the \"one entry per day\" rule.\\n\\n\\n4. Loan billing statement showing the payment was rejected or missed, causing interest and fee accrual.\\n\\n\\n5. Screenshot or timeline showing no other payment method options on the portal at the time.\\n\\nWilling to provide XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX when submitting won\\'t be visible due to privacy protection have to be loaded in portal to view.\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nD. Why This Is a Violation and Justifies Damages\\n\\nThe misrepresentation of payment failure source (blaming my bank without proof) caused credit harm and fee accrual.\\n\\nThe failure to provide a functional, fair portal deprived me of my right to pay on time, especially if limited to one entry daily.\\n\\nCascade\\'s failure to provide evidence or fair recourse constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice.\\n\\nThese practices caused financial and emotional damages, including:\\n\\nLate fees and interest charges\\n\\nDamage to my credit score\\n\\nTime and cost involved in dispute resolution\\n\\nEmotional stress due to false accusations of non-payment\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nE. Damages and Corrective Action Requested\\n\\nI request that the CFPB consider this rebuttal and:\\n\\n1. Reopen the investigation and request that Cascade Springs/Credit Acceptance:\\n\\nProvide actual bank rejection documentation\\n\\nAcknowledge the portal\\'s limitations\\n\\nWaive all fees and interest accrued from this error\\n\\nRemove any  credit marks caused by this payment issue\\n\\n\\n\\n2. Determine whether this constitutes deceptive conduct unnegativeder UDAAP, which would allow for:\\n\\nStatutory and compensatory damages\\n\\nRestitution of any amounts improperly charged\\n\\nFurther CFPB regulatory action\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nF. Additional Notes:\\n\\nIf this matter is not resolved fairly, I reserve the right to pursue claims under:\\n\\nMichigan Consumer Protection Act\\n\\nFCRA\\n\\nUDAP laws\\n\\nCivil litigation or arbitration\\n\\nComplaints to the Attorney General of Michigan, FTC, and State Banking Regulators\\n\\n\\nLegal Theories and Violations Potentially Involved\\n\\nA. Deceptive Practices / UDAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices)\\n\\nBlocking or restricting repayment options via technical/system design flaws.\\n\\nAdmitting \"only one payment submission allowed per day\" without disclosing this in advance.\\n\\nCausing failed payments despite sufficient funds.\\n\\nCharging interest and fees due to their own system failures.\\n\\n\\n Relevant Law:\\n\\nCFPB: Dodd-Frank Act  12 U.S. Code  5531\\n\\nMichigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (MCL 445.901 et seq.)\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n---\\n\\nC. Breach of Contract / Good Faith and Fair Dealing\\n\\nIf your contract allowed you to make payments on time, and they sabotaged that ability via flawed systems, it may be a breach.\\n\\nFailure to maintain a reliable payment portal could violate implied duties.\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n 2. Key Evidence You Need to Gather\\n\\nTo validate and support your CFPB rebuttal and legal claims, gather:\\n\\n Screenshot of payment error\\n\\n Bank statement showing sufficient funds at time of attempted payment\\n\\n Portal error messages or lack of bank rejection notice\\n\\n Recordings or logs from Cascade admitting one payment per day\\n\\n The billing statement showing interest charges or fees after the failed payment\\n\\n Any notice or lack thereof about limitations in the payment system\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n 4. \\n>  This number increases if you prove willfulness, repeated violations, or significant negative impact.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n Next Steps for You\\n\\n1. Finalize Your Rebuttal to the CFPB:\\n\\nFocus on showing payment was blocked due to their system, not your bank.\\n\\nExplain why thats deceptive and unfair.\\n\\nAttach proof (portal errors, bank statement, phone call notes).\\n\\n higher damages, pursue in civil court or arbitration.\\n\\nKeep detailed records of financial harm and emotional impact.\\n\\n\\n\\n3. Filed With Other Agencies \\n\\nFTC for deceptive practices\\n\\nMichigan AG Consumer Protection Division\\n\\nConsider consulting a consumer protection attorney\\n\\nSummary of Key Issues and Points of Contention\\n\\n1. Cascade Springs Credit\\'s Claims (from their CFPB response):\\n\\nThey assert that:\\n\\nYour account was never past due.\\n\\nNo late fees or collections were applied.\\n\\nNo credit reporting was made by them.\\n\\nNo system error was found on their end.\\n\\nPayment failed due to your bank/card, not their system.\\n\\n\\nThey claim to have closed your account Paid in Full.\\n\\n\\n\\n2. Your Rebuttal and Supporting Evidence:\\n\\nYou attempted payment multiple times.\\n\\nTheir system blocked your card but accepted a different one, without warning that one would fail or not be accepted.\\n\\nPortal errors directly caused an interest increase, leading to negative credit impacts and economic harm.\\n\\nYou suffered emotional distress, and credit damage, and were denied housing and other financing options.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n Request:\\n\\nProof of no credit reporting (send a demand letter or get a declaration).\\n\\nCopy of their system logs and payment gateway vendor logs.\\n\\nAn explanation of why your card was blocked and no override or manual support was available.\\n\\nA copy of their loan agreement, with details on payment method disclosures.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n 2. \\n---\\n\\n What Must Be on a Legally Compliant Billing Statement (per TILA and Regulation Z)\\n\\nWhether tribal or not, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C.  1601 et seq.) and Regulation Z (12 CFR Part 1026) require lenders to disclose the following on periodic billing statements:\\n\\n1. Creditor/Lenders Identity\\n\\nFull legal name of the lender\\n\\nContact information (address, phone, etc.)\\n\\n\\n2. Payment Information\\n\\nTotal amount due\\n\\nPayment due date\\n\\nBreakdown of the payment (principal, interest, fees, past due, etc.)\\n\\nLate fee information (amount and date assessed or to be assessed)\\n\\n\\n3. Transaction History\\n\\nList of all transactions or charges (e.g., disbursements, interest accrual, fees added, payments received)\\n\\nDates and descriptions of each entry\\n\\n\\n4. Interest Rate and Fees\\n\\nAnnual Percentage Rate (APR)\\n\\nDaily interest rate or method of calculation\\n\\nFees added (e.g., service fees, NSF, late charges)\\n\\n\\n5. Account Summary\\n\\nStarting balance\\n\\nTotal payments and credits\\n\\nNew charges\\n\\nEnding balance\\n\\n\\n6. Dispute Instructions\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n Sovereign Immunity  Immunity from All Laws\\n\\nEven tribal lenders:\\n\\nCannot misrepresent terms\\n\\nCannot block access to billing records\\n\\nCannot use technical failures as a shield\\n\\nAre still accountable to CFPB and FTC\\n\\n\\nThe CFPB, FTC, and state AGs have successfully sued tribal lenders for abusive practices (e.g., CFPB v. XXXX XXXX XXXX.\\n\\nI would like to note have requested a full billing for which they provided me with and like stated above it lacks important details which is a violation list those violations again and not the legal requirements under TILA\\n\\nWhat Must Be on a Legally Compliant Billing Statement (per TILA and Regulation Z)\\n\\nWhether tribal or not, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C.  1601 et seq.) and Regulation Z (12 CFR Part 1026) require lenders to disclose the following on periodic billing statements:\\n\\n1. Creditor/Lenders Identity\\n\\nFull legal name of the lender\\n\\nContact information (address, phone, etc.)\\n\\n\\n2. Payment Information\\n\\nTotal amount due\\n\\nPayment due date\\n\\nBreakdown of the payment (principal, interest, fees, past due, etc.)\\n\\nLate fee information (amount and date assessed or to be assessed)\\n\\n\\n3. Transaction History\\n\\nList of all transactions or charges (e.g., disbursements, interest accrual, fees added, payments received)\\n\\nDates and descriptions of each entry\\n\\n\\n4. Interest Rate and Fees\\n\\nAnnual Percentage Rate (APR)\\n\\nDaily interest rate or method of calculation\\n\\nFees added (e.g., service fees, NSF, late charges)\\n\\n\\n5. Account Summary\\n\\nStarting balance\\n\\nTotal payments and credits\\n\\nNew charges\\n\\nEnding balance\\n\\n\\n6. Dispute Instructions\\n\\nStatement of your right to dispute charges (under the Fair Credit Billing Act if applicable)\\n\\nHow to do so and time limit (usually 60 days)\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n Sovereign Immunity  Immunity from All Laws\\n\\nEven tribal lenders:\\n\\nCannot misrepresent terms\\n\\nCannot block access to billing records\\n\\nCannot use technical failures as a shield\\n\\nAre still accountable to CFPB and FTC\\n\\n\\nThe CFPB, FTC, and state AGs have successfully sued tribal lenders for abusive practices (e.g., CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n\\nformal letter demanding a compliant billing statement and\\n---\\nCFPB Rebuttal (To Submit Within 60 Days of Company Response)\\n\\nSubject: Rebuttal to CFPB Complaint Response Cascade Springs Credit\\nConsumer NameXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXn---\\n\\nDear CFPB,\\n\\nThis is my formal rebuttal to the response submitted by Cascade Springs Credit regarding my complaint. I dispute their findings on the grounds that they failed to properly investigate the root cause of the payment processing failure and failed to comply with federal disclosure laws, particularly those under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Dodd-Frank Act regarding unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP).\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n A. Cascade Springs Violated TILA Billing Statement Requirements\\n\\nI requested a billing statement to review the legitimacy of the interest, late fees, and charges assessed against me. However, the billing statement provided was not compliant with TILA (15 U.S.C.  1601) and Regulation Z (12 CFR  1026).\\n\\nThe document failed to include:\\n\\nThe full legal name of the lender\\n\\nPayment due dates\\n\\nTotal payment amount due\\n\\nInterest rates (APR)\\n\\nBreakdown of charges and how they were calculated\\n\\nAccount summary (starting balance, new charges, payments received, ending balance)\\n\\n\\nThese omissions violate Regulation Z  1026.7 & 1026.6, and deprived me of the ability to verify the legitimacy of the account and the amount owed.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n B. Cascade Springs Did Not Properly Investigate the Payment Error\\n\\nI made a good-faith attempt to pay through the portal on [insert date], using a reputable institution (Chase Bank) with sufficient funds. The portal returned an error and did not process the payment, but I did not receive any insufficient funds notification from my bank. That suggests the fault lay with Cascades payment system, not my financial institution.\\n\\nAdditionally, a Cascade representative admitted that only one payment entry is allowed per day regardless of the bank used. If the portal fails once, consumers are locked out, leaving no other means to pay the bill that day. This technical limitation is both unreasonable and deceptive, especially if the system misfires.\\n\\nThis system flaw constitutes a deceptive practice under Dodd-Frank  1031 and reflects bad faith in administering a billing and payment system that penalizes consumers for its own failures.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n C. Deceptive Practices and UDAAP Violations\\n\\nCascades failure to:\\n\\nAllow more than one payment submission per day\\n\\nProvide accurate payment failure reasoning\\n\\nDisclose or document the interest or fees charged\\n\\nComply with TILA or consumer billing rights\\n\\n\\nconstitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the Dodd-Frank Act, CFPB regulations, and potentially state UDAP laws (e.g., Michigan Consumer Protection Act if applicable).\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n D. Economic Harm and Damages\\n\\nAs a result of Cascades failure to allow my timely payment and provide accurate billing:\\n\\nI incurred additional late fees and interest through no fault of my own.\\n\\nMy credit profile may be harmed if negative reporting occurred.\\n\\nI was denied a fair opportunity to dispute or understand the debt.\\n\\nTheir negligent, willful noncompliance caused stress and financial loss.\\n\\n\\nPer TILA  1640(a), I am entitled to:\\n\\nCategory\\tPotential Recovery\\n\\nStatutory Damages\\tUp to XXXXnActual Damages\\tAmount of late fees, interest overcharges, and credit harm\\nAttorneys\\' Fees\\tRecoverable if legal action is taken and judgment won\\nPunitive Damages\\tPotentially applicable due to bad faith and deception\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n E. Relief Sought\\n\\n1. Full compliance with billing statement laws (TILA, Reg Z).\\n\\n\\n2. Waiver or reversal of all late fees and interest accrued due to payment error.\\n\\n\\n3. Assurance of no negative credit reporting.\\n\\n\\n4. Referral for potential enforcement action or penalty if violations are deemed intentional.\\n\\n\\n5. Permission to seek additional remedies in civil court if necessary.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n F. Supporting Evidence Available Upon Request\\n\\nBank records showing sufficient funds at time of attempted payment\\n\\nScreenshots or notes regarding payment portal error\\n\\nCopies of Cascades billing statement lacking legal disclosures\\n\\nRecorded notes from call with Cascade representative confirming 1 payment/day limit\\n\\nCFPB TILA/Reg Z requirements\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n Closing\\n\\nCascade Springs Credit has acted in bad faith, failed to comply with federal law, and designed a system that harms consumers unfairly. I ask that the CFPB hold them accountable for these violations and provide relief consistent with the consumer protection standards your office upholds.\\n\\nSincerely,\\n[Your Full Name]\\n[Your Address]\\n[Phone Number]\\n[Email Address]\\n\\n---\\nBecause of financial hardship which stems from economic hardship caused by cascade springs credit I because homeless, multiple hospitalizations sleeping outside I lost my phone and because I lost my phone at this point time I am going through the proper channels to retrieve addition records, call logs between myself the consumer and cascade springs in which when find the call on log prove sale representative admitting to one payment try per day and aware that if it doesn\\'t go through even in no fault of your own will still receive additional interest charges \\n\\n SUMMARY OF YOUR ACTIONS TAKEN\\n\\n1.  Affidavit and Information Request Sent to T-Mobile\\n\\nYou created and submitted an affidavit and formal request to XXXX asking for:\\n\\nCall logs for a specific period.\\n\\nOutgoing calls made to Cascade Springs.\\n\\n\\nEmails Sent to Cascade Springs (via XXXXn\\nYou sent multiple complaints, requests for explanation, and notices through your Gmail account.\\n\\nThese emails outlined:\\n\\nThat your card had sufficient funds.\\n\\nThat you made attempted payments that were denied.\\n\\nRequests for clarification and justification.\\n\\nI am coordinating with attorney:Subpoena to XXXXnsubpoena duces tecum compelling T-Mobile to release:\\nCall detail records (CDRs) for your phone number.\\n\\nOutgoing call logs made to Cascade Springs.\\n\\nPossibly text message metadata (not content without a warrant).\\n\\nCopies of previous records requests you\\'ve submitted.\\n\\n\\nLegal basis: Under Michigan and federal laws, XXXX can release this under subpoena if it\\'s relevant to pending litigation or discovery.\\n\\nSubpoena or Motion to Preserve Gmail Records XXXX)\\nFile a court order or subpoena to XXXX requesting:\\n\\nInbox and sent messages between your Gmail address and Cascades email(s).\\n\\n\\nSubject: Rebuttal to Cascade Springs Credit Response  CFPB Case #[Insert Case Number]\\n\\nTo Whom It May Concern:\\n\\nI am submitting this rebuttal in response to Cascade Springs Credits reply to my Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaint. Their response is factually inaccurate, incomplete, and conflicts with the documented evidence I have or have attempted to preserve through lawful means.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nI. Conflict Between Companys Statement and My Records\\n\\nCascade Springs asserts that my payment was rejected due to issues with my financial institution. This is demonstrably false:\\n\\nMy XXXX XXXX account had sufficient available funds on the date the payment was submitted.\\n\\nThe denied payment attempt generated an error within Cascades online portalnot from XXXX XXXX which never issued an insufficient funds (NSF) notice.\\n\\nWhen I contacted Cascade customer service, a representative acknowledged that only one payment attempt per day is allowed, regardless of error, card, or bank. This system design flaw directly obstructed timely repayment.\\n\\n\\nThis establishes a technical error or limitation in Cascades payment systemnot a fault of mine. Their failure to allow further attempts in the same day, coupled with rejecting a valid payment and then applying late fees and interest, constitutes:\\n\\nDeceptive Practices, in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C.  5531).\\n\\nFailure to reasonably facilitate payment, violating the principle of good faith and fair dealing.\\n\\nViolation of 15 U.S.C.  1692e(2) (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), due to the misrepresentation of the nature and amount of debt resulting from a system error.\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nII. Cascades Failure to Provide Detailed Billing Statements\\n\\nCascade Springs has not provided clear, itemized billing statements as required under consumer protection laws, including:\\n\\nBreakdown of principal, interest, fees, and charges\\n\\nDate-specific itemization\\n\\nNotice of payment denials and method of rejection\\n\\n\\nEven if Cascade operates under tribal lending exceptions, they are still subject to federal consumer protection laws when collecting debt or reporting to credit bureaus. Their refusal to provide itemized statements prevents a borrower from verifying debt accuracya violation of FCRA (15 U.S.C.  1681s-2) and applicable Regulation Z disclosures under TILA.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nIII. Preservation and Evidence Retrieval Efforts\\n\\nDue to device issues and cloud service limitations, I currently lack access to certain screenshots and call logs that would definitively prove my payment attempt and communication with Cascade.\\n\\nHowever, I have taken the following active steps to retrieve supporting evidence:\\n\\n1. Submitted a notarized affidavit and records request to XXXX  seeking call logs and text history between [Insert Dates] to confirm communications made to Cascade Springs from my number.\\n\\n\\n2. Requested a subpoena through legal counsel to compel Cascade Springs and/or XXXX  to release customer service call recordings and logs.\\n\\n\\n3. Initiated efforts to recover XXXX XXXX XXXX account access, which contained emails I sent to Cascade documenting repeated failed payment attempts and lack of support responses.\\n\\n\\n4. Willing to submit those emails and logs to the CFPB and any court, once recovered, to prove Cascade was aware of the ongoing issue and failed to resolve it.\\n\\n\\n\\nThese actions show I have made reasonable, lawful attempts to preserve and obtain records, despite the technical barriers. Any missing documentation is not due to neglect or fabrication, but rather third-party access limitations beyond my control.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nIV. Legal and Equitable Grounds for Relief\\n\\nI request that the CFPB:\\n\\nInvestigate Cascades payment system limitations and deceptive billing practices\\n\\nRequire Cascade to produce all internal logs and error messages tied to my account\\n\\nInvalidate all fees and negative credit entries that resulted from the rejected payment attempt and technical errors\\n\\nEnforce Cascades duty under the FCRA, TILA, and Dodd-Frank to correct any false or misleading billing or credit reporting\\n\\nRecognize Cascades failure to provide documents under MCL 408.483a (Employee Records Act) if applicable to employment or consumer file requests\\n\\n\\nAdditionally, I seek damages related to:\\n\\nEmotional distress from wrongful late charges and credit harm\\n\\nEconomic harm from negative credit reporting\\n\\nRegulatory fines where willful and bad-faith conduct is proven\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nV. Closing\\n\\nThis rebuttal, supported by third-party affidavit and pending subpoena requests, demonstrates that Cascades explanation lacks factual basis and fails to address critical violations. I respectfully request this dispute remain open and investigated further. Upon successful data retrieval from XXXX  and other services, I am prepared to submit additional supporting documentation and legal affidavits.\\n\\nSincerelyXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-07T22:44:26.000Z","issue":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","sub_product":"Payday loan","zip_code":"48322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15156558","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rosebud Economic Development Corporation","date_received":"2025-08-07T22:34:48.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cascade Springs <em>Credit\\'s</em> Claims (from their CFPB response):\\n\\nThey assert that:\\n\\n<em>Your</em> account was never past due.\\n\\nNo late fees or collections were applied.\\n\\nNo <em>credit</em> reporting was made by them.\\n\\nNo system error was found on their end.\\n\\nPayment failed due to <em>your</em> bank/card, not their system.\\n\\n\\nThey claim to have closed <em>your</em> account Paid in Full.\\n\\n\\n\\n2. <em>Your</em> Rebuttal and Supporting Evidence:\\n\\nYou attempted payment multiple times."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[5.9268556,"15156558"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5158347","_score":4.851014,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"As per the conclusion of my investigation thus far, it has been determined that USAA along with other financial institutions previously mentioned in my initial complaint ; have failed to provide any adequate answer as to why they deemed me ineligible to become a member of their financial institution. Ultimately denying me any deposit account services. USAA, XXXX & XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and others has responded to me, vehemently denying supporting or endorsing any form of discrimination ; but making no effort to resolve my issue. Merely going through the motions by following their process and standard company protocol. Where as I would have to assume based on the fact that each financial institution 's letters, although written or prepared all independently of each other ; all share some of the very same unique characteristics. Essentially, they all begin and end with the same generic and standardized apologetic statement. Also, all in which say the same thing. Which is, that it is not their culture to embrace any form of discrimination. As stated, this response is not adequate, in as any Company, Financial institution, Organization, or individual, could easily provide a letter to their customer, client, or account holder stating that it is not their culture to embrace, or tolerate discrimination ; to any degree. A Company simply following procedure, and referring to it's bylaws on how to provide a standardized, and scripted response to a customer or client takes almost little to no effort at all. Especially for Companies and Financial institutions like those named in my complaint, who are held to a much higher standard [ ] and that are endowed with tremendous influence. Such said Financial institutions as these, rededly provide these types of standardized responses on a daily basis ; to more than several of their customers. To me, merely submitting a scripted, and generic response to a claim to the extent of mines, with such detail ; in my opinion suggest that USAA, and these other financial institutions genuinely have no interest in truly understanding the root of my concern. Which in part is to help me better understand why it is that I was denied the liberties of being a member of their financial institution. It would not be fair to say that while although there may be 1, or 2 financial institutions that have made a more comprehensive effort. Other 's have put forth little to no effort at all. To me, simply offering a text book, or scripted response, or no response at all ; in my opinion is not only a insult ; but also a very generic attempt to avoid confronting a deeply rooted issue. My issue is the unfair treatment of individuals that are considered different from what today 's society may consider to be outside the norm. Unfortunately this is a stigma that is practiced by a number of banks, and other corporations. USAA has reported to me that the reason for denying me deposit account services was based solely on information provided to them by XXXX XXXX XXXX. It is my argument that the facts clearly show that a great deal of the information XXXX XXXX XXXX has collected on me was provided to them by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, now XXXX. The facts also show that the information provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX now XXXX was not accurate. It is also my argument that not only was the information provided not accurate, but XXXX & XXXX now XXXX knowingly provided this inaccurate, and untrue information to it's privately owned third-party credit reporting agency XXXX It is also my argument that XXXX & XXXX now XXXX has violated the FCRA rules by knowingly providing such said inaccurate information concerning me. It is also my argument, as in regards to USAA Bank and other 's ; that it was this inaccurate, and false information that was used in their determining of me being not eligible to become a member of their financial institution. At this time, I should ask USAA Bank exactly what it's definition of \" Information '' is. I ask this question based on the fact, that according to USAA Bank, and other 's, it is the \" information '' provided to them by XXXX XXXX XXXX that was used in their determining me ineligible to become a deposit account member. Thus denying me any account services. It is my argument, that the facts show that within the broad spectrum of \" Information '' that is collected and used by Early Warning Services, and provided to a number of financial institutions such as USAA, XXXX & XXXX ; and other 's, is a detail compilation of my public information. Such as, military discharge status, political affiliation, background, and gender preference. It is my argument that the financial institutions named, used public information, along with the false information provided by XXXX & XXXX in determining my eligibility. It is my argument, that considering the fact that I have never been charged or convicted of any of the activities that XXXX XXXX XXXX has reported to it's own third-party credit reporting agency , furthermore ; the comments and remarks that XXXX & XXXX has reported concerning me have not been substantiated or proven. Yet these financial institutions have considered this inaccurate information regarding me. Inaccurate information that according to the Federal Government, it is unlawful to critic a person based on. XXXX XXXX XXXX has decided that instead of accepting the fact that their investigation into my claims and disputes were conducted with extreme pre-bias and discrimination. XXXX & T- XXXX would rather be bias against me. Defaming both my name, and credibility. Essentially deeming me to be a unsavory customer, and individual. Instead of comprehensively analyzing the details surrounding my claims submitted to them, they have scorned me continiesly ; and mocked me. Suggesting that I caused my own identity theft, by in their words ; \" Failure to Safeguard my financial documents ''. Furthermore, XXXX has stated that not only was I the cause of my own identity theft ; but that I also benefited from it. This assertion made by XXXX alone is discriminating, bias, and prejudice. Suggesting that I should in no way be considered the victim, but should instead be considered the instigator. XXXX has also suggested that if a client as myself has had any previous history with a merchant, then that client can in no way become a victim of any unauthorized transaction completed to that merchant. XXXX has stated that it conducted a thorough investigation, with absolutely no bias. If this were true then there would have been a number of different factors that XXXX would have unpacked and took into consideration. Not to mention that I have personal first hand knowledge of a close constituent who is of the XXXX Caucasian decent, who had strikingly similar issues as me ; but who's claims had a opposite outcome than mines did. I should also note, that this same invidual is currently still a member of TRUIST ; and has already provided a notarized statement on my behalf. This individual has also agreed to the releasing of his name and political status, in the event that court proceedings should occur. If it were in fact true that XXXX & XXXX now XXXX moved with zero bias in their investigation then at bare minimum they would have considered the fact that in today 's sophisticated society, hackers have advanced in their technology of criminal identity theft methods. Me, a XXXX yr. XXXX American, Registered Republican in the great District of Columbia XXXX with only a highchool diploma, and a Other Than Honorable discharge from the XXXX XXXX after serving XXXX yrs as a Journalist ; and has absolutely zero computer savvy knows that today 's hackers are advanced. If in fact, there was no bias, prejudice, discrimination, and pre judgement concerning me in your investigation then XXXX would have very well considered, and knew that in today 's society many Applications such as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, etc. Become targets for hackers, and unlawful information access ; which in turn alot of times leads to identity theft experienced by victims like me. Hackers today, have developed and designed sophisticated ways in performing unauthorized transactions with a individuals account. Again, even I realize this much. Had TRUIST not moved with bias, stigma, and prejudice then in it's investigation ; they would have discovered that it was, and has been determined that according to District of Columbia XXXX XXXX I was the victim of a Phishing scam. A internal phishing scam orchestrated by one of their own Federal Government employees. ( This information to, can be verified by the DC XXXX XXXX Department ). That both my personal and banking information was severely compromised. Furthermore, it has also been determined by XXXX that during the course of a major XXXX XXXX breach, that my personal, private, and financial information was accessed ; and compromised. I should also note that TRUIST was aware of the identity theft I experienced as a result of being a domestic abuse survivor, and fleeing from Washington DC. I physically visited XXXX & XXXX branch location in XXXX Georgia on several occasions providing documentation supporting the facts just provided. In which during one visit I literally cried in the office of your authorized banker, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for over a hour. Whom although I feel was genuinely concerned about my situation, and wanted to help me better resolve the issue ; after making a phone call to TRUIST corporate office was told that he could not provide any service as in regards to my dispute and claims. It would be during this same visit that I expressed to XXXX XXXX, my feelings concerning the discriminating suggestion made by TRUIST that I influenced or provoked my own cause of personal violation, and identity theft. I explained to XXXX XXXX XXXX suggestion should be compared to, and looked at no differently than if a woman who experienced XXXX. Who was no doubt the victim of having her personal identity violated, and after making her traumatic experience known to police. Instead of being helped and her devastating experience took seriously, she is instead scorned, and mocked. Being told that she somehow played a role in her own violation. That maybe had she not worn the beautiful red dress her husband bought her, then just maybe the criminal who XXXX her wouldn't have thought that she was not only a easy target ; but also her wearing the red dress suggested to the criminal she wanted to be assulted and violated. Essentially, this is likewise the suggestion that XXXX has made. I should add that after careful consideration of my comprehensive investigation, that it comes to no surprise that XXXX moved with such bias. After confirming with one of it's former employees whom resigned her position after being faced with the undeniable fact that as part of XXXX  culture, employees were actually trained on how to enforce certain prejudice towards a particular set of clients. How during the phase of the XXXX orientation process, it is emphasized to it's employees the importance of implementing certain pre judge bias. This same employee has provided a notarized written statement, as well as agreed to the releasing of her name in the event that court proceedings should occur. In conclusion, after careful consideration of the facts that have been gathered. I have no interest in becoming a member of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX now XXXX, or any of the other financial institutions named in my complaint. Save XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Whom when considering their genuinely positive attitude towards wishing to resolve my issues, and complaints. Has led me to believe that they sincerely regret a person as myself having such a experience concerning themselves, or any financial institution affiliated with their name. Instead of just saying it, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX has truly made efforts in showing that their institution does not embrace any form of discrimination as part of it's culture. Which in my opinion, should be the attitude of others in today 's diverse world. Unlike others named in my complaint, XXXX XXXX offered a more warming response letter regarding my issues. Eagerly expressing it's willingness to understand and resolve my issues, and my concern of being discrimated against. Providing a response letter that was written and customized to fit my experience. Not as other 's, who's responses were cookie cutter, one size fit all, and generic. I remain hopeful, and optimistic that I will resolve my issues with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Seeing that we continue to move forward in that direction. I would encourage them to reach out to me, via the email addresses provided. As in regards to XXXX, XXXX & XXXX now XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and others I am afraid that no option for resolution can be made available. Other than justifiable relief provided through the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Seeing that I have for several months, even before the submitting of my claim I attempted to resolve my issues, obviously to no prevail ; or fair treatment. Furthermore considering the fact that XXXX & XXXX showed no reservation in it's boldness to provide grossly negligent information concerning me to it's own third-party credit reporting agency , XXXX XXXX XXXX  Thus violating the FCRA. I have evidence that XXXX provided this inaccurate information after the conclusion of it's bias investigation. There is also evidence supporting the fact that XXXX & XXXX was also made aware of my political affiliation, background, gender preference, and race during a first time account holders class conducted by 1 it's employees. Who was a banker at their XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX branch location. During this class, we were told by our class program director XXXX XXXX XXXX, that in order to graduate the program, 1 of the requirements was that a profile must be created and a checking account must be opened at a financial institution of our choosing. The only stipulation would be that the financial institution had to be one of which conducted new account holder classes at the facility. In this case, that financial institution was XXXX XXXX XXXX. Although I am not at liberty to say the name of the Non-profit organizationXXXX & XXXX now XXXX records should indicate which organization this was, in correspondence to it's XXXX XXXX XXXX  branch location where I opened my account. It is my argument that it is this same personal Information provided, that XXXX has on several occasions used against me in denying me equal opportunities, and fair treatment. In it's denying of my claims or disputes. In the event that you are unable to locate the name of this Non-profit organization, then if I am notified by you ; then I will gladly provide that information. In closing, at this time I have nothing further to add, considering that it is still information that must be gathered. However, I have already begun to make preparation to obtain professional counsel and begin XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-01-28T06:09:27.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"31906","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5158347","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-01-28T01:09:21.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore considering the fact that XXXX & XXXX showed no reservation in it's boldness to <em>provide</em> grossly negligent information concerning me to it's own third-party <em>credit</em> reporting agency , XXXX XXXX XXXX  Thus violating the FCRA. I have evidence that XXXX provided this inaccurate information after the conclusion of it's bias investigation."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting, <em>credit</em> repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[4.851014,"5158347"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5158337","_score":4.8289003,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"As per the conclusion of my investigation thus far, it has been determined that XXXX along with other financial institutions previously mentioned in my initial complaint ; have failed to provide any adequate answer as to why they deemed me ineligible to become a member of their financial institution. Ultimately denying me any deposit account services. XXXX, BB & T, SUNTRUST, XXXX XXXX, and others has responded to me, vehemently denying supporting or endorsing any form of discrimination ; but making no effort to resolve my issue. Merely going through the motions by following their process and standard company protocol. Where as I would have to assume based on the fact that each financial institution 's letters, although written or prepared all independently of each other ; all share some of the very same unique characteristics. Essentially, they all begin and end with the same generic and standardized apologetic statement. Also, all in which say the same thing. Which is, that it is not their culture to embrace any form of discrimination. As stated, this response is not adequate, in as any Company, Financial institution, Organization, or individual, could easily provide a letter to their customer, client, or account holder stating that it is not their culture to embrace, or tolerate discrimination ; to any degree. A Company simply following procedure, and referring to it's bylaws on how to provide a standardized, and scripted response to a customer or client takes almost little to no effort at all. Especially for Companies and Financial institutions like those named in my complaint, who are held to a much higher standard [ ] and that are endowed with tremendous influence. Such said Financial institutions as these, rededly provide these types of standardized responses on a daily basis ; to more than several of their customers. To me, merely submitting a scripted, and generic response to a claim to the extent of mines, with such detail ; in my opinion suggest that XXXX, and these other financial institutions genuinely have no interest in truly understanding the root of my concern. Which in part is to help me better understand why it is that I was denied the liberties of being a member of their financial institution. It would not be fair to say that while although there may be 1, or 2 financial institutions that have made a more comprehensive effort. Other 's have put forth little to no effort at all. To me, simply offering a text book, or scripted response, or no response at all ; in my opinion is not only a insult ; but also a very generic attempt to avoid confronting a deeply rooted issue. My issue is the unfair treatment of individuals that are considered different from what today 's society may consider to be outside the norm. Unfortunately this is a stigma that is practiced by a number of banks, and other corporations. XXXX has reported to me that the reason for denying me deposit account services was based solely on information provided to them by XXXX XXXX XXXX. It is my argument that the facts clearly show that a great deal of the information XXXX XXXX XXXX has collected on me was provided to them by BB & T SUNTRUST, now TRUIST. The facts also show that the information provided by BB & T-SUNTRUST , now TRUIST was not accurate. It is also my argument that not only was the information provided not accurate, but BB & T now TRUIST knowingly provided this inaccurate, and untrue information to it's privately owned third-party credit reporting agency . It is also my argument that BB & T-SUNTRUST now TRUIST has violated the FCRA rules by knowingly providing such said inaccurate information concerning me. It is also my argument, as in regards to XXXX XXXX and other 's ; that it was this inaccurate, and false information that was used in their determining of me being not eligible to become a member of their financial institution. At this time, I should ask XXXXXXXX XXXX  exactly what it's definition of \" Information '' is. I ask this question based on the fact, that according to XXXX XXXX, and other 's, it is the \" information '' provided to them by XXXX XXXX XXXX that was used in their determining me ineligible to become a deposit account member. Thus denying me any account services. It is my argument, that the facts show that within the broad spectrum of \" Information '' that is collected and used by XXXX XXXX XXXX and provided to a number of financial institutions such as XXXX, BB & T-SUNTRUST ; and other 's, is a detail compilation of my public information. Such as, military discharge status, political affiliation, background, and gender preference. It is my argument that the financial institutions named, used public information, along with the false information provided by BB & T in determining my eligibility. It is my argument, that considering the fact that I have never been charged or convicted of any of the activities that BB & T has reported to it's own third-party credit reporting agency , furthermore ; the comments and remarks that BB & T has reported concerning me have not been substantiated or proven. Yet these financial institutions have considered this inaccurate information regarding me. Inaccurate information that according to the Federal Government, it is unlawful to critic a person based on. BB & T-SUNTRUST has decided that instead of accepting the fact that their investigation into my claims and disputes were conducted with extreme pre-bias and discrimination. BB & T- SUNTRUST would rather be bias against me. Defaming both my name, and credibility. Essentially deeming me to be a unsavory customer, and individual. Instead of comprehensively analyzing the details surrounding my claims submitted to them, they have scorned me continiesly ; and mocked me. Suggesting that I caused my own identity theft, by in their words ; \" Failure to Safeguard my financial documents ''. Furthermore, TRUIST has stated that not only was I the cause of my own identity theft ; but that I also benefited from it. This assertion made by TRUIST alone is discriminating, bias, and prejudice. Suggesting that I should in no way be considered the victim, but should instead be considered the instigator. TRUIST has also suggested that if a client as myself has had any previous history with a merchant, then that client can in no way become a victim of any unauthorized transaction completed to that merchant. TRUIST has stated that it conducted a thorough investigation, with absolutely no bias. If this were true then there would have been a number of different factors that TRUIST would have unpacked and took into consideration. Not to mention that I have personal first hand knowledge of a close constituent who is of the XXXX XXXX  decent, who had strikingly similar issues as me ; but who's claims had a opposite outcome than mines did. I should also note, that this same invidual is currently still a member of TRUIST ; and has already provided a notarized statement on my behalf. This individual has also agreed to the releasing of his name and political status, in the event that court proceedings should occur. If it were in fact true that BB & T-SUNTRUST now TRUIST moved with zero bias in their investigation then at bare minimum they would have considered the fact that in today 's sophisticated society, hackers have advanced in their technology of criminal identity theft methods. Me, a XXXX yr. XXXX American, Registered Republican in the great District of Columbia , with only a highchool diploma, and a Other Than Honorable discharge from the XXXX XXXX after serving 4 yrs as a Journalist ; and has absolutely zero computer savvy knows that today 's hackers are advanced. If in fact, there was no bias, prejudice, discrimination, and pre judgement concerning me in your investigation then TRUIST would have very well considered, and knew that in today 's society many Applications such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc. Become targets for hackers, and unlawful information access ; which in turn alot of times leads to identity theft experienced by victims like me. Hackers today, have developed and designed sophisticated ways in performing unauthorized transactions with a individuals account. Again, even I realize this much. Had TRUIST not moved with bias, stigma, and prejudice then in it's investigation ; they would have discovered that it was, and has been determined that according to District of Columbia XXXX XXXX I was the victim of a Phishing scam. A internal phishing scam orchestrated by one of their own Federal Government employees. ( This information to, can be verified by the DC XXXX XXXX Department ). That both my personal and banking information was severely compromised. Furthermore, it has also been determined by XXXX that during the course of a major Cyber Security breach, that my personal, private, and financial information was accessed ; and compromised. I should also note that TRUIST was aware of the identity theft I experienced as a result of being a XXXX XXXX survivor, and fleeing from Washington DC. I physically visited BB & T branch location in XXXX Georgia on several occasions providing documentation supporting the facts just provided. In which during one visit I literally cried in the office of your authorized banker, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for over a hour. Whom although I feel was genuinely concerned about my situation, and wanted to help me better resolve the issue ; after making a phone call to TRUIST corporate office was told that he could not provide any service as in regards to my dispute and claims. It would be during this same visit that I expressed to XXXX XXXX, my feelings concerning the discriminating suggestion made by TRUIST that I influenced or provoked my own cause of personal violation, and identity theft. I explained to XXXX XXXX TRUIST suggestion should be compared to, and looked at no differently than if a woman who experienced XXXX. Who was no doubt the victim of having her personal identity violated, and after making her traumatic experience known to police. Instead of being helped and her devastating experience took seriously, she is instead scorned, and mocked. Being told that she somehow played a role in her own violation. That maybe had she not worn the beautiful red dress her husband bought her, then just maybe the criminal who XXXX her wouldn't have thought that she was not only a easy target ; but also her wearing the red dress suggested to the criminal she wanted to be assulted and violated. Essentially, this is likewise the suggestion that TRUIST has made. I should add that after careful consideration of my comprehensive investigation, that it comes to no surprise that TRUIST moved with such bias. After confirming with one of it's former employees whom resigned her position after being faced with the undeniable fact that as part of TRUIST culture, employees were actually trained on how to enforce certain prejudice towards a particular set of clients. How during the phase of the TRUIST orientation process, it is emphasized to it's employees the importance of implementing certain pre judge bias. This same employee has provided a notarized written statement, as well as agreed to the releasing of her name in the event that court proceedings should occur. In conclusion, after careful consideration of the facts that have been gathered. I have no interest in becoming a member of BB & T -SUNTRUST now TRUIST, or any of the other financial institutions named in my complaint. Save XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Whom when considering their genuinely positive attitude towards wishing to resolve my issues, and complaints. Has led me to believe that they sincerely regret a person as myself having such a experience concerning themselves, or any financial institution affiliated with their name. Instead of just saying it, XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX has truly made efforts in showing that their institution does not embrace any form of discrimination as part of it's culture. Which in my opinion, should be the attitude of others in today 's diverse world. Unlike others named in my complaint, XXXX XXXX offered a more warming response letter regarding my issues. Eagerly expressing it's willingness to understand and resolve my issues, and my concern of being discrimated against. Providing a response letter that was written and customized to fit my experience. Not as other 's, who's responses were cookie cutter, one size fit all, and generic. I remain hopeful, and optimistic that I will resolve my issues with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Seeing that we continue to move forward in that direction. I would encourage them to reach out to me, via the email addresses provided. As in regards to XXXX, BB & T now TRUIST, XXXX XXXX, and others I am afraid that no option for resolution can be made available. Other than justifiable relief provided through the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Seeing that I have for several months, even before the submitting of my claim I attempted to resolve my issues, obviously to no prevail ; or fair treatment. Furthermore considering the fact that BB & T showed no reservation in it's boldness to provide grossly negligent information concerning me to it's own third-party credit reporting agency , XXXX XXXX XXXX Thus violating the FCRA. I have evidence that TRUIST provided this inaccurate information after the conclusion of it's bias investigation. There is also evidence supporting the fact that BB & T was also made aware of my political affiliation, background, gender preference, and race during a first time account holders class conducted by 1 it's employees. Who was a banker at their BB & T District of Columbia branch location. During this class, we were told by our class program director XXXX XXXX XXXX, that in order to graduate the program, 1 of the requirements was that a profile must be created and a checking account must be opened at a financial institution of our choosing. The only stipulation would be that the financial institution had to be one of which conducted new account holder classes at the facility. In this case, that financial institution was BB & T. Although I am not at liberty to say the name of the Non-profit organization.BB & T now TRUIST records should indicate which organization this was, in correspondence to it's District of Columbia branch location where I opened my account. It is my argument that it is this same personal Information provided, that TRUIST has on several occasions used against me in denying me equal opportunities, and fair treatment. In it's denying of my claims or disputes. In the event that you are unable to locate the name of this Non-profit organization, then if I am notified by you ; then I will gladly provide that information. In closing, at this time I have nothing further to add, considering that it is still information that must be gathered. However, I have already begun to make preparation to obtain professional counsel and begin XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-01-28T06:09:14.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"31906","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5158337","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-01-28T00:53:40.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore considering the fact that BB & T showed no reservation in it's boldness to <em>provide</em> grossly negligent information concerning me to it's own third-party <em>credit</em> reporting agency , XXXX XXXX XXXX Thus violating the FCRA. I have evidence that TRUIST provided this inaccurate information after the conclusion of it's bias investigation."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting, <em>credit</em> repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect information on <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[4.8289003,"5158337"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11313796","_score":4.5005493,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, D.C. XXXX Subject : Formal Complaint Regarding Unverified Accounts and Consumer Rights Violations by TransUnion Dear Sir/Madam, I am filing this formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding TransUnion 's ongoing verification of inaccurate and unverifiable accounts on my credit report. These incorrect entries have caused significant harm to my credit score and have violated my rights as a consumer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and other related consumer protection laws. \n\nDespite my efforts to dispute these inaccuracies directly with TransUnion, these unverifiable accounts have continued to appear as \" verified '' and remain on my credit report. It is evident that TransUnion has failed to investigate the accuracy of these accounts properly and allowed collection agencies to report unverifiable debt. This failure constitutes a clear violation of my rights and is damaging to my credit profile. \n\nDetails of the Violation I have disputed multiple entries on my credit report with TransUnion. However, in several instances, these entries were marked as \" verified '' without providing any substantive proof or documentation from the collection agencies to validate the reported debts. This lack of verification and substantiation violates the obligations set forth by the FCRA, and the actions of TransUnion undermine my ability to maintain a fair and accurate credit report. \n\nConsumer Rights Violated The actions of TransUnion and the collection agencies reporting unverifiable accounts directly violate several consumer rights under federal law : 1. Failure to Verify Information ( FCRA Section 1681i ) The FCRA mandates that credit reporting agencies must investigate disputed information within 30 days. If the information can not be verified, it must be removed from the credit report. TransUnion 's failure to properly verify these accounts is a direct violation of this requirement.\n\n2. Inaccurate Credit Reporting ( FCRA Section 1681e ( b ) ) The law requires that credit reports be maintained with accurate information. By verifying and reporting unverifiable accounts, TransUnion is in violation of this provision, which has resulted in substantial harm to my credit standing.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Negative Information ( FCRA Section 1681c ) TransUnion is required to notify me of any negative information added to my report, but they have failed to provide adequate proof of validation for the disputed accounts, which remain on my report without proper substantiation.\n\n4. Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ( FDCPA ) The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from reporting unverified or unverifiable debts to credit reporting agencies. By allowing collection agencies to report unverifiable accounts, TransUnion is enabling illegal debt collection practices.\n\nConsumer Rights and Legal Protections Under the FCRA and FDCPA, I am entitled to the following rights : Right to Dispute Information ( FCRA Section 1681i ) : I am entitled to dispute inaccurate or unverifiable information on my credit report. TransUnion is required to investigate the dispute and remove any unverifiable accounts within the legally mandated time frame.\n\nRight to Request Documentation ( FCRA Section 1681e ( b ) ) : If an account is verified, I have the right to request detailed documentation, including proof of debt validation from the collection agency reporting the information.\n\nRight to Seek Legal Action : If these rights are violated, I am entitled to pursue legal remedies under both the FCRA and FDCPA, including seeking statutory and actual damages for the harm caused by the inaccuracies.\n\nRequested Resolution I request that the CFPB investigate this matter and intervene to ensure that TransUnion upholds its legal responsibilities under the FCRA and FDCPA. I seek the following resolution : 1. Immediate removal of all unverifiable accounts from my credit report.\n\n2. A full investigation and deletion of these inaccuracies by removing accounts that violate any of my rights as a consumer by any and all laws created and enforsed for the consumer.\n\n3 u. Confirmation from TransUnion that it will take steps to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.\n\nIf this matter is not resolved promptly, I will seek further legal remedies, including filing a lawsuit under the FCRA and FDCPA, and will continue to pursue complaints through all available channels.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the CFPB will take the necessary steps to address these violations and help resolve this situation fairly and swiftly. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Laws Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : The FCRA outlines the following key provisions ( not exhaustive ) : Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : The consumer has the right to obtain all information in their credit file.\n\nSection 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) : If disputed, consumer reporting agencies must investigate any inaccuracies within 30 days.\n\nSection 605 ( a ) : Consumer reporting agencies can not report negative information older than seven years or bankruptcies older than ten years.\n\nSection 623 ( a ) : Furnishers of information ( creditors ) must provide accurate information to credit bureaus.\n\nSection 605B : Victims of identity theft can request that fraudulent accounts be blocked. \n\n\n2. California Consumer Laws : California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) : It is unlawful for a person to furnish information to a credit reporting agency if they know or should know the information is inaccurate. \n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1785.16 : Consumers have the right to dispute errors, and credit bureaus must investigate disputes. \n\n\n3. Steps to Analyze Negative Accounts : For each negative account, I will : 1. List the account details.\n\n2. Determine which FCRA and California laws are potentially violated.\n\n3. Highlight any data that suggests non-compliance ( e.g., inaccuracies, outdated information, missing investigation after disputes ).\n\nTo analyze my report for violations of California Consumer Law and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I have broken down the inaccurate or unverifiable accounts with adverse information and cross-reference their reported details with the relevant laws. Here 's the organized data : Inaccurate Accounts and Violations XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$260.00} Past Due : {$260.00} Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Removal Date : XX/XX/XXXX Potential Violations : FCRA Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Failure to verify the accuracy of information following a dispute by the consumer.\n\nFCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Consumer reporting agency 's duty to investigate disputed information within 30 days. \n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : Automobile Club Balance : {$180.00} Past Due : {$180.00} Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Removal Date : XX/XX/XXXX Violations : California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) : Furnisher knowingly providing inaccurate information to a credit bureau.\n\nFCRA Section 623 ( a ) : Obligation of furnishers to ensure information supplied to bureaus is accurate. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : Progressive Insurance Balance : {$130.00} Past Due : {$130.00} Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Removal Date : XX/XX/XXXX Potential Violations : FCRA Section 605 ( a ) : Reporting negative information older than 7 years is prohibited.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1785.16 : Credit bureaus must process disputes and update or remove inaccurate data promptly. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Balance : {$390.00} Pay Status : Charge-off Removal Date : XX/XX/XXXX Potential Violations : FCRA Section 623 ( a ) : Furnishers must provide complete and accurate information to consumer reporting agencies.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1785.16 : Investigation of disputed errors must result in corrections or deletion. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Balance : {$220.00} Pay Status : Sold ; was Charged-off Remarks : \" Purchased by another lender ; Paid in full/was a charge-off '' Removal Date : XXXX XXXX  Violations : FCRA Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Failure to provide proof of accuracy for disputed charge-offs.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) : Inaccurate reporting after the account was \" Paid in full/was charged-off ''.\n\nCheck if the listed removal dates for negative accounts comply with the 7-year limit ( 10 years for bankruptcies ). \n\n\n\nYes, my credit report shows instances of duplicate reporting, where the same account or debt is being reported by multiple entities. This typically occurs when an original creditor sells a debt to a collection agency, and both the original account and the collection account are listed on the report. Duplicate reporting can unfairly impact credit score. \n\nHeres an example from my report : Duplicate XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$260.00} Past Due : {$260.00} Remarks : \" Placed for Collection '' XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Balance : {$220.00} Pay Status : \" Sold ; was Charged-off '' Remarks : \" Purchased by another lender ; Paid in full/was a charge-off '' Potential Violations : FCRA Section 605 ( a ) : Reporting the same debt multiple times under different I Demand that both the original account and the collection account be removed imediately they both participated Laws where violated. As a result I've been denied credit at times when I needed it most. \n\n\n\n\n\nI identified instances of incomplete or inaccurate information about payments in this credit report. I listed details of these accounts and highlighted a few violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and California Consumer Credit Reporting Laws. \n\n\nIncomplete or Inaccurate Payment Reporting XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Pay Status : >Charge-off< Remarks : Payment history shows multiple months without reported payments, despite the account status. \n\nBalance : {$390.00} Date Closed : XX/XX/XXXX Potential Issues : Payment history lacks continuity ( e.g., no data for several months ). \n\nIf payments were made but not reported, this violates FCRA Section 623 ( a ) : Furnishers must provide accurate and complete information. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : Automobile Club Balance : {$180.00} Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Past Due : {$180.00} Potential Issues : Disputed but still unresolved or not marked as \" investigated. '' Violates FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Consumer reporting agencies must investigate disputes and update records within 30 days. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : Progressive Insurance Balance : {$130.00} Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Past Due : {$130.00} Potential Issues : Status shows no resolution of dispute, potentially violating California Civil Code 1785.16 ( requiring accurate updates after dispute resolution ). \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$260.00} Past Due : {$260.00} Remarks : \" Placed for Collection '' Potential Issues : If the account was disputed, it should show an update reflecting the dispute investigation 's outcome, as required by FCRA Section 623 ( b ).\n\nThis account is reported on the same report by two different agencies! \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Pay Status : \" Sold ; was Charged-off '' Remarks : \" Purchased by another lender ; Paid in full/was a charge-off '' Balance : {$0.00} ( indicating it may have been paid off ). \n\n\nPotential Issues : Payment information is incomplete ( e.g., no record of payments leading to the \" paid in full '' status ). \n\nViolates FCRA Section 623 ( a ) and California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) if payments were made but not reported. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nYes, there are accounts on my credit report where the start dates ( date the account was opened ) are either missing or unclear. Accurate start dates are essential for determining the age of the account, which impacts credit scoring and compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and California Consumer Credit Reporting Laws.\n\nAccounts Missing Start Dates or Showing Incomplete Information XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : Automobile Club Balance : {$180.00} This Balance amount does not reflect that of any of my records whatsoever but is coming back as verified and accurate. \nThis strongly suggest that transunion is guilty of breaking laws. \nCould it be a conspiracy? \nIs it legal for two different agencies to report the same account on the same credit report? \nIs it legal for a collection agency to report an unverifiable account beyond the statute of limitations? \nIs it legal to report an account that does not have a start date? \nIs it legal for an a credit reporting agency to investigate a consumer 's dispute and conclude the avvount as verified and accurate whenever the account is unverifiable? \nAnd on and on it goes .... \n\nMissing Start Date : The report does not include the date the account was opened, only the date it was placed in collections ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : Progressive Insurance Balance : {$130.00} Remarks : \" Placed for Collection '' Missing Start Date : The report lacks the date when the original account was opened, only showing the collection placement date ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$260.00} Remarks : \" Placed for Collection '' Incomplete Start Date : While the account shows a collection entry date, the original opening date with XXXX is not specified. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Balance : {$0.00} ( sold or paid ) Remarks : \" Purchased by another lender '' Missing Start Date : The original date this account was opened is not listed, only its transfer/sale date. \n\n\nRelevant Laws Being Violated 1. FCRA Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : \" Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer all information in the consumer 's file at the time of the request, including the sources of the information. '' 2. FCRA Section 623 ( a ) : \" Furnishers of information must report complete and accurate information to consumer reporting agencies. '' 3. California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) : \" A person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate. '' Why This Matters Missing start dates make it difficult to verify the validity of the account, including whether it is within the 7-year reporting limit for negative items under FCRA Section 605 ( a ).\n\nIncomplete data can negatively impact my credit score and make it harder to dispute inaccurate or outdated entries. \n\n\n\nBased on the information provided in my credit report, it appears that several accounts are marked as \" disputed by the consumer '' under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), but there is no clear evidence that these disputes were thoroughly investigated or resolved. This lack of resolution may constitute violations of the FCRA. \n\n\nAccounts Marked as Disputed XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Potential Issue : There is no indication that the dispute was resolved or that the account status was updated following an investigation. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Potential Issue : The account remains in collection status without evidence of investigation or resolution of the dispute. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Details : Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Potential Issue : The status remains unchanged, suggesting the dispute may not have been investigated or resolved.\n\nRelevant FCRA Laws 1. FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) : \" If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumers file is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information or delete the item within 30 days. '' 2. FCRA Section 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) : \" After receiving notice of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided to a consumer reporting agency, the furnisher of information shall : Conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information ; Review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency ; Report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency. '' 3. California Civil Code 1785.16 ( a ) : \" If the consumer credit reporting agency determines the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, it shall notify the consumer, and upon request by the consumer, reinvestigate the matter. '' Signs of Non-Compliance 1. No Evidence of Investigation : Accounts remain marked as disputed but show no changes to their status, suggesting that no investigation was conducted within the required 30-day period. \n\n\nXXXX. No Updates After Disputes : Even after the I disputed the accuracy of these accounts, there are no updated remarks indicating the results of investigations or validations from the furnisher of information.\n\n3. Failure to Communicate Results : There is no evidence that I was notified of the investigation results or provided with any updated information.\n\nIf the collection accounts listed on my credit report do not match my records and Im unable to verify the agencies, balances, or past-due amounts, this may violate my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and California Consumer Credit Reporting Laws . Heres why : Potential Violations of my Rights 1. FCRA Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Right to Accurate Information Ihave the right to request complete and accurate information about every account reported, including : The name of the creditor or collection agency. \n\nThe original balance, amount owed, and payment history. \n\nThe date the account was opened and placed for collection. \n\n\nIf the information provided on my credit report is incomplete, inaccurate, or unverifiable, it violates my rights under the FCRA. \n\n2. FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Right to Dispute Inaccuracies If the collection accounts do not match my records, I have the right to dispute the accuracy of the information. The credit bureau and collection agency must : Investigate within 30 days of receiving your dispute.\n\nProvide verification of the debt, including the original creditor and all supporting documentation.\n\nDelete the information if it can not be verified.\n\nFailure to investigate or resolve a dispute violates the FCRA.\n\n3. FCRA Section 623 ( a ) : Responsibilities of Information Furnishers Furnishers ( e.g., collection agencies ) are required to : Report accurate and complete information.\n\nInvestigate and correct disputed accounts promptly.\n\nIf the balances, past-due amounts, or creditor names are incorrect, it could violate this section.\n\n4. California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) : \" No person shall furnish information to a consumer credit reporting agency if they know or should know the information is inaccurate. '' If the collection agencies reported inaccurate or unverifiable information, they could be in violation of California law.\n\n5. California Civil Code 1785.16 : Credit reporting agencies must : Investigate disputes within 30 days.\n\ndelete unverifiable or inaccurate information.\n\nWhat This Means for me If the information on the collection accounts ( e.g., agency names, balances, dates, and past-due amounts ) can not be verified or does not match my records, those accounts should be removed from my credit report. Reporting unverifiable or inaccurate information harms my credit and violates my consumer rights.\n\nBased on the details in my credit report, it appears that the collection accounts may be unverifiable for the following reasons : Issues with Verifiability in Collection Accounts XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Original Creditor : Automobile Club Balance : {$180.00} Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Potential Verifiability Issues : The original creditor 's information is vague and may not provide sufficient details about the origin of the debt. \n\nTheres no supporting documentation ( e.g., account statements, contracts ) showing that I owe this amount. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Original Creditor : Progressive Insurance Balance : {$130.00} Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Potential Verifiability Issues : Dispute status remains unresolved, and the agency hasnt provided evidence to validate the debt. \n\nMissing details on the original account ( e.g., date of delinquency, itemized charges ). \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$260.00} Remarks : \" Placed for Collection '' Potential Verifiability Issues : No documentation proving the debt was properly assigned or sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nOriginal balance details and payment history are unclear. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Pay Status : \" Sold ; was Charged-off '' Balance : {$0.00} Remarks : \" Purchased by another lender ; Paid in full/was a charge-off '' Potential Verifiability Issues : Duplicate reporting with XXXX XXXX XXXX suggests conflicting information. \n\nNo proof showing the account transfer or resolution status. \n\n\n\nIndicators of Unverifiable Accounts 1. No Supporting Documentation : Collection agencies must provide clear documentation, such as contracts, account statements, or payment histories, to verify the debt. None of these details are present in my report.\n\n2. Disputes Unresolved : If I have disputed these accounts and the agencies have not responded with adequate validation, they are unverifiable under the FCRA.\n\n3. Conflicting or Missing Details : Original creditor names are unclear or vague. \n\nBalances and dates do not match my records.\n\nLegal Framework for Verification 1. FCRA Section 611 ( a ) : Consumers Right to Dispute The credit bureau must investigate disputes within 30 days and remove unverifiable information. \n\n\n\n2. FCRA Section 623 ( b ) : Responsibilities of Furnishers Collection agencies must investigate disputes and provide validation to the credit bureau.\n\n3. California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) Creditors or agencies can not knowingly report inaccurate or incomplete information.\n\nKey Violations When an Account Is Wrongly Verified as Accurate 1. FCRA Section 611 ( a ) : Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation TransUnion is required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed accounts within 30 days of receiving a dispute. \n\nIf the account is wrongly verified as accurate, it indicates that : TransUnion failed to obtain sufficient evidence from the furnisher or creditor. \n\nThey relied solely on the creditor 's response without validating the accuracy of the records. \n\n\n\n2. FCRA Section 623 ( b ) : Furnisher 's Failure to Properly Investigate Furnishers of information ( e.g., collection agencies or creditors ) must : Investigate disputes forwarded by the credit bureau.\n\ndelete, or verify the information based on an actual review of their records.\n\nIf the furnisher does not provide proper documentation to verify the debt but still reports it as accurate, it violates this section.\n\n3. FCRA Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Records If TransUnion fails to provide me with the supporting documentation or the original records upon request, this is a violation. \n\nVerified accounts must be substantiated with legitimate records ( e.g., contracts, statements, or proof of the debt ). \n\n\n4. California Civil Code 1785.16 : Duty to Delete Inaccurate Information California law requires credit reporting agencies to delete inaccurate or unverifiable information after a dispute.\n\nIf TransUnion verifies inaccurate accounts without proper documentation, it violates this law.\n\n5. California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) : Reporting Incomplete or Inaccurate Information Furnishers ( e.g., collection agencies ) must not report incomplete or inaccurate information to credit bureaus.\n\nIf TransUnion relies on inaccurate information provided by the furnisher and verifies it, this creates liability for both TransUnion and the furnisher.\n\n6. FCRA Section 605 ( a ) : Reporting Obsolete Information If the account includes outdated information ( e.g., a delinquency older than 7 years ), verifying it as accurate violates this section.\n\nWhy This Is Problematic Burden of Proof : The credit bureau can not simply accept the creditor 's response as verification. They must ensure the information is accurate and complete through independent analysis. \n\nLack of Transparency : If they fail to provide documentation to back their verification, it indicates a failure to comply with FCRA and California law. \n\n\n\nUnder FCRA Section 616 and 617, I may be entitled to damages for willful or negligent noncompliance. This includes statutory damages, actual damages, and legal fees. \n\n\n\n\nSince TransUnion can not produce adequate documentation, i request that the accounts be deleted all the negative accounts from my credit report, ive listed their account numbers ( partially masked ), and detailed how many times each was disputed and returned as verified by TransUnion. Below each account, I have outlined the consumer rights violations that occurred due to TransUnion 's improper verification. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Dispute Count : At least once ( remarks show \" Account information disputed by consumer '' ). \n\nDetails : Original Creditor : Automobile Club Balance : {$180.00} Status : >Placed for Collection< Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Violations by TransUnion : 1. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation ( FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ) : TransUnion verified the account without confirming its accuracy through sufficient documentation.\n\nNo proof of the debt ( e.g., contracts, statements, or itemized charges ) was provided.\n\n2. Failure to Provide Complete Information ( FCRA Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ) : The report lacks critical details about the debt, such as the original account 's opening date and validation from the original creditor.\n\n3. Reporting Incomplete or Inaccurate Information ( California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) ) : The collection agency reported information that does not match the consumers records, and TransUnion failed to correct it. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Dispute Count : At least once ( remarks show \" Account information disputed by consumer '' ). \n\nDetails : Original Creditor : Progressive Insurance Balance : {$130.00} Status : >Placed for Collection< Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Violations by TransUnion : 1. Failure to Investigate Disputes Properly ( FCRA Section 623 ( b ) ) : The collection agency provided no documented proof of the debt.\n\nVerification relied on unverified data from the collection agency.\n\n2. Failure to Remove Unverifiable Information ( FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ) : If XXXX  or XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to respond adequately to TransUnion, the account should have been deleted. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Violation of California Civil Code 1785.16 : TransUnion failed to provide a corrected or updated status after the dispute. \n\n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Dispute Count : At least once ( remarks show \" Account information disputed by consumer '' ). \n\nDetails : Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$260.00} Status : >Placed for Collection< Remarks : \" Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ) ; Placed for Collection '' Violations by TransUnion : 1. Verification of Duplicate Reporting ( FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ) : This account is a duplicate of XXXX  listing, creating conflicting and inaccurate information. \n\nTransUnion should not verify two accounts for the same debt. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to Verify the Debts Legitimacy ( FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ) : No documentation was provided to prove XXXX XXXX  authority to collect or the accuracy of the balance. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX ) Dispute Count : At least once ( indirectly connected to the XXXX XXXX dispute ). \n\nDetails : Balance : {$0.00} Status : >Sold ; was Charged-off< Remarks : \" Purchased by another lender ; Paid in full/was a charge-off '' Violations by TransUnion : 1. Failure to Prevent Duplicate Reporting ( FCRA Section 605 ( a ) ) : This account is tied to XXXX XXXX XXXX, creating a duplicate entry for the same debt. \n\nTransUnion failed to consolidate or remove duplicate information. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Inadequate Investigation ( FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ) : The sold and charged-off status conflicts with the active collection status reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account ending in XXXX ) Dispute Count : At least once ( remarks indicate prior disputes ). \n\nDetails : Balance : {$390.00} Status : >Charge-off< Remarks : Payment history inconsistencies and gaps. \n\n\n\nViolations by TransUnion : 1. Failure to Validate Payment History ( FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ) : Payment history is incomplete or inconsistent, suggesting inaccuracies in reporting.\n\n2. Failure to Provide Verification ( FCRA Section 609 ( a ) ) : If payment records were requested but not provided, this violates the FCRA.\n\nSummary of Rights Violations 1. Inadequate Investigations : All accounts verified by TransUnion lacked proper validation ( FCRA Sections 611 ( a ) and 623 ( b ) ). \n\n\nXXXX. Duplicate Reporting : XXXX XXXX XXXX and WebBank/Freshstart are duplicate accounts, violating FCRA Section 605 ( a ).\n\n3. Lack of Documentation : TransUnion failed to provide supporting records upon request, violating FCRA Section 609 ( a ).\n\n4. Unverifiable Information : Collection agencies did not substantiate the debts but were still verified as accurate.\n\nUnder FCRA Sections 616 and 617, I may be entitled to statutory and actual damages for willful or negligent violations. \n\nI am writing to formally address a critical issue regarding my TransUnion credit report, which is causing severe harm to my life and livelihood. Currently, my TransUnion credit report is reflecting a credit","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-29T10:34:15.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90026","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11313796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-29T10:09:35.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This failure constitutes a clear violation of my rights and is damaging to my <em>credit</em> <em>profile</em>. \n\nDetails of the Violation I have disputed multiple entries on my <em>credit</em> report with TransUnion. However, in several instances, these entries were marked as \" verified '' without providing any substantive proof or documentation from the collection agencies to validate the reported debts."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an error on <em>your</em> report"]},"sort":[4.5005493,"11313796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9727357","_score":4.3426595,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, Plaintiffs, v. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Defendants. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nXX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION In this action, the plaintiffs, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" plaintiffs '' ) allege that the defendant, Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \" Equifax XXXX ) [ XXXX ] violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( \" FCRA '' ), see XXXX XXXX. XXXX, et seq., and the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ), see XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX et seq. In addition, the plaintiffs bring several other statutory and common law claims. Now before the XXXX is the defendant 's motion for summary judgment. \n\n\nXXXX. BACKGROUND In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained a {$50000.00} equity loan from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ). Over the next XXXX years, they attempted to pay down the principal by including additional money with their minimum monthly obligations. But in XXXX, during an attempted refinancing, the plaintiffs discovered that XXXX had not credited their accounts with the extra payments. Subsequently, the plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against XXXX over its allegedly inaccurate accounting methods, and settled the case in XX/XX/XXXX. In consideration of the plaintiffs ' release of their claims, XXXX released them from the remaining {$20000.00} on the loan, and agreed that no derogatory information about them or their claim against the bank would be reported to any credit reporting agency. However, XXXX classified the lost {$20000.00} as a \" charge-off, '' and its debt XXXX attempted to collect the unpaid balance approximately XXXX year after settling the case. After the plaintiffs complained to XXXX, the bank issued a letter to the plaintiffs on XX/XX/XXXX stating that it would notify the appropriate credit reporting agencies of its error, and that the comments regarding their account, No. XXXX ( \" XXXX account '' ), would thereafter read \" paid as agreed. '' After XXXX was acquired by XXXX Bank ( \" XXXX '' ) in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX ordered copies of credit reports to confirm that XXXX had removed any derogatory information. Instead, she learned that XXXX was reporting the XXXX XXXX mortgage as a charge-off. In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs contacted XXXX, whose agent XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) acknowledged the error and assured them that the erroneous information would be removed and all credit reporting agencies notified of the error. XXXX forwarded a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) to the plaintiffs, indicating that a request was made to the relevant credit agencies to change the plaintiffs ' account regarding the XXXX mortgage to \" paid as agreed. '' It is standard practice at XXXX to send XXXX forms to XXXX major credit reporting agencies : Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX, however, contained inaccurate data regarding the dates of origin and termination of the plaintiffs ' account, as well as its \" source code. '' In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained an Equifax credit report and learned that XXXX had not only continued to report their \" XXXX account '' as charged-off through XX/XX/XXXX, but also had reported the account a second time under a different account number, No. XXXX ( \" XXXX account '' ). In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs again reported the dispute to XXXX. To correct this problem, XXXX issued XXXX additional UDFs, XXXX in the name of each plaintiff, to Equifax requesting a change in the plaintiffs ' credit histories to read \" paid XXXX as agreed. '' Both XXXX  issued in XX/XX/XXXX refer only to the plaintiffs ' \" XXXX account ''. Equifax, however, has no record of receiving any XXXX from XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received letters indicating that their applications for credit card accounts with XXXX XXXX had been denied. The letters stated the \" primary reason '' for the denial as \" derogatory information on credit file, '' and named Equifax as the XXXX XXXX XXXX responsible for providing the plaintiffs ' credit history. On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received an Equifax credit report, reflecting their \" XXXX account '' as \" transferred or sold '' and reporting their \" XXXX account '' as \" charged-off. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs sent a letter to Equifax requesting an investigation of the XXXX account. On XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax reported to the plaintiffs that XXXX had verified the accuracy of the XXXX accounts. The plaintiffs attempted to use these letters from Equifax to notify XXXX of its erroneous reporting. However, XXXX never responded, as it had already sold the account to XXXX XXXX Assets ( \" XXXX '' ), a debt collection agency. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, after receiving a letter from XXXX attempting to collect an alleged outstanding balance of more than {$20000.00}, the plaintiffs again ordered automated disclosures of their Equifax files. The credit reports contained XXXX charge-offs : the \" XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report, and the \" XXXX account '' and \" XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report. The plaintiffs subsequently called Equifax directly to dispute these items. After completing its investigation, Equifax deleted the \" XXXX accounts '' from both files and verified, through XXXX, the remaining charge-off on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs filed the instant action in the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, charging Equifax with violations of the FCRA and XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" chapter XXXX '' ), and the common law torts of defamation and intentional infliction of XXXX XXXX. The defendant joined in a notice of removal to the federal court, and now moves for summary judgment. \n\n\nXXXX. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court will XXXX a motion for summary judgment when \" the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. '' Fed.R.Civ.P. XXXX ( c ). \" In this context, `genuine ' means that the evidence could resolve XXXX XXXX in favor of the nonmoving party, while `material ' means that the fact has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and emphasis omitted ). The XXXX reviews the record \" in the light most flattering to the nonmovant and indulge [ XXXX ] all reasonable inferences in that party 's favor. '' Id. ( quotations and brackets omitted ). \n\n\nIV. DISCUSSION A. Fair Credit Reporting Act The plaintiffs claim that Equifax violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information when preparing credit reports. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( \" section XXXX ( b ) '' ) ; Mass.Gen.Laws ch. XXXX, XXXX ( b ). In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Equifax violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to make reasonable and timely efforts to reinvestigate the accuracy of information XXXX that they disputed. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( \" section XXXX '' ) ; XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ( a ). A negligent violation of either of these sections subjects the credit reporting agency to liability for actual damages sustained as a result of a violation, together with the costs of the action and a reasonable attorney 's fee. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX. A willful violation of either section subjects the agency to liability for punitive damages. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; Mass.Gen.Laws ch. XXXX, XXXX. [ XXXX ] XXXX. XXXX of Limitations XXXX, Equifax contends that several of the plaintiffs ' claims XXXX be barred by the statute of limitations. The FCRA provides that an action to enforce liability must be brought \" within XXXX years from the date on which the liability arises. '' XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Under section XXXX ( b ), \" liability arises when the consumer reporting agency issues an inaccurate consumer report. Under [ section XXXX ], liability arises when the consumer reporting agency allegedly violates its duty under the FCRA to reinvestigate. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and brackets omitted ). \n\nThe plaintiffs ' complaint was filed on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Thus, any section XXXX ( b ) claims arising from consumer reports which were disclosed to creditors on or before XX/XX/XXXX, are time barred. However, none of the plaintiffs ' section XXXX ( b ) claims are based on credit reports issued prior to that date. In addition, the defendant 's duty pursuant to section XXXX did not arise until it was notified of a dispute by the plaintiffs for the first time in XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. Accordingly, the FCRA 's statute of limitations does not affect the viability of plaintiffs ' claims. \n\n\nXXXX. Section XXXX ( b ) Claim Under the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency must follow \" reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' regarding the information contained in a consumer 's credit report. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). A claim of noncompliance with section XXXX ( b ) \" consists of XXXX elements : ( XXXX ) inaccurate information was included in a consumer 's credit report ; ( XXXX ) the inaccuracy was due to defendant 's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ; ( XXXX ) the consumer suffered injury ; and ( XXXX ) the consumer 's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). In this case, Equifax apparently does not dispute that inaccurate information was placed in reports it prepared regarding the plaintiffs ' credit history. However, Equifax does challenge the plaintiffs ' ability to demonstrate the remaining XXXX elements of a section XXXX ( b ) claim. The XXXX will address each disputed element in turn. \n\n\na. Reasonable Procedures Equifax contends that it maintains reasonable procedures as a matter of law because it transcribed, stored, and communicated consumer information from XXXX, a source that it believed to be reliable and credible on its face. In addition, it argues that the plaintiffs can not produce any proof that they caused Equifax to be notified XXXX that their credit history was being erroneously reported. \n\nSection XXXX ( b ) mandates that agencies follow reasonable procedures in preparing consumer reports but \" does not impose strict liability for inaccurate entries in consumer reports ; the preparer is held only to a duty of reasonable care. The exercise of reasonable care is determined by reference to what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citations omitted ). In evaluating whether procedures are reasonable, courts also balance \" the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe XXXX declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and Equifax. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer 's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX credit reporting agency XXXX XXXX XXXX on court dockets to correctly recite consumer 's credit history absent notice that information is flawed ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX A. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX ). Thus, \" [ a ] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer 's credit report is in a very different position than XXXX who has no such notice. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\nIn this case, the exhibits and affidavits show that the plaintiffs caused notices to be sent to Equifax regarding errors in their credit history on at least XXXX occasions before Equifax prepared their credit report for XXXX XXXX. Despite the communication of these notices, Equifax continued to rely exclusively on XXXX 's version of the plaintiffs ' credit history. In the XXXX 's view, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was reasonable for Equifax to rely exclusively on the information provided by XXXX, given that Equifax knew or should have known that this information was unreliable or inaccurate. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant maintained reasonable procedures where plaintiff sent several notices to defendant, but defendant failed to correct reported errors ). \n\nEquifax contends that the plaintiffs have produced no evidence that it received the correction notices purportedly sent by XXXX and XXXX. However, the plaintiffs have proffered letters from both XXXX and XXXX indicating that they would inform the relevant credit reporting agencies, including Equifax, of the errors regarding the plaintiffs ' XXXX account. In addition, it was standard business practice at XXXX to send XXXX notices to Equifax. Although the affidavit of XXXX XXXX, Senior XXXX in the XXXX XXXX Consumer Affairs for Equifax, states that Equifax has no record of receiving the UDFs sent by Fleet, her statement is silent on whether Equifax XXXX has a record of receiving the XXXX notice. Moreover, even if Equifax had categorically denied ever receiving all three correction statements from XXXX and XXXX, this assertion merely creates a classic dispute of material fact that is susceptible of resolution only by the finder of fact at trial. \n\nEquifax also suggests that, even if it received the XXXX correction notices, there were errors in the forms that would have made correction of the accounts impossible. For instance, the UDFs sent by XXXX contained incorrect data regarding the plaintiffs ' mortgage account, such as account numbers and the dates of origin and termination. This argument, however, is unpersuasive. Indeed, the UDFs contained the plaintiffs ' correct names, address, and social security account numbers. XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ass'n, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citing testimony of XXXX of defendant credit reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX social security number XXXX XXXX single most important information in a consumer 's credit file. '' ) In addition, the UDFs contained the name, address, and telephone number of XXXX XXXX, the XXXX employee who sent the UDFs to Equifax, so that any discrepancies in the received data could easily have been clarified by Equifax. Certainly, if the factfinder rejected Equifax 's assertion that it did not receive the UDFs from XXXX in XXXX and XXXX, he or she could reasonably infer that Equifax maintained unreasonable procedures because it failed to reconcile the inconsistent data contained in the UDFs. \n\n\nb. Damages Equifax also challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs ' evidence regarding damages on the ground that damages under the FCRA \" can not be recovered without a showing of actual loss. '' Defendant 's Motion for XXXX XXXX at XXXX. To the contrary, courts have consistently held that \" actual damages XXXX include XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX even in the absence of out-of-pocket expenses. '' XXXX v. Equifax XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ; see XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX damages compensable under FCRA ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX & XXXX XXXX ( same ) ; Guimond, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ). Here, the plaintiffs allege that they have suffered XXXX XXXX XXXXpon learning that Equifax has reported incorrect credit information to prospective creditors, and resulting from the denial of credit by XXXX XXXX, as well as their lengthy effort to correct their credit reports. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( affirming award of damages for pain and suffering where consumer experienced XXXX resulting from XXXX credit and lengthy dealings with credit reporting agency ) XXXX Thus, the XXXX can not say that the plaintiffs fail to state a genuine issue of material fact on the question of damages. \n\n\nc. Causation Furthermore, Equifax contends that the plaintiffs set forth insufficient proof that the plaintiffs ' damages were caused by the inaccurate information in the Equifax credit report. To establish a prima facie case pursuant to section XXXX ( b ), the plaintiff must \" produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the inaccurate entry was a `substantial factor ' that brought about the denial of credit. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Here, the plaintiffs submit XXXX letters from XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, rejecting their applications for credit, and citing to an Equifax credit report as the \" primary reason '' for the denial of credit. In XXXX addition, the parties agree that the Equifax XXXX reports obtained by the plaintiffs in XX/XX/XXXX and in XX/XX/XXXX contained inaccurate, negative information. Therefore, the XXXX concludes that a reasonable jury could infer that inaccurate, negative information contained in the Equifax credit reports constituted a substantial factor in XXXX XXXX 's decision to decline the plaintiffs ' credit applications. \n\nEquifax 's citation to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), moreover, is unavailing. There, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant in an FCRA dispute on the issue of causation after all of the credit reporting agency 's records were reviewed and there emerged no evidence that any credit report produced by the defendant had ever been used in making an adverse credit decision against the plaintiff. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX. Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs have produced the credit denials issued by XXXX XXXX that specifically reference Equifax credit reports. While the plaintiffs ' case \" might have been stronger had [ they ] deposed or taken affidavits of those responsible for the decision, such evidence is not essential to make out a prima facie case pursuant to [ section XXXX ( b ) ]. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Section XXXX Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) of the FCRA provides, in pertinent part, that where a consumer notifies a credit reporting agency that information contained in his or her report XXXX be inaccurate, \" the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file .... '' Equifax argues that the statute requires a credit reporting agency only to confirm the accuracy of the information with the original source of information, but imposes no mandate on the agency to take additional steps to confirm the accuracy of the disputed information. However, the majority of courts hold that section XXXX ( a ) requires a credit reporting agency, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \" Whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend, in part, on whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source XXXX be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Moreover, the courts have determined in this context that \" [ XXXX ] hether a reasonable investigation has been conducted is generally a question for the jury. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nViewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the XXXX concludes that the plaintiffs ' section XXXX claim survives Equifax 's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs submit copies of XXXX separate written communications to Equifax in which they dispute the accuracy of their credit history. In addition, XXXX of these letters includes a copy of the XXXX XXXX mortgage. Despite the plaintiffs ' repeated complaints, Equifax continued to rely solely upon the information provided by XXXX when it investigated the plaintiffs ' complaints in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Equifax fulfilled its duty to reinvestigate pursuant to section XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( denying defendant 's motion for summary judgment in claim for failure to reinvestigate where it merely verified negative information with XXXX credit grantors despite consumer 's warning that information was inaccurate ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ) ; cf. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( denying defendant 's motion for new trial for failure to reinvestigate where consumer informed reporting agency of his personal dispute with credit grantor, yet reporting agency relied solely on credit grantor for information during investigation ), cert. denied, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and cert. denied sub nom. Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \" In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Punitive Damages for XXXX Violations XXXX, Equifax moves for summary judgment with regard to the plaintiffs ' claim under section XXXX, which provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance with the FCRA. \" To be found in willful noncompliance, a defendant must have knowingly committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of others. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( quotation omitted ). \" Generally, courts have allowed a willful noncompliance claim to proceed where a defendant 's conduct involves willful misrepresentations or concealments. In those cases, a consumer reporting agency has typically misrepresented or concealed some or all of a credit report from a consumer. '' Cousin, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( citation omitted ). In addition, the XXXX XXXX held that a plaintiff XXXX present a section XXXX claim to the jury if she can show that a credit reporting agency adopted a reinvestigation policy with knowledge that the policy violates consumer rights under the FCRA, or with reckless disregard to whether its policy violated those rights. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\nIn the XXXX 's view, the plaintiffs fail to show sufficient evidence of willful noncompliance with the FCRA to survive this motion for summary judgment. There is no evidence to support a claim that Equifax willfully misrepresented or concealed any part of a credit report from the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs do not allege that Equifax adopted its reinvestigation policies with knowledge, or reckless disregard, as to whether they contravened rights of consumers under the FCRA. Finally, the plaintiffs ' contention that Equifax failed to correct an error in their credit reports after receiving several notices does not constitute evidence of a willful violation. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. In the absence of any evidence that Equifax acted to intentionally harm the plaintiffs, summary judgment must be granted as to this claim. \n\n\nB. XXXX XXXX Equifax also contends that summary judgment must be granted as to the plaintiffs ' claim pursuant to XXXX. Laws ch. XXXX ( \" chapter XXXX '' ). The XXXX agrees. \" Where injury is incurred because of conduct which comprises the elements of any... statutory... cause of action, and which is also a violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, recovery of cumulative damages under multiple counts XXXX not be allowed. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). In other words, \" where the same acts cause the same injury under more than XXXX theory ... duplicative damage recovery will not be permitted. '' Id. Here, the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim is premised solely upon conduct by Equifax that also forms the basis for the plaintiffs ' FCRA claims. Complaint at XXXX XXXX. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted as to the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX The FCRA preempts certain state law privacy causes of action, such as defamation. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( \" section XXXX ( XXXX ) '' ), \" [ XXXX ] xcept as provided in sections [ XXXX and XXXX ], no consumer XXXX bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation... except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer. '' Section XXXX ( XXXX ) has been interpreted \" to provide qualified immunity to consumer reporting agencies except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure. '' XXXX v. Equifax XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ). \n\n\nA statement is made with malice if the speaker made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Reckless disregard requires evidence that the speaker entertained actual doubt about the truth of the statement. \nXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX ( quotations and citations omitted ). Here, the plaintiffs fail to adduce any evidence showing that Equifax knew the plaintiffs ' credit history it furnished was false or that it entertained actual doubt regarding the veracity of such information. Thus, the plaintiffs ' defamation claim is preempted by the FCRA. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX Finally, Equifax moves for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of XXXX XXXX  To prevail on a such a claim, the plaintiffs must establish : ( XXXX ) that the defendant intended to inflict XXXX XXXX or knew or should have known that XXXX XXXXs was the likely result of his conduct ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's conduct was extreme and outrageous ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's actions caused the plaintiff 's XXXX and ( XXXX ) the XXXX XXXX suffered by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). There is no evidence in this case that Equifax acted with the intention to inflict XXXX XXXX. See id. ( claim will fail even if defendant 's conduct is characterized by \" malice or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. '' ) In addition, there is no evidence that Equifax 's conduct was extreme and outrageous. See id. ( claim can not be \" predicated on mere insults, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities '' ). Accordingly, the XXXX grants Equifax 's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of XXXX XXXX \n\n\nV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Equifax 's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims for : ( XXXX ) willful violations of the FCRA and XXXX ; ( XXXX ) violation of Chapter XXXX ( Count XXXX ) ; ( XXXX ) defamation ( Count XV ) ; and ( XXXX ) intentional infliction of emotional distress ( Count XXXX ). However, Equifax 's motion is DENIED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims that Equifax breached its duties to maintain reasonable procedures and to reinvestigate under the FCRA ( Count XXXX ) and XXXX ( Count XXXX ). \n\nIt is So Ordered. \n\nNOTES [ XXXX ] The claims against the other defendants, i.e., XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have been dismissed. \n\n[ XXXX ] In its motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' credit reporting act claims, Equifax observes that the FCRA and XXXX are essentially identical, and makes its argument for dismissal of all credit reporting act claims based only upon the federal statute. Accordingly, the XXXX will analyze Equifax 's motion under the federal law. \n\nSome case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. \n\nThis site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the XXXX Privacy Policy and Terms of XXXX apply. \n\nNot Just Another AI XXXX XXXX. XXXX ther XXXX AI Writer. Learn More. \n\nXXXX XXXX Summaries in Your Inbox Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. \n\nOur Suggestions : Supreme Court XXXX Hawaii XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Supreme Court XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX email Webinars For All XX/XX/XXXX The Secret to Career Transitions That Are Epic [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX AI : Legal Developments, Risks & Benefits [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX Expert Witnesses and Artificial Intelligence [ XXXX ] Learn More XXXX Webinars are open to all, lawyers and non-lawyers. XXXX, please visit individual webinar pages for more information about XXXX accreditation. \nSearch this Case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX! News Ask a XXXX XXXX : Please ask your question here and get free answers from lawyers. \nAdd XXXX Question Find a Lawyer Legal Issue or Lawyer Name XXXX Lawyers - Get Listed Now! \nGet a free directory profile listing Sponsored Listings XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Business Law, Consumer Law, Employment Law, Environmental Law, Legal Malpractice, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Products Liability, Real Estate Law Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX & Mediation, Business Law Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, XXXX & XXXX XXXX Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, want to be a XXXX XXXX XXXX too? Learn more Profile picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, HI Military Law, Criminal Law Website Email Profile","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-07T02:13:04.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"96816","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9727357","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-08-07T02:03:08.000Z","state":"HI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Learn more <em>Profile</em> picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, HI Military Law, Criminal Law Website Email <em>Profile</em>"],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[4.3426595,"9727357"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9727317","_score":4.127859,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, Plaintiffs, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Experian, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Defendants. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nXX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX for Plaintiffs. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MA, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MA, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MA, for Defendants. \n\n\nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER XXXX, Senior District Judge. \n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION In this action, the plaintiffs, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" plaintiffs '' ) allege that the defendant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \" XXXX XXXX ) [ XXXX ] violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( \" FCRA '' ), see XXXX XXXX. XXXX, et seq., and the Massachusetts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ), see Mass.Gen.Laws ch. XXXX, XXXX, et seq. In addition, the plaintiffs bring several other statutory and common law claims. Now before the XXXX is the defendant 's motion for summary judgment. \n\n\nXXXX. BACKGROUND In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained a {$50000.00} equity loan from XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ). Over the next XXXX years, they attempted to pay down the principal by including additional money with their minimum monthly obligations. But in XXXX, during an attempted refinancing, the plaintiffs discovered that XXXX had not credited their accounts with the extra payments. Subsequently, the plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against XXXX over its allegedly inaccurate accounting methods, and settled the case in XX/XX/XXXX. In consideration of the plaintiffs ' release of their claims, XXXX released them from the remaining {$20000.00} on the loan, and agreed that no derogatory information about them or their claim against the bank would be reported to any credit reporting agency. However, XXXX classified the lost {$20000.00} as a \" charge-off, '' and its debt XXXX attempted to collect the unpaid balance approximately XXXX year after settling the case. After the plaintiffs complained to XXXX, the bank issued a letter to the plaintiffs on XX/XX/XXXX stating that it would notify the appropriate credit reporting agencies of its error, and that the comments regarding their account, No. XXXX ( \" XXXX account '' ), would thereafter read \" paid as agreed. '' After XXXX was acquired by XXXX Bank ( \" XXXX '' ) in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX ordered copies of credit reports to confirm that XXXX had removed any derogatory information. Instead, she learned that XXXX was reporting the XXXX XXXX mortgage as a charge-off. In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs contacted XXXX, whose agent XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) acknowledged the error and assured them that the erroneous information would be removed and all credit reporting agencies notified of the error. XXXX forwarded a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) to the plaintiffs, indicating that a request was made to the relevant credit agencies to change the plaintiffs ' account regarding the XXXX mortgage to \" paid as agreed. '' It is standard practice at XXXX to send XXXX forms to XXXX major credit reporting agencies : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX, however, contained inaccurate data regarding the dates of origin and termination of the plaintiffs ' account, as well as its \" source code. '' In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained an XXXX credit report and learned that XXXX had not only continued to report their \" XXXX account '' as charged-off through XX/XX/XXXX, but also had reported the account a second time under a different account number, No. XXXX ( \" XXXX account '' ). In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs again reported the dispute to XXXX. To correct this problem, XXXX issued XXXX additional UDFs, XXXX in the name of each plaintiff, to XXXX requesting a change in the plaintiffs ' credit histories to read \" paid XXXX as agreed. '' Both UDFs issued in XX/XX/XXXX refer only to the plaintiffs ' \" XXXX account ''. XXXX, however, has no record of receiving any UDFs from XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received letters indicating that their applications for credit card accounts with XXXX XXXX had been denied. The letters stated the \" primary reason '' for the denial as \" derogatory information on credit file, '' and named XXXX as the XXXX XXXX XXXX responsible for providing the plaintiffs ' credit history. On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received an XXXX credit report, reflecting their \" XXXX account '' as \" transferred or sold '' and reporting their \" XXXX account '' as \" charged-off. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs sent a letter to XXXX requesting an investigation of the XXXX account. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX reported to the plaintiffs that XXXX had verified the accuracy of the XXXX accounts. The plaintiffs attempted to use these letters from XXXX to notify XXXX of its erroneous reporting. However, XXXX never responded, as it had already sold the account to XXXX XXXX Assets ( \" XXXX '' ), a debt collection agency. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, after receiving a letter from XXXX attempting to collect an alleged outstanding balance of more than {$20000.00}, the plaintiffs again ordered automated disclosures of their XXXX files. The credit reports contained XXXX charge-offs : the \" XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report, and the \" XXXX account '' and \" XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report. The plaintiffs subsequently called XXXX directly to dispute these items. After completing its investigation, XXXX deleted the \" XXXX accounts '' from both files and verified, through XXXX, the remaining charge-off on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs filed the instant action in the XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, charging XXXX with violations of the FCRA and XXXX, as well as Mass.Gen.Laws ch. XXXX ( \" chapter XXXX '' ), and the common law torts of defamation and intentional infliction of XXXX XXXX. The defendant joined in a notice of removal to the federal court, and now moves for summary judgment. \n\n\nXXXX. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court will XXXX a motion for summary judgment when \" the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. '' Fed.R.Civ.P. XXXX ( c ). \" In this context, `genuine ' means that the evidence could resolve XXXX XXXX in favor of the nonmoving party, while `material ' means that the fact has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and emphasis omitted ). The XXXX reviews the record \" in the light most flattering to the nonmovant and indulge [ XXXX ] all reasonable inferences in that party 's favor. '' Id. ( quotations and brackets omitted ). \n\n\nIV. DISCUSSION A. Fair Credit Reporting Act The plaintiffs claim that XXXX violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information when preparing credit reports. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( \" section XXXX ( b ) '' ) ; XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ( b ). In addition, the plaintiffs allege that XXXX violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to make reasonable and timely efforts to reinvestigate the accuracy of information XXXX that they disputed. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( \" section XXXX '' ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( a ). A negligent violation of either of these sections subjects the credit reporting agency to liability for actual damages sustained as a result of a violation, together with the costs of the action and a reasonable attorney 's fee. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX. A willful violation of either section subjects the agency to liability for punitive damages. XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. [ XXXX ] XXXX. XXXX of Limitations XXXX, XXXX contends that several of the plaintiffs ' claims XXXX be barred by the statute of limitations. The FCRA provides that an action to enforce liability must be brought \" within XXXX years from the date on which the liability arises. '' XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Under section XXXX ( b ), \" liability arises when the consumer reporting agency issues an inaccurate consumer report. Under [ section XXXX ], liability arises when the consumer reporting agency allegedly violates its duty under the FCRA to reinvestigate. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and brackets omitted ). \n\nThe plaintiffs ' complaint was filed on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Thus, any section XXXX ( b ) claims arising from consumer reports which were disclosed to creditors on or before XX/XX/XXXX, are time barred. However, none of the plaintiffs ' section XXXX ( b ) claims are based on credit reports issued prior to that date. In addition, the defendant 's duty pursuant to section XXXX did not arise until it was notified of a dispute by the plaintiffs for the first time in XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. Accordingly, the FCRA 's statute of limitations does not affect the viability of plaintiffs ' claims. \n\n\nXXXX. Section XXXX ( b ) Claim Under the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency must follow \" reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' regarding the information contained in a consumer 's credit report. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). A claim of noncompliance with section XXXX ( b ) \" consists of XXXX elements : ( XXXX ) inaccurate information was included in a consumer 's credit report ; ( XXXX ) the inaccuracy was due to defendant 's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ; ( XXXX ) the consumer suffered injury ; and ( XXXX ) the consumer 's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). In this case, XXXX apparently does not dispute that inaccurate information was placed in reports it prepared regarding the plaintiffs ' credit history. However, XXXX does challenge the plaintiffs ' ability to demonstrate the remaining XXXX elements of a section XXXX ( b ) claim. The XXXX will address each disputed element in turn. \n\n\na. Reasonable Procedures XXXX contends that it maintains reasonable procedures as a matter of law because it transcribed, stored, and communicated consumer information from XXXX, a source that it believed to be reliable and credible on its face. In addition, it argues that the plaintiffs can not produce any proof that they caused XXXX to be notified XXXX that their credit history was being erroneously reported. \n\nSection XXXX ( b ) mandates that agencies follow reasonable procedures in preparing consumer reports but \" does not impose strict liability for inaccurate entries in consumer reports ; the preparer is held only to a duty of reasonable care. The exercise of reasonable care is determined by reference to what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citations omitted ). In evaluating whether procedures are reasonable, courts also balance \" the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy. '' XXXX XXXX Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe XXXX declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and XXXX. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer 's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX credit reporting agency XXXX XXXX XXXX on court dockets to correctly recite consumer 's credit history absent notice that information is flawed ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX A. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX ). Thus, \" [ a ] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer 's credit report is in a very different position than XXXX who has no such notice. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\nIn this case, the exhibits and affidavits show that the plaintiffs caused notices to be sent to XXXX regarding errors in their credit history on at least XXXX occasions before XXXX prepared their credit report for XXXX XXXX. Despite the communication of these notices, XXXX continued to rely exclusively on XXXX 's version of the plaintiffs ' credit history. In the XXXX 's view, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was reasonable for XXXX to rely exclusively on the information provided by XXXX, given that XXXX knew or should have known that this information was unreliable or inaccurate. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant maintained reasonable procedures where plaintiff sent several notices to defendant, but defendant failed to correct reported errors ). \n\nXXXX contends that the plaintiffs have produced no evidence that it received the correction notices purportedly sent by XXXX and XXXX. However, the plaintiffs have proffered letters from both XXXX and XXXX indicating that they would inform the relevant credit reporting agencies, including XXXX, of the errors regarding the plaintiffs ' XXXX account. In addition, it was standard business practice at XXXX to send XXXX notices to XXXX. Although the affidavit of XXXX XXXX, Senior XXXX in the XXXX XXXX Consumer Affairs for XXXX, states that XXXX has no record of receiving the UDFs sent by Fleet, her statement is silent on whether XXXX XXXX has a record of receiving the XXXX notice. Moreover, even if XXXX had categorically denied ever receiving all three correction statements from XXXX and XXXX, this assertion merely creates a classic dispute of material fact that is susceptible of resolution only by the finder of fact at trial. \n\nXXXX also suggests that, even if it received the XXXX correction notices, there were errors in the forms that would have made correction of the accounts impossible. For instance, the UDFs sent by XXXX contained incorrect data regarding the plaintiffs ' mortgage account, such as account numbers and the dates of origin and termination. This argument, however, is unpersuasive. Indeed, the UDFs contained the plaintiffs ' correct names, address, and social security account numbers. XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ass'n, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citing testimony of XXXX of defendant credit reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX social security number XXXX XXXX single most important information in a consumer 's credit file. '' ) In addition, the UDFs contained the name, address, and telephone number of XXXX XXXX, the XXXX employee who sent the UDFs to XXXX, so that any discrepancies in the received data could easily have been clarified by XXXX. Certainly, if the factfinder rejected XXXX 's assertion that it did not receive the UDFs from XXXX in XXXX and XXXX, he or she could reasonably infer that XXXX maintained unreasonable procedures because it failed to reconcile the inconsistent data contained in the UDFs. \n\n\nb. Damages XXXX also challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs ' evidence regarding damages on the ground that damages under the FCRA \" can not be recovered without a showing of actual loss. '' Defendant 's Motion for XXXX XXXX at XXXX. To the contrary, courts have consistently held that \" actual damages XXXX include humiliation and XXXX XXXX  even in the absence of out-of-pocket expenses. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), cert. denied, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ; see XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( XXXX XXXX damages compensable under FCRA ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX & XXXX XXXX ( same ) ; Guimond, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ). Here, the plaintiffs allege that they have suffered XXXX XXXX upon learning that XXXX has reported incorrect credit information to prospective creditors, and resulting from the denial of credit by XXXX XXXX, as well as their lengthy effort to correct their credit reports. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( affirming award of damages for pain and suffering where consumer experienced humiliation resulting from XXXX credit and lengthy dealings with credit reporting agency ) XXXX Thus, the XXXX can not say that the plaintiffs fail to state a genuine issue of material fact on the question of damages. \n\n\nc. Causation Furthermore, XXXX contends that the plaintiffs set forth insufficient proof that the plaintiffs ' damages were caused by the inaccurate information in the XXXX credit report. To establish a prima facie case pursuant to section XXXX ( b ), the plaintiff must \" produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the inaccurate entry was a `substantial factor ' that brought about the denial of credit. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Here, the plaintiffs submit XXXX letters from XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, rejecting their applications for credit, and citing to an XXXX credit report as the \" primary reason '' for the denial of credit. In XXXX addition, the parties agree that the XXXX XXXX reports obtained by the plaintiffs in XX/XX/XXXX and in XX/XX/XXXX contained inaccurate, negative information. Therefore, the XXXX concludes that a reasonable jury could infer that inaccurate, negative information contained in the XXXX credit reports constituted a substantial factor in XXXX XXXX 's decision to decline the plaintiffs ' credit applications. \n\nXXXX 's citation to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), moreover, is unavailing. There, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant in an FCRA dispute on the issue of causation after all of the credit reporting agency 's records were reviewed and there emerged no evidence that any credit report produced by the defendant had ever been used in making an adverse credit decision against the plaintiff. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX. Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs have produced the credit denials issued by XXXX XXXX that specifically reference XXXX credit reports. While the plaintiffs ' case \" might have been stronger had [ they ] deposed or taken affidavits of those responsible for the decision, such evidence is not essential to make out a prima facie case pursuant to [ section XXXX ( b ) ]. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Section XXXX Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) of the FCRA provides, in pertinent part, that where a consumer notifies a credit reporting agency that information contained in his or her report XXXX be inaccurate, \" the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file .... '' XXXX argues that the statute requires a credit reporting agency only to confirm the accuracy of the information with the original source of information, but imposes no mandate on the agency to take additional steps to confirm the accuracy of the disputed information. However, the majority of courts hold that section XXXX ( a ) requires a credit reporting agency, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \" Whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend, in part, on whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source XXXX be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Moreover, the courts have determined in this context that \" [ XXXX ] hether a reasonable investigation has been conducted is generally a question for the jury. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nViewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the XXXX concludes that the plaintiffs ' section XXXX claim survives XXXX 's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs submit copies of XXXX separate written communications to XXXX in which they dispute the accuracy of their credit history. In addition, XXXX of these letters includes a copy of the XXXX XXXX mortgage. Despite the plaintiffs ' repeated complaints, XXXX continued to rely solely upon the information provided by XXXX when it investigated the plaintiffs ' complaints in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether XXXX fulfilled its duty to reinvestigate pursuant to section XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( denying defendant 's motion for summary judgment in claim for failure to reinvestigate where it merely verified negative information with XXXX credit grantors despite consumer 's warning that information was inaccurate ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ) ; cf. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( denying defendant 's motion for new trial for failure to reinvestigate where consumer informed reporting agency of his personal dispute with credit grantor, yet reporting agency relied solely on credit grantor for information during investigation ), cert. denied, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and cert. denied sub nom. Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \" In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Punitive Damages for XXXX Violations XXXX, XXXX moves for summary judgment with regard to the plaintiffs ' claim under section XXXX, which provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance with the FCRA. \" To be found in willful noncompliance, a defendant must have knowingly committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of others. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( quotation omitted ). \" Generally, courts have allowed a willful noncompliance claim to proceed where a defendant 's conduct involves willful misrepresentations or concealments. In those cases, a consumer reporting agency has typically misrepresented or concealed some or all of a credit report from a consumer. '' Cousin, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( citation omitted ). In addition, the XXXX XXXX held that a plaintiff XXXX present a section XXXX claim to the jury if she can show that a credit reporting agency adopted a reinvestigation policy with knowledge that the policy violates consumer rights under the FCRA, or with reckless disregard to whether its policy violated those rights. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\nIn the XXXX 's view, the plaintiffs fail to show sufficient evidence of willful noncompliance with the FCRA to survive this motion for summary judgment. There is no evidence to support a claim that XXXX willfully misrepresented or concealed any part of a credit report from the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs do not allege that XXXX adopted its reinvestigation policies with knowledge, or reckless disregard, as to whether they contravened rights of consumers under the FCRA. Finally, the plaintiffs ' contention that XXXX failed to correct an error in their credit reports after receiving several notices does not constitute evidence of a willful violation. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. In the absence of any evidence that XXXX acted to intentionally harm the plaintiffs, summary judgment must be granted as to this claim. \n\n\nB. XXXX XXXX XXXX also contends that summary judgment must be granted as to the plaintiffs ' claim pursuant to XXXX. Laws ch. XXXX ( \" chapter XXXX '' ). The XXXX agrees. \" Where injury is incurred because of conduct which comprises the elements of any... statutory... cause of action, and which is also a violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, recovery of cumulative damages under multiple counts XXXX not be allowed. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). In other words, \" where the same acts cause the same injury under more than XXXX theory ... duplicative damage recovery will not be permitted. '' Id. Here, the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim is premised solely upon conduct by XXXX that also forms the basis for the plaintiffs ' FCRA claims. Complaint at XXXX XXXX. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted as to the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX The FCRA preempts certain state law privacy causes of action, such as defamation. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( \" section XXXX ( XXXX ) '' ), \" [ XXXX ] xcept as provided in sections [ XXXX and XXXX ], no consumer XXXX bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation... except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer. '' Section XXXX ( XXXX ) has been interpreted \" to provide qualified immunity to consumer reporting agencies except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ). \n\n\nA statement is made with malice if the speaker made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Reckless disregard requires evidence that the speaker entertained actual doubt about the truth of the statement. \nXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX ( quotations and citations omitted ). Here, the plaintiffs fail to adduce any evidence showing that XXXX knew the plaintiffs ' credit history it furnished was false or that it entertained actual doubt regarding the veracity of such information. Thus, the plaintiffs ' defamation claim is preempted by the FCRA. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXXinally, XXXX moves for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. To prevail on a such a claim, the plaintiffs must establish : ( XXXX ) that the defendant intended to inflict XXXX XXXX, or knew or should have known that XXXX XXXX was the likely result of his conduct ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's conduct was extreme and outrageous ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's actions caused the plaintiff 's XXXX; and ( XXXX ) the XXXX XXXX suffered by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). There is no evidence in this case that XXXX acted with the intention to inflict XXXX XXXX. See id. ( claim will fail even if defendant 's conduct is characterized by \" malice or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. '' ) In addition, there is no evidence that XXXX 's conduct was extreme and outrageous. See id. ( claim can not be \" predicated on mere insults, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities '' ). Accordingly, the XXXX grants XXXX 's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. \n\n\nV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, XXXX 's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims for : ( XXXX ) willful violations of the FCRA and XXXX ; ( XXXX ) violation of Chapter XXXX ( Count XXXX ) ; ( XXXX ) defamation ( Count XV ) ; and ( XXXX ) intentional infliction of emotional distress ( Count XXXX ). However, XXXX 's motion is DENIED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims that XXXX breached its duties to maintain reasonable procedures and to reinvestigate under the FCRA ( Count XXXX ) and XXXX ( Count XXXX ). \n\nIt is So Ordered. \n\nNOTES [ XXXX ] The claims against the other defendants, i.e., XXXX, Experian, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have been dismissed. \n\n[ XXXX ] In its motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' credit reporting act claims, XXXX observes that the FCRA and XXXX are essentially identical, and makes its argument for dismissal of all credit reporting act claims based only upon the federal statute. Accordingly, the XXXX will analyze XXXX 's motion under the federal law. \n\nSome case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. \n\nThis site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the XXXX Privacy Policy and Terms of XXXX apply. \n\nNot Just Another AI XXXX XXXX. XXXX ther XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXr. Learn More. \n\nXXXX XXXX Summaries in Your Inbox Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. \n\nOur Suggestions : Supreme Court XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Supreme Court XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX For All XX/XX/XXXX The Secret to Career Transitions That Are Epic [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX AI : Legal Developments, Risks & Benefits [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX Expert Witnesses and Artificial Intelligence [ XXXX ] Learn More XXXX Webinars are open to all, lawyers and non-lawyers. XXXX, please visit individual webinar pages for more information about XXXX accreditation. \nSearch this Case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX! News Ask a XXXX XXXX : Please ask your question here and get free answers from lawyers. \nAdd XXXX Question Find a Lawyer Legal Issue or Lawyer Name XXXX Lawyers - Get Listed Now! \nGet a free directory profile listing Sponsored Listings XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Business Law, Consumer Law, Employment Law, Environmental Law, Legal Malpractice, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Products Liability, Real Estate Law Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, XXXX & XXXX XXXX Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, want to be a XXXX XXXX XXXX too? Learn more Profile picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX Military Law, Criminal Law Website Email Profile","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-07T02:13:19.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"96816","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9727317","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-08-07T02:13:17.000Z","state":"HI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Learn more <em>Profile</em> picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX Military Law, Criminal Law Website Email <em>Profile</em>"],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[4.127859,"9727317"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6736230","_score":3.901218,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW.,\nWashington, DC\nDC 20552\nThis is to complain against the Bank of America\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.\n I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to Bank of America, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically and financially.\nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute tomyoverall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and\npractice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Bank of America never acknowledge my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firms.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the\n \nnature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-\n  \ninterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly\n \nadopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nBank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX XXXX\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Re: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [ 1]. Second, it shall serve as formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of a wrongful and negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated Hackers (the Scammer), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named XXXX  in the\ntotal amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in\nthe fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance\nwithin your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation,\nwhether by raising chargeback in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime XXXX XXXX XXXX 1\n   \nPage 2 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX   Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and demand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Scammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive victims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme and therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transactions the Scammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on me which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.\n  2\n\nPage 3 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\n Please take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along! Attached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization had breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to satisfy yourself that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation on a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the Quincecare duty, because it was established in the case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd. (the Quincecare duty)\nThe Quincecare duty is well-established and requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing clients instructions. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the clients funds.\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution has been able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution shall seek further information or/and documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it became glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information or/and documentation were sought by your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented at all.\nIf a bank executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank shall be liable to its client for damages in negligence.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst they are investigated.\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ellinger's Modern Banking Law XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.)\n    3\n\nPage 4 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds shall not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something fishy was going on and suspended transactions until you had made reasonable enquiries to satisfy yourself that the transactions was/were properly to be executed. In other words, I have been a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard my financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was a fraud victim (Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50) [ 3].\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be treated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer. The debits made to my account should be reversed out, and damages to compensate me for any reasonably foreseeable losses incurred as a result of your failure to state the balance of my account accurately and properly. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about someone that adversely affect their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action or/and additional responsibilities or liabilities owed by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties owed by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those owed to the customer. On top of that, please remember you may owe liabilities to more than one regulator.\nMore often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper authorization or enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence.\nA plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nAccording to the FCA [5]: XXXXXXXX  could do more to identify fraudulent incoming payments and prevent accounts from being compromised by fraudsters. XXXX fraud is where a fraudster tricks a payer into making an XXXX  to an account controlled by that fraudster under false pretenses, similarly to the above-described victimization.\n3 Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50\n4 Using AI in the fight against fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX\n5 FCA introduces new rules on handling complaints about Authorised Push Payment fraud (XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    4\n\nPage 5 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nMoreover, I argue that you should also make a reasonable estimate on the basis of relevant historical data of my account.\n\"Given XXXX fraud is currently a XXXX million problem and growing, the potential exposure for banks is very large indeed. This is yet another reason why the banking industry must do all it can to use the data available to it to detect and stop fraud.\"\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of irregular or suspicious transactions and traffic patterns to identify financial crimes in general and common fraudulent schemes in specific;\n Human review of complaints from the public and law enforcement in connection with rapidly-growing, recurring, and popular fraudulent practices as well as suspicious merchants, including creating special channels for such complaints;\n Cross-checking warnings, notices, cautionary announcements, and reports concerning beneficiaries, merchants, associations, or countries often suspected to be associated with cyber-fraud from governments, central banks, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and watchdogs.\n Artificial Intelligence & XXXX embrace and leverage Machine Learning technologies and Big Data Analytics to identify fraudulent, or potentially fraudulent merchants by scrutinizing publications and reports about such merchants in the digital sphere (e.g. on forums, social media, et cetera.)\n Establishing contact with the recipient institution of fraud victims: any holds in place on new related activities, or similar blockers that prevent rapid rebranding of related/similar merchants.\nIt would also be wise to consider implementing additional safeguards where the movement of large sums of monies are concerned. For instance, you could specify additional prerequisites for executing the transfer of large sums such as: (1) requiring multiple levels of approval; (2) requesting more information concerning the intended purpose of the transfers and cross-checking for similar patterns of transfer; and (3) checking on my capacity to make such transfers. While such measures entail additional compliance costs, it would be sensible for you to err on the side of caution.\n5\n\nPage 6 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX  CONCLUSION\n If a full refund is not administered within 10 days from the date of this letter, in addition to a refund amount, a request for reimbursement of attorneys fees, filing fees, and any further costs associated with obtaining the refund amount may be pursued.\nIn the event of non-compliance with the demand mentioned above, your organization, knowingly or unknowingly, manifestly jeopardize its business through its association with the Criminals: those who are not direct accomplices to the commission of a crime but rather are permissive of the criminal behavior after the crime has been committed can also be charged with a crime. Being permissive, even if not present when the crime was committed, by not reporting the crime to the authorities and not trying to do your part in remedying the situation, makes you an accessory to the crime. If you unknowingly assist criminal behavior and remain impartial after discovering such, you are seen as obstructing justice.\nThis letter does not realize the full extent of my claims, rights, and remedies against you or any of your affiliates, parents and subsidiary corporations, including, without limitation, your representative managing partners, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, assigns, successors, servants, insurers, and representatives, in any matter whatsoever, including the present context of this letter, as that will not detract from my rights and claims in any form or manner whatsoever, or constitute any concessions on my behalf against you and against others.\nFor more information, please reread.\nXXXX XXXX  6\n\nPage 7 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nDEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE\nThe individuals who directed and enjoyed the fruits of these illegal and unlawful activities shall be exposed in full. This means that any and all contextual documents and/or information at your disposal shall be disclosed in a timely and equitable manner, in a reply to this letter.\nHence, I hereby demand that you disclose the following within 10 days from the date of this letter:\nReports, instructions, transmittal letters, statements, notices, and other documents, related to the relevant participants and beneficiaries, whether involved directly or indirectly, in accordance with the applicable regulations and guidelines. It also includes the correct and true names of the parties to the lawsuit, their ID NO., addresses, and telephone numbers, as well as information and documents of any potential party or of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case, including information and documents concerning their beneficiary bank accounts, if available.\n 7\n\nTo: Bank of America\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Subject: XXXX XXXX XXXX  complain to Bank of America\nFAO: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n This is my subsequent letter pursuant to the original, unanswered disputed letter sent to Bank of America on the XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWith this letter, I hereby express my utmost dissatisfaction with your lack of reply to the above referenced letter and reiterate key points that were raised and left unanswered previously supporting my request for your cooperation.\nAs I mentioned I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by hackers (the Company) and innocently lost XXXX XXXX  of my hard-earned life-savings due to your misadministration.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must therefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as the one described herein.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimization period; I was also relatively financially illiterate and very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast, mostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are people who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping the uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been lost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a XXXX who XXXX  his victim whilst at the same time XXXX XXXX  and prevents them from escaping.\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management\n\nsystem, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and preemptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal\nenterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity.\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me\nas a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including\nvulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of\nunusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud\nprograms, and other associated policies and procedures.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organization is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-21T20:26:34.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33908","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6736230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-22T23:52:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In summary, I respectively ask <em>your</em> organisation to consider my points, given <em>your</em> personal and companywide obligation to <em>provide</em> a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to <em>your</em> input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX XXXX\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Re: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[3.901218,"6736230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9726243","_score":3.715113,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, Plaintiffs, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Trans Union and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Defendants. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nXX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" plaintiffs '' ) allege that the defendant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \" XXXX XXXX ) [ XXXX ] violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( \" FCRA '' ), see XXXX XXXX. XXXX, et seq., and the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ), see XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, et seq. In addition, the plaintiffs bring several other statutory and common law claims. Now before the XXXX is the defendant 's motion for summary judgment. \n\n\nXXXX. BACKGROUND In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained a {$50000.00} equity loan from XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ). Over the next XXXX years, they attempted to pay down the principal by including additional money with their minimum monthly obligations. But in XXXX, during an attempted refinancing, the plaintiffs discovered that XXXX had not credited their accounts with the extra payments. Subsequently, the plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against XXXX over its allegedly inaccurate accounting methods, and settled the case in XX/XX/XXXX. In consideration of the plaintiffs ' release of their claims, XXXX released them from the remaining {$20000.00} on the loan, and agreed that no derogatory information about them or their claim against the bank would be reported to any credit reporting agency. However, XXXX classified the lost {$20000.00} as a \" charge-off, '' and its debt XXXX attempted to collect the unpaid balance approximately XXXX year after settling the case. After the plaintiffs complained to XXXX, the bank issued a letter to the plaintiffs on XX/XX/XXXX stating that it would notify the appropriate credit reporting agencies of its error, and that the comments regarding their account, No. XXXX ( \" XXXX account '' ), would thereafter read \" paid as agreed. '' After XXXX was acquired by XXXX Bank ( \" XXXX '' ) in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX ordered copies of credit reports to confirm that XXXX had removed any derogatory information. Instead, she learned that XXXX was reporting the XXXX XXXX mortgage as a charge-off. In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs contacted XXXX, whose agent XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) acknowledged the error and assured them that the erroneous information would be removed and all credit reporting agencies notified of the error. XXXX forwarded a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) to the plaintiffs, indicating that a request was made to the relevant credit agencies to change the plaintiffs ' account regarding the XXXXXXXX XXXX to \" paid as agreed. '' It is standard practice at XXXX to send XXXX forms to XXXX major credit reporting agencies : XXXX, XXXX, and Trans Union XXXX The XXXX, however, contained inaccurate data regarding the dates of origin and termination of the plaintiffs ' account, as well as its \" source code. '' In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained an XXXX credit report and learned that XXXX had not only continued to report their \" XXXX account '' as charged-off through XX/XX/XXXX, but also had reported the account a second time under a different account number, No. XXXX ( \" XXXX account '' ). In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs again reported the dispute to XXXX. To correct this problem, XXXX issued XXXX additional UDFs, XXXX in the name of each plaintiff, to XXXX requesting a change in the plaintiffs ' credit histories to read \" paid XXXX as agreed. '' Both UDFs issued in XX/XX/XXXX refer only to the plaintiffs ' \" XXXX account ''. XXXX, however, has no record of receiving any UDFs from XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received letters indicating that their applications for credit card accounts with XXXX XXXX had been denied. The letters stated the \" primary reason '' for the denial as \" derogatory information on credit file, '' and named XXXX as the XXXX XXXX XXXX responsible for providing the plaintiffs ' credit history. On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received an XXXX credit report, reflecting their \" XXXX account '' as \" transferred or sold '' and reporting their \" XXXX account '' as \" charged-off. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs sent a letter to XXXX requesting an investigation of the XXXX account. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX reported to the plaintiffs that XXXX had verified the accuracy of the XXXX accounts. The plaintiffs attempted to use these letters from XXXX to notify XXXX of its erroneous reporting. However, XXXX never responded, as it had already sold the account to XXXX XXXX Assets ( \" XXXX '' ), a debt collection agency. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, after receiving a letter from XXXX attempting to collect an alleged outstanding balance of more than {$20000.00}, the plaintiffs again ordered automated disclosures of their XXXX files. The credit reports contained XXXX charge-offs : the \" XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report, and the \" XXXX account '' and \" XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report. The plaintiffs subsequently called XXXX directly to dispute these items. After completing its investigation, XXXX deleted the \" XXXX accounts '' from both files and verified, through XXXX, the remaining charge-off on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs filed the instant action in the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, charging XXXX with violations of the FCRA and XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( \" chapter XXXX '' ), and the common law torts of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant joined in a notice of removal to the federal court, and now moves for summary judgment. \n\n\nXXXX. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court will XXXX a motion for summary judgment when \" the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. '' Fed.R.Civ.P. XXXX ( c ). \" In this context, `genuine ' means that the evidence could resolve XXXX XXXX in favor of the nonmoving party, while `material ' means that the fact has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and emphasis omitted ). The XXXX reviews the record \" in the light most flattering to the nonmovant and indulge [ XXXX ] all reasonable inferences in that party 's favor. '' Id. ( quotations and brackets omitted ). \n\n\nIV. DISCUSSION A. Fair Credit Reporting Act The plaintiffs claim that XXXX violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information when preparing credit reports. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( \" section XXXX ( b ) '' ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( b ). In addition, the plaintiffs allege that XXXX violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to make reasonable and timely efforts to reinvestigate the accuracy of information XXXX that they disputed. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( \" section XXXX '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ( a ). A negligent violation of either of these sections subjects the credit reporting agency to liability for actual damages sustained as a result of a violation, together with the costs of the action and a reasonable attorney 's fee. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX. A willful violation of either section subjects the agency to liability for punitive damages. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. [ XXXX ] XXXX. XXXX of Limitations XXXX, XXXX contends that several of the plaintiffs ' claims XXXX be barred by the statute of limitations. The FCRA provides that an action to enforce liability must be brought \" within XXXX years from the date on which the liability arises. '' XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Under section XXXX ( b ), \" liability arises when the consumer reporting agency issues an inaccurate consumer report. Under [ section XXXX ], liability arises when the consumer reporting agency allegedly violates its duty under the FCRA to reinvestigate. '' XXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and brackets omitted ). \n\nThe plaintiffs ' complaint was filed on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Thus, any section XXXX ( b ) claims arising from consumer reports which were disclosed to creditors on or before XX/XX/XXXX, are time barred. However, none of the plaintiffs ' section XXXX ( b ) claims are based on credit reports issued prior to that date. In addition, the defendant 's duty pursuant to section XXXX did not arise until it was notified of a dispute by the plaintiffs for the first time in XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. Accordingly, the FCRA 's statute of limitations does not affect the viability of plaintiffs ' claims. \n\n\nXXXX. Section XXXX ( b ) Claim Under the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency must follow \" reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' regarding the information contained in a consumer 's credit report. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). A claim of noncompliance with section XXXX ( b ) \" consists of XXXX elements : ( XXXX ) inaccurate information was included in a consumer 's credit report ; ( XXXX ) the inaccuracy was due to defendant 's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ; ( XXXX ) the consumer suffered injury ; and ( XXXX ) the consumer 's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. '' XXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). In this case, XXXX apparently does not dispute that inaccurate information was placed in reports it prepared regarding the plaintiffs ' credit history. However, XXXX does challenge the plaintiffs ' ability to demonstrate the remaining XXXX elements of a section XXXX ( b ) claim. The XXXX will address each disputed element in turn. \n\n\na. Reasonable Procedures XXXX contends that it maintains reasonable procedures as a matter of law because it transcribed, stored, and communicated consumer information from XXXX, a source that it believed to be reliable and credible on its face. In addition, it argues that the plaintiffs can not produce any proof that they caused XXXX to be notified XXXX that their credit history was being erroneously reported. \n\nSection XXXX ( b ) mandates that agencies follow reasonable procedures in preparing consumer reports but \" does not impose strict liability for inaccurate entries in consumer reports ; the preparer is held only to a duty of reasonable care. The exercise of reasonable care is determined by reference to what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citations omitted ). In evaluating whether procedures are reasonable, courts also balance \" the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy. '' XXXX XXXX Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nThe XXXX declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and XXXX. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer 's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure ) ; XXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX credit reporting agency XXXX XXXX XXXX on court dockets to correctly recite consumer 's credit history absent notice that information is flawed ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX A. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX ). Thus, \" [ a ] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer 's credit report is in a very different position than XXXX who has no such notice. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\nIn this case, the exhibits and affidavits show that the plaintiffs caused notices to be sent to XXXX regarding errors in their credit history on at least XXXX occasions before XXXX prepared their credit report for XXXX XXXX. Despite the communication of these notices, XXXX continued to rely exclusively on XXXX 's version of the plaintiffs ' credit history. In the XXXX 's view, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was reasonable for XXXX to rely exclusively on the information provided by XXXX, given that XXXX knew or should have known that this information was unreliable or inaccurate. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant maintained reasonable procedures where plaintiff sent several notices to defendant, but defendant failed to correct reported errors ). \n\nXXXX contends that the plaintiffs have produced no evidence that it received the correction notices purportedly sent by XXXX and XXXX. However, the plaintiffs have proffered letters from both XXXX and XXXX indicating that they would inform the relevant credit reporting agencies, including XXXX, of the errors regarding the plaintiffs ' XXXX account. In addition, it was standard business practice at XXXX to send XXXX notices to XXXX. Although the affidavit of XXXX XXXX, Senior XXXX in the XXXX XXXX Consumer Affairs for XXXX, states that XXXX has no record of receiving the UDFs sent by Fleet, her statement is silent on whether XXXX XXXX has a record of receiving the XXXX notice. Moreover, even if XXXX had categorically denied ever receiving all three correction statements from XXXX and XXXX, this assertion merely creates a classic dispute of material fact that is susceptible of resolution only by the finder of fact at trial. \n\nXXXX also suggests that, even if it received the XXXX correction notices, there were errors in the forms that would have made correction of the accounts impossible. For instance, the UDFs sent by XXXX contained incorrect data regarding the plaintiffs ' mortgage account, such as account numbers and the dates of origin and termination. This argument, however, is unpersuasive. Indeed, the UDFs contained the plaintiffs ' correct names, address, and social security account numbers. XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ass'n, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citing testimony of XXXX of defendant credit reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX social security number XXXX XXXX single most important information in a consumer 's credit file. '' ) In addition, the UDFs contained the name, address, and telephone number of XXXX XXXX, the XXXX employee who sent the UDFs to XXXX, so that any discrepancies in the received data could easily have been clarified by XXXX. Certainly, if the factfinder rejected XXXX 's assertion that it did not receive the UDFs from XXXX in XXXX and XXXX, he or she could reasonably infer that XXXX maintained unreasonable procedures because it failed to reconcile the inconsistent data contained in the UDFs. \n\n\nb. Damages XXXX also challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs ' evidence regarding damages on the ground that damages under the FCRA \" can not be recovered without a showing of actual loss. '' Defendant 's Motion for XXXX XXXX at XXXX. To the contrary, courts have consistently held that \" actual damages XXXX include humiliation and mental distress, even in the absence of out-of-pocket expenses. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), cert. denied, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ; see XXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX  damages compensable under FCRA ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX & XXXX XXXX ( same ) ; Guimond, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ). Here, the plaintiffs allege that they have suffered XXXX XXXX upon learning that XXXX has reported incorrect credit information to prospective creditors, and resulting from the denial of credit by XXXX XXXX, as well as their lengthy effort to correct their credit reports. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( affirming award of damages for pain and suffering where consumer experienced humiliation resulting from XXXX credit and lengthy dealings with credit reporting agency ) XXXX Thus, the XXXX can not say that the plaintiffs fail to state a genuine issue of material fact on the question of damages. \n\n\nc. Causation Furthermore, XXXX contends that the plaintiffs set forth insufficient proof that the plaintiffs ' damages were caused by the inaccurate information in the XXXX credit report. To establish a prima facie case pursuant to section XXXX ( b ), the plaintiff must \" produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the inaccurate entry was a `substantial factor ' that brought about the denial of credit. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Here, the plaintiffs submit XXXX letters from XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, rejecting their applications for credit, and citing to an XXXX credit report as the \" primary reason '' for the denial of credit. In XXXX addition, the parties agree that the XXXX XXXX reports obtained by the plaintiffs in XX/XX/XXXX and in XX/XX/XXXX contained inaccurate, negative information. Therefore, the XXXX concludes that a reasonable jury could infer that inaccurate, negative information contained in the XXXX credit reports constituted a substantial factor in XXXX XXXX 's decision to decline the plaintiffs ' credit applications. \n\nXXXX 's citation to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), moreover, is unavailing. There, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant in an FCRA dispute on the issue of causation after all of the credit reporting agency 's records were reviewed and there emerged no evidence that any credit report produced by the defendant had ever been used in making an adverse credit decision against the plaintiff. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX. Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs have produced the credit denials issued by XXXX XXXX that specifically reference XXXX credit reports. While the plaintiffs ' case \" might have been stronger had [ they ] deposed or taken affidavits of those responsible for the decision, such evidence is not essential to make out a prima facie case pursuant to [ section XXXX ( b ) ]. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Section XXXX Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) of the FCRA provides, in pertinent part, that where a consumer notifies a credit reporting agency that information contained in his or her report XXXX be inaccurate, \" the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file .... '' XXXX argues that the statute requires a credit reporting agency only to confirm the accuracy of the information with the original source of information, but imposes no mandate on the agency to take additional steps to confirm the accuracy of the disputed information. However, the majority of courts hold that section XXXX ( a ) requires a credit reporting agency, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \" Whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend, in part, on whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source XXXX be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Moreover, the courts have determined in this context that \" [ XXXX ] hether a reasonable investigation has been conducted is generally a question for the jury. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). \n\nViewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the XXXX concludes that the plaintiffs ' section XXXX claim survives XXXX 's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs submit copies of XXXX separate written communications to XXXX in which they dispute the accuracy of their credit history. In addition, XXXX of these letters includes a copy of the XXXX XXXX mortgage. Despite the plaintiffs ' repeated complaints, XXXX continued to rely solely upon the information provided by XXXX when it investigated the plaintiffs ' complaints in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether XXXX fulfilled its duty to reinvestigate pursuant to section XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( denying defendant 's motion for summary judgment in claim for failure to reinvestigate where it merely verified negative information with XXXX credit grantors despite consumer 's warning that information was inaccurate ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ) ; cf. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( denying defendant 's motion for new trial for failure to reinvestigate where consumer informed reporting agency of his personal dispute with credit grantor, yet reporting agency relied solely on credit grantor for information during investigation ), cert. denied, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and cert. denied sub nom. Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \" In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Punitive Damages for XXXX Violations XXXX, XXXX moves for summary judgment with regard to the plaintiffs ' claim under section XXXX, which provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance with the FCRA. \" To be found in willful noncompliance, a defendant must have knowingly committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of others. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( quotation omitted ). \" Generally, courts have allowed a willful noncompliance claim to proceed where a defendant 's conduct involves willful misrepresentations or concealments. In those cases, a consumer reporting agency has typically misrepresented or concealed some or all of a credit report from a consumer. '' Cousin, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( citation omitted ). In addition, the XXXX XXXX held that a plaintiff XXXX present a section XXXX claim to the jury if she can show that a credit reporting agency adopted a reinvestigation policy with knowledge that the policy violates consumer rights under the FCRA, or with reckless disregard to whether its policy violated those rights. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\nIn the XXXX 's view, the plaintiffs fail to show sufficient evidence of willful noncompliance with the FCRA to survive this motion for summary judgment. There is no evidence to support a claim that XXXX willfully misrepresented or concealed any part of a credit report from the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs do not allege that XXXX adopted its reinvestigation policies with knowledge, or reckless disregard, as to whether they contravened rights of consumers under the FCRA. Finally, the plaintiffs ' contention that XXXX failed to correct an error in their credit reports after receiving several notices does not constitute evidence of a willful violation. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. In the absence of any evidence that XXXX acted to intentionally harm the plaintiffs, summary judgment must be granted as to this claim. \n\n\nB. XXXX XXXX XXXX also contends that summary judgment must be granted as to the plaintiffs ' claim pursuant to XXXX. Laws ch. XXXX ( \" chapter XXXX '' ). The XXXX agrees. \" Where injury is incurred because of conduct which comprises the elements of any... statutory... cause of action, and which is also a violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, recovery of cumulative damages under multiple counts XXXX not be allowed. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). In other words, \" where the same acts cause the same injury under more than XXXX theory ... duplicative damage recovery will not be permitted. '' Id. Here, the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim is premised solely upon conduct by XXXX that also forms the basis for the plaintiffs ' FCRA claims. Complaint at XXXX XXXX. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted as to the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX The FCRA preempts certain state law privacy causes of action, such as defamation. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( \" section XXXX ( XXXX ) '' ), \" [ XXXX ] xcept as provided in sections [ XXXX and XXXX ], no consumer XXXX bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation... except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer. '' Section XXXX ( XXXX ) has been interpreted \" to provide qualified immunity to consumer reporting agencies except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ). \n\n\nA statement is made with malice if the speaker made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Reckless disregard requires evidence that the speaker entertained actual doubt about the truth of the statement. \nXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX ( quotations and citations omitted ). Here, the plaintiffs fail to adduce any evidence showing that XXXX knew the plaintiffs ' credit history it furnished was false or that it entertained actual doubt regarding the veracity of such information. Thus, the plaintiffs ' defamation claim is preempted by the FCRA. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX Finally, XXXX moves for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of XXXX XXXX To prevail on a such a claim, the plaintiffs must establish : ( XXXX ) that the defendant intended to inflict emotional distress, or knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's conduct was extreme and outrageous ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's actions caused the plaintiff 'XXXX XXXX; and ( XXXX ) the XXXX XXXX suffered by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). There is no evidence in this case that XXXX acted with the intention to inflicXXXX XXXX XXXX  See id. ( claim will fail even if defendant 's conduct is characterized by \" malice or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. '' ) In addition, there is no evidence that XXXX 's conduct was extreme and outrageous. See id. ( claim can not be \" predicated on mere insults, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities '' ). Accordingly, the XXXX grants XXXX 's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. \n\n\nV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, XXXX 's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims for : ( XXXX ) willful violations of the FCRA and XXXX ; ( XXXX ) violation of Chapter XXXX ( Count XXXX ) ; ( XXXX ) defamation ( Count XV ) ; and ( XXXX ) intentional infliction of XXXX XXXX  ( Count XXXX ). However, XXXX 's motion is DENIED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims that XXXX breached its duties to maintain reasonable procedures and to reinvestigate under the FCRA ( Count XXXX ) and XXXX ( Count XXXX ). \n\nIt is So Ordered. \n\nNOTES [ XXXX ] The claims against the other defendants, i.e., XXXX, XXXX, Trans Union and XXXX XXXX XXXX have been dismissed. \n\n[ XXXX ] In its motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' credit reporting act claims, XXXX observes that the FCRA and XXXX are essentially identical, and makes its argument for dismissal of all credit reporting act claims based only upon the federal statute. Accordingly, the XXXX will analyze XXXX 's motion under the federal law. \n\nSome case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. \n\nThis site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the XXXX Privacy Policy and Terms of XXXX apply. \n\nNot Just Another AI XXXX XXXX. XXXX ther XXXX AI Writer. Learn More. \n\nXXXX XXXX Summaries in Your Inbox Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. \n\nOur Suggestions : Supreme Court XXXX Hawaii XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Supreme Court XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX email Webinars For All XX/XX/XXXX The Secret to Career Transitions That Are Epic [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX AI : Legal Developments, Risks & Benefits [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX Expert Witnesses and Artificial Intelligence [ XXXX ] Learn More XXXX Webinars are open to all, lawyers and non-lawyers. XXXX, please visit individual webinar pages for more information about XXXX accreditation. \nSearch this Case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX : Please ask your question here and get free answers from lawyers. \nAdd XXXX Question Find a Lawyer Legal Issue or Lawyer Name XXXX Lawyers - Get Listed Now! \nGet a free directory profile listing Sponsored Listings XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Business Law, Consumer Law, Employment Law, Environmental Law, Legal Malpractice, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Products Liability, Real Estate Law Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, HI Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, want to be a XXXX XXXX XXXX too? Learn more Profile picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Military Law, Criminal Law Website Email Profile","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-07T02:13:19.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"96816","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9726243","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-08-07T02:13:17.000Z","state":"HI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Learn more <em>Profile</em> picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Military Law, Criminal Law Website Email <em>Profile</em>"],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[3.715113,"9726243"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14768395","_score":3.684846,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b\"XXXX XXXX \\nXXXX XXXX XXXX \\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n Date: XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXn XXXX XXXX\\n SSN: XXXX\\n DOB: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n\\n EXPERIAN \\nXXXX XXXX XXXX \\nXXXX, XXXX XXXX\\n\\n Please disassociate any and all purported personal identifier information attributed to my consumer credit report related to your organization that is not exactly aligned with the\\n incontestable personal identifying information I have indicated within this consumer complaint notification. This includes ANY and ALL names, addresses, date(s) of birth,\\n social security numbers, employer(s), occupation(s), phone number(s), email address(es), associated borrowers, and or elsewise supposed information contrasting in ANY\\n manner that of which is fully and precisely same as is included by me herein!\\n My 18-digit Personal Tracking Number is: \\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n Subject: Please investigate completely and thoroughly each and every aspect of any item I have contested your supposed reporting privilege(s) to and have here within\\n challenged any and all involved parties of any derogatoriness accused against me to demonstrate incontestable evidence of the applicably certifiable compliant reporting\\n practices, procedures, and processed of which must be of a maximum possible fairness, reasonableness, truth, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, proven cogency and\\n relevance, and verifiability and is without data integrity injuring report deviations that are infractions of mandates, mentioned here or not!\\n To the Appropriate Authority:\\n I am writing to contest information appearing on my consumer credit report that appears to violate multiple provisions of federal consumer protection laws. This dispute\\n requires your immediate attention and thorough investigation. Your response must address all aspects of this challenge to ensure full compliance with the FCRA.\\n The duty of care owed by data furnishers involves not only accuracy but also a commitment to continual review and correction of consumer data. Can you prove full\\n compliance with all strict regulatory mandates, justifying that you have lawfully obtained, retained, or reinstated the privilege to issue derogatory reports against me?\\n The unjustifiably upheld negative charge(s) purported below must be addressed as extensively audited, validated beyond doubt, and determined to be aligned with statutory\\n obligations as formally stated by the furnishing entity upon first disclosure upholding defamatory accounts involving me , so please eradicate from reporting the misclassified\\n disclosures\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   comprising   Base/XXXX XXXXAccount Number (PCAN) as shown by  TransUnion \\n(T)  conveyed to be  XXXX\\n The unsupported adverse notation(s) Listed beneath are deemed essential to be lawfully evaluated, precision verified, and substantiated as indisputably conforming to\\n required standards as initially reported by the responsible data contributor attaching harmful insinuations to me , so retract from consumer files the improperly categorized\\n XXXX   associating   XXXX XXXXAccount Number (PCAN) as affirmed by  TransUnion \\n(T),EXperian and E\\n Quifax  presented to be  XXXX\\n The questionable denunciation(s) herein asserted are obligated for completion as analyzed, verified through independent assessment, deemed legally sound, and upheld as\\n conforming to reporting regulations as submitted in its unchanged form referencing disadvantageous assumptions against me so block from reporting the unverified assertions\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   attaching   XXXX XXXX Primary Consumer Account Number (*PCAN) precisely as reported by  TransUnion \\n(T),EXperian and E\\n Quifax  proposed to be  XXXX\\n The inaccurately framed condemning assessment(s) Depicted underneath must be resolved as investigated, reinvestigated, proven verified valid, and or elsewise\\n demonstrated certifiably compliant as entered at the time of submission by the reporting entity spotlighting accusatory content related to me so halt its inclusion in reports the\\n underneath-referenced\\n XXXX XXXX    revealing   Consumer Account Number as processed by  TransUnion \\n(T),EXperian and E\\n Quifax  determined to be  XXXX\\n The still-challenged accusatory classification(s) asserted herein must be executed as exhaustively examined, fortified through secondary validation, and kept within strict\\n adherence to legal reporting provisions as preserved in its initial entry spotlighting accusatory content related to me , so wipe from accessible reports the now-documented\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   narrating   hard inquiry date (DOI) as filed by  EXperian  designated to be  XXXX\\n The unsound unfavorable categorization(s) displayed herein are obligated to be comprehensively reassessed, integrity confirmed, and retained in compliance with established\\n guidelines as kept in its original reporting status emphasizing unfavorable assessments of me , so revoke its appearance in public records the below-indicated\\n XXXX XXXX   manifesting   date of inquiry as relayed by  EXperian  recorded to be  XXXX\\n The unconvincing accusatory comment(s) Clarified below are mandated to be comprehensively reassessed, integrity confirmed, and retained in compliance with established\\n guidelines as maintained as first stated by the data provider broadcasting unsupportive assessments of me so extract from all repositories the unjustifiably stated\\n XXXX XXXX   consisting of   inquiry date as communicated by  EXperian  maintained to be  XXXX\\n The doubtful unfavorable classification(s) Set forth underneath require implementation as properly reviewed, reinforced through supplementary verification, and assured as\\n meeting the highest data integrity principles as verified from the initial source documentation revisiting discrediting circumstances affecting me so eliminate from credit filing the\\n distorted statements\\n XXXX XXXX   that has   Inquiry Date (DOI) as referenced by  TransUnion \\n(T)  denoted to be XXXX\\n The misinterpreted unfavorable charge(s) Further detailed beneath need to be considered critically evaluated, systematically reconfirmed, and affirmed as meeting rigorous\\n compliance standards as attested in its first official report projecting negative portrayals of me so retract from all listed entries the improperly documented\\n XXXX XXXX   enlisting   HARD Inquiry Date (DOI) as illustrated by  TransUnion \\n(T)  defined to be  XXXX\\n The lacking-verification injurious claim(s) Stated further down are critical to be rigorously inspected, accuracy substantiated, and reported with full adherence to governing\\n mandates as officially transmitted in its first iteration publicizing unfavorable opinions concerning me , so block the now-displayed\\n XXXX XXXX   amplifying   date of hard inquiry as noted by  TransUnion \\n(T)  indicated to be  XXXX\\n The unverified derogatory assertion(s) herein purported must be performed as Reinvestigated or investigated, validly proven verifiable, and demonstrative of certifiably\\n compliant reporting adequacy(ies) as detailed in the original submission maintaining harmful implications against me , so nullify its presence in reporting systems the\\n unfounded portrayals\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   integrating   HARD Inquiry Date as delivered by  TransUnion \\n(T)  asserted to be  XXXX\\n The lacking-authentication defamatory declaration(s) described below must be fulfilled as investigated, reinvestigated, proven verified valid, and or elsewise demonstrated\\n certifiably compliant as originally issued by the reporting party generating pessimistic conclusions about me so suppress the disclosure of the flawed narratives\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   signifying   Date of HARD Inquiry (DOI) as described by  EXperian  to be  XXXX\\n The debated yet reported harmful remark(s) Located below demand evaluation as lawfully evaluated, precision verified, and substantiated as indisputably conforming to\\n required standards as extracted exactly from the first documented entry reinforcing detrimental judgments about me so remove from reporting the unduly emphasized\\n XXXX   with   date of inquiry (DOI) as conveyed by  EQuifax  described to be  XXXX\\n The unproven disparaging commentary Positioned beneath are in accordance to be analyzed, verified through independent assessment, deemed legally sound, and upheld as\\n conforming to reporting regulations by the condemning data furnisher at time purported exactly as reported circulating disparaging perspectives regarding me , so delete the\\n next-detailed\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   articulating   Date of Inquiry (DOI) precisely as reported by  EXperian  referenced to be  XXXX\\n Page 1 of \\nThe suspect adverse depiction(s) Delimited below are imperative to be thoroughly examined, reassessed, conclusively validated, and unmistakably established as compliant\\n as filed at the moment of declaration by the alleging party portraying me in a critical light so expunge from documented records the defectively described\\n XXXX    unfolding   Date of HARD Inquiry as included by  EQuifax  marked to be  XXXX\\n The baseless negative accusation(s)\\n As Documented Below\\n are expected to undergo extensively audited, validated beyond doubt, and determined to be aligned with statutory obligations as shown in compliance with the initial filing\\n standards forwarding negative allegations about me , so expunge from report history the described herein\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   listing   Date of Inquiry as acknowledged by  EXperian  outlined to be  XXXX\\n The weakly founded critical accusation(s) As captured below are deemed essential to be verified, subjected to enhanced scrutiny, and justified through independent\\n confirmation procedures as attested in its first official report attributing unfavorable qualities to me so cease the distribution of the inaccurately referenced\\n XXXX    encapsulating   inquiry date (DOI) as declared by  TransUnion \\n(T)  To Be  XXXX\\n The refutable detrimental charge(s) Following this statement are required to be exhaustively examined, fortified through secondary validation, and kept within strict adherence\\n to legal reporting provisions as referenced in its primary filing replicating defaming suppositions against me , so cease the reporting of the falsely implied\\n XXXX XXXX  giving   HARD Inquiry Date (DOI) as forwarded by  TransUnion \\n(T)  formulated to be  XXXX\\n The unresolved harmful report(s) purported herein are intended to be revalidated under scrutiny, found unerring in its correctness, and maintained within lawful reporting\\n frameworks as submitted in its unchanged form underscoring demeaning representations of me so delete the compromised entries\\n XXXX XXXX    describing   hard inquiry date (DOI) as shared by  TransUnion \\n(T)  declared to be  XXXX\\n The undetermined damaging declaration(s) Presented further down are essential to be subjected to extensive review, revalidation, authenticated as accurate, and shown to\\n meet all compliance criteria as presented in its primary submission by the originating reporter sustaining adverse opinions related to me so delete from reporting the\\n miscommunicated details\\n XXXX    exhibiting   Inquiry Date (DOI) as portrayed by  EQuifax  projected to be  XXXX\\n The still-contested defaming statement(s) Specified further down should be handled as assessed for factual legitimacy, methodically authenticated, and upheld as verifiably\\n accurate as provided in its first official record demonstrating unfavorable biases toward me , so delete from reporting the presently outlined\\n XXXX XXXX   incorporating   HARD Inquiry Date as expressed by  TransUnion \\n(T)  expressed to be  XXXX\\n The insufficiently evidenced harmful indictment(s) herein indicated must be performed as extensively audited, validated beyond doubt, and determined to be aligned with\\n statutory obligations as originally documented by its author describing unfavorable insinuations directed at me so block the reporting of the incorrectly logged\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   possessing   Date of HARD Inquiry as specified by  EXperian  proposed to be  XXXX\\n The potentially inaccurate condemning entry(s) below asserted are obligated for completion as lawfully evaluated, precision verified, and substantiated as indisputably\\n conforming to required standards as entered at the time of submission by the reporting entity exposing purported deficiencies associated with me so block the immediately\\n listed\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX I   featuring   date of hard inquiry as detailed by  EXperian  conveyed to be  XXXX\\n The alleged but unverified critical statement(s) Highlighted downwards must be fulfilled as analyzed, verified through independent assessment, deemed legally sound, and\\n upheld as conforming to reporting regulations by the condemning data furnisher at time purported exactly as reported embedding misleading impressions about me so please\\n eradicate from reporting the mistakenly communicated\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   including   Inquiry Date as reported by  TransUnion \\n(T)  asserted to be  XXXX\\n The indefensibly alleged injurious portrayal(s) Laid out beneath must be complied with as investigated, reinvestigated, proven verified valid, and or elsewise demonstrated\\n certifiably compliant as incorporated in its unaltered credit profile recounting unfavorable incidents linked to me , so extract from displayed credit details the misguided\\n descriptions\\n ONEMAIN   incorporating   Date of Inquiry (DOI) as represented by  E\\n Quifax  maintained to be  XXXX\\n The wrongly suggested harmful commentary asserted below must receive attention as exhaustively examined, fortified through secondary validation, and kept within strict\\n adherence to legal reporting provisions as stated upon initial documentation conveying defamatory perspectives about me , so block from reporting the undermentioned\\n XXXX    accentuating   date of hard inquiry (DOI) as verified by  E\\n Quifax  denoted to be XXXX\\n The unverifiable adverse pronouncement(s) Displayed further down are critical to be comprehensively reassessed, integrity confirmed, and retained in compliance with\\n established guidelines as compiled by the reporting entity without alterations formalizing derogatory notions concerning me so revoke its documentation entirely the successive\\n data\\n XXXX    producing   date of inquiry (DOI) as disclosed by  EQuifax  indicated to be  XXXX\\n The under-supported defamatory representation(s) indicated below must be executed as comprehensively reassessed, integrity confirmed, and retained in compliance with\\n established guidelines as displayed in the original credit reporting record reinforcing disapproving labels directed at me , so block the soon-mentioned\\n XXXX    rendering   date of inquiry exactly as reported by  TransUnion \\n(T)  expressed to be  XXXX\\n The unjustifiably upheld negative charge(s) below reported are in accordance to be properly reviewed, reinforced through supplementary verification, and assured as meeting\\n the highest data integrity principles as disclosed by the reporting entity in its unaltered wording highlighting unfavorable details regarding me so remove from reporting the\\n inconsistently stated\\n XXXX    amplifying   inquiry date as presented by  TransUnion \\n(T)  proposed to be  XXXX\\n The lacking-substantiation harmful portrayal(s) Summarized beneath require implementation as critically evaluated, systematically reconfirmed, and affirmed as meeting\\n rigorous compliance standards as affirmed in its first transmission by the data furnisher developing injurious descriptions concerning me so block the reporting of the fabricated\\n entries\\n XXXX    structured with   Date of HARD Inquiry (DOI) as provided by  TransUnion \\n(T)  referenced to be  XXXX\\n The indefensible negative assertion(s) As itemized below should be processed as rigorously inspected, accuracy substantiated, and reported with full adherence to governing\\n mandates as reflected in the initial report exactly as declared suggesting negativity versus me so block the falsely attributed\\n XXXX XXXX    plus   hard inquiry date as documented by  TransUnion \\n(T)  defined to be  XXXX\\n The inaccurately framed condemning assessment(s) Discussed further down are subject to be Reinvestigated or investigated, validly proven verifiable, and demonstrative of\\n certifiably compliant reporting adequacy(ies) as extracted exactly from the first documented entry featuring pejorative classifications of me , so delete the further-listed\\n XXXX XXXX   describing   hard inquiry date (DOI) as characterized by  TransUnion \\n(T)  outlined to be  XXXX\\n The not-confirmed negative labeling(s) Labeled beneath demand attention as investigated, reinvestigated, proven verified valid, and or elsewise demonstrated certifiably\\n compliant as kept in its original reporting status asserting damaging conclusions against me , so nullify its presence in reporting systems the forthcoming\\n XXXX XXXX   supplying   date of inquiry as asserted by  TransUnion \\n(T)  presented to be XXXX\\n The FCRA, Metro 2 standards, and applicable state and federal statutes mandate the absolute accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and verifiability of all reported credit data.\\n This requires precise reporting of all essential data, the absence of duplicate or conflicting entries across bureaus, and the prompt correction or removal of any inaccurate,\\n unverifiable, or legally obsolete information. Failure to meet these legal and industry obligations carries significant consequences. The following section provides specific\\n Page 2 of 9\\nevidence of each disputed item's deficiencies, clearly outlining data errors and including supporting documentation that demonstrates their direct and negative impact on my\\n creditworthiness and legal rights, necessitating immediate and comprehensive correction.\\n The Symbol Keys used in this Letters images \\nare \\nas follows :\\n rT = \\nTransunion             rX = \\nExperian             rQ = \\n1\\n 2\\n Equifax\\n rNT = Non-TEE CRA(s)\\n D = Data Furnishing Reporter #1 (or Creditor listed in a PRE = Public Records Event )\\n D = Data Furnishing Reporter #2 (The Original Creditor if a Coff, a Coll, and or a Coff /Coll)\\n  = Likely RROR(s) are detected related to this Data Field Point\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Factual Actual Undeniably Disputable RROR(s) (FAUD)\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Discrepancy RROR(s) of Non-Compliant Inconsistency(ies) (DNCI)\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Metro 2 Code Exactness RROR(s) (M2CE)\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Metro 2 Code Description exactness RROR(s) (M2CD)\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Pretermitted RROR(s) by possible Willful Omission (PWO)\\n PRE = Public Records Event\\n PII = Personal Identifier Information\\n COFF = Charge-off(s)\\n COLL = Collection(s)\\n COFF/COLL = Charge-off(s)/Collection(s)\\n DrgL = Derogatory Lates\\n DlqL = Delinquency Late(s)\\n INQ = Inquiry(ies)\\n UON = Unknown or Other Negativity\\n CCI = Creditor Contact Information\\n As previously indicated within this written consumer complaint the following items of misinformation must be removed from reporting, modified to an appropriate reporting\\n status, proven applicably true correct complete timely fair and reasonable as asserted when asserted by whom asserts it, else potential unlawful reporting violations injurious\\n to me likely exist.\\n DELETE Right Now  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  that presents a skewed picture  Account Current Balance:  as being  --  on my   T\\n reported,  the claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  the Base/21  Accounts Current Balance (ACBal)s value is\\n In addition  Consumer Account Number:  is non-compliantly  inexplicably inaccurately assumed  as being  XXXX   upon my   T\\n credit report.    \\nAs dis\\nAs misleadingly disreported,  the allegation\\n stands in nonconformity of reporting competence because  the BASE/7 Primary Consumer Account Number (PCAN) appears deficient: (a) its purported value lacks\\n uniqueness, (b) includes my SSN in part or full, (c) falls outside the 5-32 alphanumeric character range allowed reported, (d) fails to use exactly four (4) redacted and or\\n truncated characters, and/or (e) is inconsistently reported across agencies. Such deviations from the CDIAs CRRG-outlined Metro 2 Standards jeopardize data integrity and\\n fail to meet federal mandates for fair, reasonable, accurate, complete, timely, truthful, valid, and verifiable reporting by furnishers (creditors, collectors, debt buyers, etc.) and\\n CRAs ( TransUnion, Experian, Equifax, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  etc. as applies). THEREFORE, I DEMAND its\\n IMMEDIATE and COMPLETE DELETION ;\\n Plus  Portfolio Type Code:  is lacking compliance   deceitfully asserted  to being   --  in my   T\\n As dis-stated,  the mis-claim stands in nonconformity of reporting\\n competence since  the BSCF-8 Portfolio Type Codes value is NOT the required C, I, M, O, R, Line of Credit, Installment, Mortgage, Open, or Revolving value\\n as should be per 2023  CRRG mandates.;\\n In addition  Account Type Code:  is non-compliantly  inaccurately reported  to be  --  on my   T\\n As stated,  the claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  the\\n Portfolio Type Codes value is NOT the required C, I, M, O, R, Line of Credit, Installment, Mortgage, Open, or Revolving value as should be per 2023 CRRG\\n mandates.;\\n Additionally  Account Terms Duration:  is without compliance  UNSTATED  as  --   within my   T\\n As mis-stated,  the allegation stands in nonconformity of reporting\\n competence because  it is neither certified for Metro 2 compliance nor adequacy under the FCRA regulations.-T\\n COFF\\n TransUnion\\n *Data Reporter Name \\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n *Consumer Account Number: XXXX\\n *Portfolio Type Code:--\\n *Account Current Balance:--\\n Experian--\\n Equifax------\\n *Account Terms Duration:-- --------\\n Delete right now  XXXX XXXX  that misleads  High Credit/ Original Loan Amount:  with being  $XXXX   upon my   Transunion\\n   within my   Experian\\n credit report,  and as well as  to being  $XXXX   to inside my   Equifax\\n credit report,  to be  --\\n credit report too.  As mal-accused,  the mis-claim stands in nonconformity of\\n reporting competence since  the Base/12 High Credit Original Loan Amount (HCOLA)s value is-TXQ\\n COFF\\n Page 3 of 9\\n DLQL -TXQ   \\n DLQL -TXQ   \\nTransUnion Experian Equifax\\n *Data Reporter Name XXXX XXXX\\n *Consumer Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n *Portfolio Type Code: Credit Card Credit Card Credit Card\\n *High Credit/ Original Loan Amount: $XXXX-- $XXXX\\n Account Rating: Paid Paid Derogatory\\n *ECOA Code: Paid Paid Derogatory\\n Delete Right NOW  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   that reports incorrectly  Account Current Balance:  as being  --  on my   Transunion   credit report,  with\\n being  --  upon my   Experian   credit report,  and as well as  to be  --  within my   Equifax   credit report too.  As dis-purported,  the claim is in deviation of reporting\\n adequacy(ies) because  the Base/21 Accounts Current Balance (ACBal)s value is\\n In addition  Consumer Account Number:  is non-compliantly  wrongly purported  as being  XXXX  inside my   Transunion       erroneously alleged  to being\\n  XXXX  upon my   Experian         XXXX  in my   Equifax     As misleadingly misreported,  the allegation stands in nonconformity of reporting competence\\n because  the Primary Consumer Account Numbers purported value is NOT EACH of being (i) with UNIQUENESS, (ii) NON-INCLUSIVE of SSN values, (iii) with AT LEAST 5\\n but NO MORE than 32 alphanumeric characters, (iv) of EXACTLY four (4) Redacted and or Truncated characters, (v) consistently reported across all reporting agencies, and\\n or (vi) is elsewise unproven to not be in deviation from that of required reporting adequacy(ies) per the CDIAs own authored and self-governed CRRG-outlined and defined\\n Metro 2 Standards for certifiably Compliant reporting ( of which ANY DEVIATION from these standards jeopardizes the INTEGRITY of the data ) that satisfies the federal\\n mandates for FAIR & REASONABLE reporting practices, procedures and processes that best assures any and all claims are in fact of a maximum possible accuracy,\\n completeness, timeliness, truthfulness, validity and verifiability, hence my DEMAND to delete HERE and NOW! ;\\n Plus  Portfolio Type Code:  is lacking compliance   inaccurately reported  to be  Flexible spending credit card  on my   Transunion       INACCURATELY\\n reported  as  Credit Card  within my   Experian         Flexible spending credit card  inside my   Equifax     As alleged,  the mis-claim stands in nonconformity of\\n reporting competence since  the BSCF-8 Portfolio Type Codes value is NOT the required C, I, M, O, R, Line of Credit, Installment, Mortgage, Open, or\\n Revolving value as should be per 2023 CRRG mandates.;\\n In addition  Account Type Code:  is non-compliantly  misreported  as being  Flexible spending credit card  upon my   Transunion       misrepresenting of facts  to being   Credit\\n Card  in my   Experian         Flexible spending credit card  on my   Equifax     As dis-accused,  the claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  the Base/8\\n Portfolio Type Code (PTC)s value is NOT the required C, I, M, O, R, Line of Credit, Installment, Mortgage, Open, or Revolving value as should be per 2023\\n CRRG mandates.;\\n TransUnion Experian Equifax\\n *Data Reporter Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n *Consumer Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXXn *Date of Account Information: XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n *Portfolio Type Code: Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *Account Type Code: Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *Account Current Balance:------\\n Date of Account Current Balance: XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n Delete Right Now  XXXX XXXX XXXX   that is flawed in its reporting  Date Last Verified(DLV):  to being  XXXX  to inside my   Transunion   credit report,  as\\n being  --  on my   Experian   credit report,  and as well as  with being  --  upon my   Equifax   credit report too.  As mis-reported,  the allegation stands in nonconformity of\\n reporting competence because  \\nthe Date Last Verified (DLV) is not EACH of being (i) displayed as MMDDYYYY or MM/DD/YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY such that the 8 numeral characters are in fact properly and\\n accurately representive of a Metro 2 compliant format , (ii) displayed exactly same as that of the mandatorily always reported Header/8 Last Updated Activity Date (LUAD)\\n value, (iii) is NOT precisely aligned with latest purported DOACBal (aka Date of Base/21 Account Current Balance) value (if any) , (iv) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest\\n reported DOASC (aka Date of Account Status Code) , (v) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest reported DOPRC (aka Date of Payment Rating Code) , (vi) is NOT exactly\\n aligned with the latest verified reporting of the OCOA (aka Base/23 Original Charge-off Amount) , (vii) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest reported DOAI (aka Date of\\n Account Information) , and/or (viii) elsewise is NOT displayed in full compliance with mandated maximum appropriateness!\\n Additionally  Creditor Type:  is without compliance    to be  Bank Credit Cards  within my   Transunion         as  Bank Credit Cards     Experian         All Banks      Equifax\\n    As mal-stated,  the mis-claim stands in nonconformity of reporting competence since  it can not be verified as Metro 2 compliant or proven acceptable under FCRA\\n requirements either.\\n TransUnion Experian Equifax\\n *Data Reporter Name XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n *Consumer Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n *Portfolio Type Code: Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *Account Type Code: Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *High Credit/ Original Loan Amount: $XXXX $XXXX--\\n Creditor Type: Bank Credit Cards Bank Credit Cards All Banks \\n Date Last Verified(DLV): XXXX----\\n Page 4 of 9\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1Q\\n DELETE Right Now  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  that gives unproven or false information  Date of Inquiry  to be  XXXX  within my   XXXX   credit report.    As\\n mal-purported,  the claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  it can not be verified as Metro 2 compliant or proven acceptable under FCRA requirements either.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name *HRCF12  \\nDR Address\\n XXXXHRCF13 \\nDR Contact No.\\n XXXXHRCF14 \\nDR Identification No.\\n XXXXBSCF5 \\nDate of Inquiry\\n ^NTCU^ \\nPermissible Purpose\\n ^NTCU^ \\nDR Industry Type\\n ^NTCU^ \\nCredit Bureau\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Auto Financing Experian\\n Delete right now  XXXX XXXX XXXX  that contains errors  Date of Inquiry  to being  XXXX  to inside my   XXXX    credit report.    As purported,  the allegation stands\\n in nonconformity of reporting competence because  it does NOT meet Metro 2 certification or FCRA requirements.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name *HRCF12 \\nDR Address\\n *HRCF13 \\nDR Contact No.\\n *HRCF14 \\nDR Identification No.\\n *BSCF5 \\nDate of Inquiry\\n ^NTCU^ \\nPermissible Purpose\\n ^NTCU^ \\nDR Industry Type\\n ^NTCU^ \\nCredit Bureau\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bank Credit Cards Experian\\n Delete Right NOW  XXXX XXXX XXXX  that misreports  Date of Inquiry  as being  XXXX  on my   XXXX    credit report.    As dis-alleged,  the mis-claim stands in\\n nonconformity of reporting competence since  it lacks Metro 2 certification and FCRA competence.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name *HRCF12 \\nDR Address\\n *HRCF13 \\nDR Contact No.\\n *HRCF14 \\nDR Identification No.\\n *BSCF5 \\nDate of Inquiry\\n ^NTCU^ \\nPermissible Purpose\\n ^NTCU^ \\nDR Industry Type\\n ^NTCU^ \\nCredit Bureau\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   Bank Credit Cards Experian\\n Delete Right Now  XXXX XXXX XXXX  that is incorrect  Date of Inquiry  with being  XXXX  upon my   XXXX   credit report.    As deceptively misreported,  the claim is\\n in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  it lacks the necessary Metro 2 compliance certifiability and any evidence of even being FCRA abiding.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name *HRCF12 \\nDR Address\\n *HRCF13 \\nDR Contact No.\\n *HRCF14 \\nDR Identification No.\\n *BSCF5 \\nDate of Inquiry\\n ^NTCU^ \\nPermissible Purpose\\n ^NTCU^ \\nDR Industry Type\\n ^NTCU^ \\nCredit Bureau\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bank Credit Cards TransUnion\\n DELETE Right Now  XXXX XXXX XXXX   that distorts the facts  Date of Inquiry  to be  XXXX  within my XXXX   credit report.    As mal-alleged,  the allegation stands\\n in nonconformity of reporting competence because  it fails to be certifiably Metro 2 compliant nor FCRA adequate.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name *HRCF12 \\nDR Address\\n *HRCF13 \\nDR Contact No.\\n *HRCF14 \\nDR Identification No.\\n *BSCF5 \\nDate of Inquiry\\n ^NTCU^ \\nPermissible Purpose\\n ^NTCU^ \\nDR Industry Type\\n ^NTCU^ \\nCredit Bureau\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   Bank Credit Cards TransUnion\\n Delete right now  XXXX\"","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T22:25:51.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10468","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14768395","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-21T22:11:56.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\n To the Appropriate Authority:\\n I am writing to contest information appearing on my consumer <em>credit</em> report that appears to violate multiple provisions of federal consumer protection laws. This dispute\\n requires <em>your</em> immediate attention and thorough investigation. <em>Your</em> response must address all aspects of this challenge to ensure full compliance with the FCRA."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[3.684846,"14768395"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14767850","_score":3.081703,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SSN\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  As a consumer protected under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), XXXX Trans Union XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and\\n related U.S. consumer protection statutes, I hereby deliver formal and unequivocal notice of revocation of any past, present, or future consent for the unauthorized use of my\\n Personal Identifiable Information (PII). This revocation expressly prohibits any sharing, selling, trading, or other form of commercial exploitation of my PII beyond the strictly\\n limited scope of credit reporting activities as defined by U.S. federal law. Furthermore, I demand immediate cessation of all non-compliant processing of my PII and require\\n written confirmation of compliance with this directive, encompassing a comprehensive audit trail demonstrating adherence to the FCRA and other relevant U.S. privacy\\n regulations.\\n My 18-digit Personal Tracking Number isXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ensure full adherence to legal data verification protocols, demanding that all inaccuracies be corrected transparently and promptly, with proof of compliance provided.\\n To Whosoever It ConcernsXXXX  In examining my credit report, I've identified some information that I believe has been reported inaccurately. I am writing to dispute these entries and request a prompt reviewXXXX  and correction. It is imperative that the data preserved in my credit report be accurate, complete, and fair.\\n It is imperative for data reporters to maintain rigorous internal controls to safeguard consumer information against unauthorized access and misuse. Have you unquestionably\\n met every strict legal requirement to ensure that your derogatory reporting against me is fully substantiated, legally permissible, and free from procedural violations?\\n The unsupported defamatory statement(s) Enumerated below should be processed as verified, subjected to enhanced scrutiny, and justified through independent confirmation\\n procedures as disclosed by the reporting entity in its unaltered wording portraying me in a critical light so block the incorrectly loggedXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   producing   *Base/7 *Account Number as outlined by  TransUnion XXXX  presented to be  XXXX The falsely presumed adverse allegation(s) Depicted underneath need adjustment as exhaustively examined, fortified through secondary validation, and kept within strict\\n adherence to legal reporting provisions as preserved in its initial entry embedding misleading impressions about me , so delete the unverified assertionsXXXX XXXX   presenting XXXX XXXX Primary Consumer Account Number XXXX  as testified by  TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The unfounded disparaging statement(s) Following this statement must be finalized as assessed for factual legitimacy, methodically authenticated, and upheld as verifiably\\n accurate as referenced in its primary filing articulating deprecatory descriptions about me , so block the improperly documented\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Consumer Account Number as portrayed by  TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   conveyed to be  XXXX XXXX XXXX The unsound unfavorable categorization(s) Shown further down need rectification as comprehensively reassessed, integrity confirmed, and retained in compliance with\\n established guidelines as originally entered in consumer reporting records describing unfavorable insinuations directed at me so nullify any recorded traces the below\\nindicatedXXXX XXXX XXXX   signifying XXXX Primary Consumer Account Number as maintained by  TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The indefensibly alleged injurious portrayal(s) Further detailed beneath are imperative to be extensively audited, validated beyond doubt, and determined to be aligned with\\n statutory obligations as kept in its original reporting status underscoring demeaning representations of me , so revoke its appearance in public records the undermentioned\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX    articulating   Date of Inquiry as officially recorded by  XXXX   listed to be  XXXX  The alleged but unverified critical statement(s) Delimited below must undergo lawfully evaluated, precision verified, and substantiated as indisputably conforming to required\\n standards as officially transmitted in its first iteration conveying defamatory perspectives about me , so please eradicate from reporting the improperly categorizedXXXX XXXX XXXX    specifying   hard inquiry date (DOI) as shared by  EXperian  outlined to be  XXXX  The provisionally upheld but weak adverse claim(s) indicated herein are obligated to be investigated, reinvestigated, proven verified valid, and or elsewise demonstratedXXXX certifiably compliant as displayed in the original credit reporting record revisiting discrediting circumstances affecting me , so nullify its presence in reporting systems theXXXX misleading content\\n XXXX  XXXX    including   inquiry date as acknowledged by  EXperian  marked to be  XXXX  The falsifiable(y) attributed harmful assertion(s) within displayed demand evaluation as critically evaluated, systematically reconfirmed, and affirmed as meeting rigorous\\n compliance standards as conveyed in its exact phrasing by the originating source continuing adverse commentary against me so please eradicate from reporting the\\n fabricated entriesXXXX XXXX XXXX   revealing   HARD Inquiry Date (DOI) as forwarded by  TransUnion XXXX   presented to be XXXX The unproven derogatory claim(s) Laid out beneath are designated to be rigorously inspected, accuracy substantiated, and reported with full adherence to governing\\n mandates as affirmed in its first transmission by the data furnisher reinforcing disapproving labels directed at me so revoke its documentation entirely the now-displayed\\n XXXX  XXXX    showing   date of inquiry (DOI) as affirmed by  TransUnion XXXX  described to be  XXXX The deficiently substantiated adverse report(s) displayed herein are subject to be properly reviewed, reinforced through supplementary verification, and assured as meeting\\n the highest data integrity principles as originally issued by the reporting party reinforcing detrimental judgments about me so remove from reporting the successive dataXXXX XXXX XXXX   listing   Date of HARD Inquiry (DOI) as portrayed by  TransUnion XXXX   said to be  XXXX  The weakly validated critical depiction(s) asserted herein must receive attention as subjected to extensive review, revalidation, authenticated as accurate, and shown to meet\\n all compliance criteria as formally recorded by the responsible entity featuring pejorative classifications of me so wipe from any stored databases the wrongly assertedXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX    consisting of   hard inquiry date as verified by  TransUnion \\n(T)  indicated to be  XXXX The misinterpreted unfavorable charge(s) described herein need to be examined as analyzed, verified through independent assessment, deemed legally sound, and upheld as\\n conforming to reporting regulations as filed at the moment of declaration by the alleging party illustrating distressing claims about me so expunge from documented records the\\n unduly emphasizedXXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX    possessing   date of inquiry as conveyed by  XXXX   proposed to be  XXXX The uncorroborated harmful notation(s) within asserted should be reviewed as thoroughly examined, reassessed, conclusively validated, and unmistakably established as\\n compliant as recorded by the data provider in its initial reported form referencing disadvantageous assumptions against me so cease the distribution of the presently outlined\\n XXXX    encapsulating   Date of Inquiry (DOI) as indicated by XXXX XXXX  recorded to be  XXXX The inconclusive accusatory declaration(s) Highlighted downwards are required to be revalidated under scrutiny, found unerring in its correctness, and maintained within lawful\\n reporting frameworks as registered at the moment of its first reporting reiterating unfavorable presumptions regarding me so halt its inclusion in reports the mistakenly\\n communicated\\XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX    portraying   inquiry date (DOI) supposed by  XXXX   maintained to be XXXX The lacking-verification injurious claim(s) herein indicated must be fulfilled as Reinvestigated or investigated, validly proven verifiable, and demonstrative of certifiably\\n Page 1 of 9\\ncompliant reporting adequacy(ies) as incorporated in its unaltered credit profile positioning reproachful declarations about me so delete from reporting the unjustifiably statedXXXX XXXX   offering   date of hard inquiry as submitted formally by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The under-examined adverse record(s) alleged within demand attention as verified, subjected to enhanced scrutiny, and justified through independent confirmation procedures\\n as extracted exactly from the first documented entry exposing purported deficiencies associated with me so eliminate from credit filing the baseless allegations\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   describing   Inquiry Date (DOI) as described by  XXXX   declared to be XXXX The doubtful unfavorable classification(s) Outlined below must be complied with as exhaustively examined, fortified through secondary validation, and kept within strict\\n adherence to legal reporting provisions as stated upon initial documentation integrating disparaging beliefs associated with me , so cease the reporting of the\\n miscommunicated detailsXXXX XXXX   plus   date of hard inquiry (DOI) as defined by  TransUnion \\n(T)  defined to be  XXXX  The unconvincing accusatory comment(s) Set forth underneath are mandated to be assessed for factual legitimacy, methodically authenticated, and upheld as verifiably\\n accurate as transcribed from the original entry by the submitting source asserting damaging conclusions against me , so suppress its existence in credit databases the\\n negligently reported\\XXXX XXXX XXXX   demonstrating   HARD Inquiry Date as delivered by  TransUnion \\n(T)  asserted to be  07/24/2024\\n The potentially inaccurate condemning entry(s) As noted beneath need to be considered comprehensively reassessed, integrity confirmed, and retained in compliance with\\n established guidelines as captured by the recording entity when first logged accentuating derogatoriness(es) against me so suppress the disclosure of the soon-mentionedXXXX XXXX XXXX   displaying   Inquiry Date as issued by  TransUnion \\n(T)  designated to be  XXXX  The inadequately evidenced harmful claim(s) Illustrated below should be handled as extensively audited, validated beyond doubt, and determined to be aligned with statutory\\n obligations as compiled by the reporting entity without alterations identifying alleged liabilities tied to me so block from reporting the next-detailed\\n XXXX    supplying   Date of HARD Inquiry as claimed by  XXXX   denoted to be  XXXX  The questionable disparaging remark(s) displayed within warrant action as lawfully evaluated, precision verified, and substantiated as indisputably conforming to required\\n standards as provided in its first official record demonstrating unfavorable biases toward me , so remove from the record the now-documented\\n XXXX XXXX   featuring   Date of Inquiry as submitted by  TransUnion \\n(T)  expressed to be  XXXXXXXX The questionable denunciation(s) Clarified below must be executed as investigated, reinvestigated, proven verified valid, and or elsewise demonstrated certifiably compliant as\\n upheld in its original statement by the contributor developing injurious descriptions concerning me , so retract from consumer files the inaccurately attributed\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX   rendering   hard inquiry date (DOI) as filed by  XXXX   formulated to be  XXXX The unjustified unfavorable commentary herein alleged must be performed as critically evaluated, systematically reconfirmed, and affirmed as meeting rigorous compliance\\n standards as written when written by author broadcasting unsupportive assessments of me , so extract from displayed credit details the presently outlinedXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I   structured with   inquiry date as processed by  XXXX   to be XXXX The unjustified unfavorable commentary below indicated must be undertaken as rigorously inspected, accuracy substantiated, and reported with full adherence to governing\\n mandates as expressed verbatim by the original data source projecting negative portrayals of me , so delete from reporting the undermentionedXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX    composed of   HARD Inquiry Date (DOI) as pronounced by  TransUnion \\n(T)  referenced to be  XXXX  The unsound unfavorable categorization(s) Cited underneath are obligated for completion as properly reviewed, reinforced through supplementary verification, and assured as\\n meeting the highest data integrity principles as maintained as first stated by the data provider upholding defamatory accounts involving me , so expunge from report history the\\n falsely reported claims\\n XXXX    amplifying   date of inquiry (DOI) as included by  XXXX  determined to be  XXXX  The unsubstantiated adverse allegation(s) purported herein require resolution as subjected to extensive review, revalidation, authenticated as accurate, and shown to meet all\\n compliance criteria as entered at the time of submission by the reporting entity conveying slanderous associations against me so delete the wrongly presented\\n XXXX    comprising   Date of HARD Inquiry (DOI) as shown by  XXXX   projected to be  XXXX The lacking-substantiation harmful portrayal(s)\\n As Documented Below\\n are deemed essential to be analyzed, verified through independent assessment, deemed legally sound, and upheld as conforming to reporting regulations as reflected in the\\n initial report exactly as declared expanding harmful narratives directed at me , so wipe from accessible reports the below-indicated\\n XXXX    exhibiting   hard inquiry date as disclosed by XXXX XXXX   conveyed to be  XXXX  The insufficiently evidenced harmful indictment(s) alleged below must be addressed as thoroughly examined, reassessed, conclusively validated, and unmistakably\\n established as compliant as attested in its first official report reporting distressing implications concerning me , so eliminate from disclosed data the further-listed\\n XXXX    incorporating   date of inquiry as announced by  TransUnion \\n(T)  presented to be XXXX  The challenged unfavorable assumption(s) Located below should be scrutinized as revalidated under scrutiny, found unerring in its correctness, and maintained within lawful\\n reporting frameworks as detailed in the original submission sharing unfavorable evaluations of me , so block from reporting the unverified assertions\\n XXXX    accentuating   Date of Inquiry (DOI) as stated by  TransUnion \\n(T)  To Be XXXX  The falsifiable(y) attributed harmful assertion(s) As detailed below must be executed as Reinvestigated or investigated, validly proven verifiable, and demonstrative of\\n certifiably compliant reporting adequacy(ies) as affirmed in its first transmission by the data furnisher publicizing unfavorable opinions concerning me , so suppress its\\n existence in credit databases the misguided descriptions\\n XXXX   holding   inquiry date (DOI) as presented by  TransUnion \\n(T)  denoted to be  XXXX The undetermined damaging declaration(s) Specified further down are deemed essential to be verified, subjected to enhanced scrutiny, and justified through independent\\n confirmation procedures as provided in its first official record implying adverse claims regarding me , so please eradicate from reporting the carelessly reported\\n XXXX FI   unfolding   date of hard inquiry exactly as reported by  TransUnion \\n(T)  listed to be XXXX  The unsupported defamatory statement(s) below purported are vital to be exhaustively examined, fortified through secondary validation, and kept within strict adherence to\\n legal reporting provisions as initially reported by the responsible data contributor replicating defaming suppositions against me , so remove from the record the wrongly\\n assertedXXXX XXXX XXXX   arranging   Inquiry Date (DOI) as relayed by  TransUnion \\n(T)  outlined to be XXXX  The inaccurately labeled negative assessment(s) herein reported must be resolved as assessed for factual legitimacy, methodically authenticated, and upheld as verifiably\\n accurate as incorporated in its unaltered credit profile pointing out negativity(ies) attributed to me so block the reporting of the misunderstood records\\n XXXX XXXX   with   date of hard inquiry (DOI) as characterized by  TransUnion \\n(T)  marked to be  XXXX Federal law (15 U.S.C.  1681) and Metro 2 reporting guidelines require complete alignment between reported data and verifiable creditor records. This demands elimination\\n of conflicting bureau entries, removal of unsubstantiated claims, and strict adherence to 7-year reporting limitations for negative items. The documented discrepancies below\\n demonstrate clear violations of 15 U.S.C.  1681c(a) and CDIA Metro 2 Chapter 3 standards, complete with third-party validation of errors that directly impair my financial\\n opportunities.\\n The Symbol Keys used in this Letters images \\nare \\nas follows :\\n Page 2 of 9\\nr\\n 1\\n T = \\nTransunion XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Data Furnishing Reporter #1 (or Creditor listed in a PRE = Public Records Event )\\n D = Data Furnishing Reporter #2 (The Original Creditor if a Coff, a Coll, and or a Coff /Coll)\\n  = Likely XXXX(s) are detected related to this Data Field Point\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Factual Actual Undeniably Disputable XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX value reported is detected to likely have Discrepancy RROR(s) of Non-Compliant Inconsistency(ies) (DNCI)\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Metro 2 Code Exactness RROR(s) (M2CE)\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Metro 2 Code Description exactness RROR(s) (M2CD)\\n  = value reported is detected to likely have Pretermitted RROR(s) by possible Willful Omission (PWO)\\n PRE = Public Records Event\\n PII = Personal Identifier Information\\n COFF = Charge-off(s)\\n COLL = Collection(s)\\n COFF/COLL = Charge-off(s)/Collection(s)\\n DrgL = Derogatory Lates\\n DlqL = Delinquency Late(s)\\n INQ = Inquiry(ies)\\n UON = Unknown or Other Negativity\\n CCI = Creditor Contact Information\\n As thoroughly outlined in this complaint, the erroneous information identified herein requires urgent and decisive remediation. You are obligated to either remove these items\\n from all reporting, amend them to reflect a lawful and accurate status, or provide incontrovertible documentation verifying that each entry is true, correct, complete, timely, fair,\\n and reasonable as claimed by the reporting entity. Any failure to fulfill these obligations not only jeopardizes my rights as a consumer but may also constitute a serious breach\\n of statutory reporting requirements, resulting in substantial harm and potential legal repercussions for continued noncompliance.\\n Delete Right NOW  ALDOUS AND ASSOCIATES  320****  that inaccurately reports  Account Terms Duration:  to be  --   upon my   T\\n credit report.    As misreported,  the\\n claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  it is neither certified for Metro 2 compliance nor adequacy under the FCRA regulations.\\n Additionally  Consumer Account Number:  is non-compliantly  inaccurately reported  as  320****  upon my   T\\n As dis-alleged,  the allegation stands in nonconformity of\\n reporting competence because  the BASE/7 Primary Consumer Account Number (PCAN) appears deficient: (a) its purported value lacks uniqueness, (b) includes my SSN in\\n part or full, (c) falls outside the 5-32 alphanumeric character range allowed reported, (d) fails to use exactly four (4) redacted and or truncated characters, and/or (e) is\\n inconsistently reported across agencies. Such deviations from the CDIAs CRRG-outlined Metro 2 Standards jeopardize data integrity and fail to meet federal mandates for\\n fair, reasonable, accurate, complete, timely, truthful, valid, and verifiable reporting by furnishers (creditors, collectors, debt buyers, etc.) and CRAs ( TransUnion, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as applies). THEREFORE, I DEMAND its IMMEDIATE and COMPLETE\\n DELETION ;\\n In addition  Portfolio Type Code:  is lacking compliance   misrepresenting of facts  to being   --  within my   T\\n As misleadingly misreported,  the mis-claim stands in\\n nonconformity of reporting competence since  the XXXX XXXX Type Codes value is NOT the required C, I, M, O, R, Line of Credit, Installment, Mortgage,\\n Open, or Revolving value as should be per XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  TransUnion\\n *Data Reporter Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXConsumer Account Number: XXXX XXXXPortfolio Type Code:--\\n *Account Current Balance:--XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXAccount Terms Duration:-- --\\n Delete Right Now  XXXX XXXX   that contains errors  Account Rating:  to being  Paid  on my   TransunionXXXX XXXX  credit report,  and as well as  with being  Derogatory  within my   XXXX------\\n credit report,  as being  Paid  to inside my  \\ncredit report too.  As mal-accused,  the claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies)\\n because  it falls short of Metro 2 and FCRA standards.-TXQ\\n COFF\\n TransUnion\\n *Data Reporter Name \\n*Consumer Account Number:\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  that is flawed in its reporting  Date of Account Current Balance:  to be  XXXX  upon my   Transunion\\n  credit report,  to being  XXXX  on my   XXXX   credit report,  and as well as  as being  03/01/2025  to inside my   XXXX    credit report too.  As dis-reported,  the\\n allegation stands in nonconformity of reporting competence because  it is not proven suitable under neither Metro 2 or FCRA guidelines, each of which MUST be satisfied for\\n applicable privilege to report to be retained.\\n Plus  Account Type Code:  is without compliance  INACCURATELY reported  as being  Flexible spending credit card  on my   Transunion       deceitfully asserted  to\\n be  Credit Card  in my   Experian         Flexible spending credit card  inside my   XXXX      As mal-stated,  the mis-claim stands in nonconformity of reporting competence\\n since  the *Base/8 Portfolio Type Code (PTC)s value is NOT the required C, I, M, O, R, Line of Credit, Installment, Mortgage, Open, or Revolving value as\\n should be per 2023 CRRG mandates.;\\n Additionally  Date of Account Information:  is non-compliantly  skewing of facts  as  XXXX  upon my   Transunion        erroneously alleged  to being XXXX   within\\n my   XXXX XXXX   on my   XXXX      As alleged,  the claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  \\nthe Base/24 Date of Account Information (DOAI) is not EACH of being (i) displayed as MMDDYYYY or MM/DD/YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY such that the 8 numeral characters are\\n in fact properly and accurately representive of a Metro 2 compliant format , (ii) displayed exactly same as that of the mandatorily always reported Header/8 Last Updated\\n Activity Date (LUAD) value, (iii) is NOT precisely aligned with latest purported DOACBal (aka Date of Base/21 Account Current Balance) value (if any) , (iv) is NOT exactly\\n aligned with the latest reported DOASC (aka Date of Account Status Code) , (v) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest reported DOPRC (aka Date of Payment Rating Code) ,\\n (vi) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest verified reporting of the OCOA (aka Base/23 Original Charge-off Amount), (vii) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest reported DLV\\n (aka Date Last Verified) , and/or (viii) elsewise is NOT displayed in full compliance with mandated maximum appropriateness!\\n In addition  Account Current Balance:  is lacking compliance   unstated  as being  --  in my   Transunion       seemingly SUPPRESSED  to be  --  inside my   Experian\\n        --  upon my   XXXX      unreliably misattributed  the allegation stands in nonconformity of reporting competence because  the Base/21 Accounts Current Balance\\n (ACBal)s value is\\n TransUnion XXXX XXXX  *Data Reporter Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *Account Type Code: Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *Account Current Balance:------\\n Date of Account Current Balance: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   that gets the facts wrong  Date Last Verified(DLV):  with being  06/17/2025  within my   Transunion   credit report,  to be  --  upon my   XXXX   credit report,  and as well as  to being  --  on my   XXXX    credit report too.  As mis-stated,  the mis-claim stands in nonconformity of reporting\\n competence since  \\nthe Date Last Verified (DLV) is not EACH of being (i) displayed as MMDDYYYY or MM/DD/YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY such that the 8 numeral characters are in fact properly and\\n accurately representive of a Metro 2 compliant format , (ii) displayed exactly same as that of the mandatorily always reported Header/8 Last Updated Activity Date (LUAD)\\n value, (iii) is NOT precisely aligned with latest purported DOACBal (aka Date of Base/21 Account Current Balance) value (if any) , (iv) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest\\n reported DOASC (aka Date of Account Status Code) , (v) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest reported DOPRC (aka Date of Payment Rating Code) , (vi) is NOT exactly\\n aligned with the latest verified reporting of the OCOA (aka Base/23 Original Charge-off Amount) , (vii) is NOT exactly aligned with the latest reported DOAI (aka Date of\\n Account Information) , and/or (viii) elsewise is NOT displayed in full compliance with mandated maximum appropriateness!\\n Plus  Creditor Type:  is without compliance  wrongly purported  as  Bank Credit Cards     Transunion       skewing of facts  to being   Bank Credit Cards     XXXX          All\\n Banks      XXXX      As accused,  the claim is in deviation of reporting adequacy(ies) because  it does NOT meet Metro 2 certification or FCRA requirements.\\n TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXXData Reporter Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXConsumer Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Type Code: Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *Account Type Code: Flexible spending credit card Credit Card Flexible spending credit card\\n *High Credit/ Original Loan AmountXXXX XXXX XXXX Creditor Type: Bank Credit Cards Bank Credit Cards All Banks \\n Date Last Verified(DLV): XXXX\\n Delete Right NOW  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   that provides erroneous data  Date of Inquiry  as being  XXXX   to inside my   XXXX    credit report.    As dis\\naccused,  the allegation stands in nonconformity of reporting competence because  it fails to adhere to Metro 2 specifications and FCRA regulations.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name *XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   within my   X   credit report.    As mis-accused,  the\\n mis-claim stands in nonconformity of reporting competence since  it is non-compliant with the CRRGs Metro 2 standards certification and too also fails FCRA adequacy\\n checks.\\n Inquiries\\n Page 4 of 9\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1T\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1Q\\n INQ -D1X\\n INQ -D1Q\\n  \\nDR Name *HRCF12 \\nDR Address\\n *HRCF13 \\nDR Contact No.\\n *HRCF14 \\nDR Identification No.\\n *BSCF5 \\nDate of Inquiry\\n ^NTCU^ \\nPermissible Purpose\\n ^NTCU^ \\nDR Industry Type\\n ^NTCU^ \\nCredit Bureau\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bank Credit Cards XXXX\\n Delete right now  XXXX XXXX XXXX   that reports incorrectly  Date of Inquiry  to be  XXXX  upon my   X   credit report.    As dis-stated,  the claim is in deviation of\\n reporting adequacy(ies) because  it fails to satisfy BOTH the CDIAs Metro 2 certification of compliant reporting and applicable FCRA regulations.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name *XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Contact No.\\n *HRCF14 \\nDR Identification No.\\XXXX XXXX XXXXnDate of Inquiry\\n XXXX \\nPermissible Purpose\\n ^NTCU^ \\nDR Industry Type\\n ^NTCU^ \\nCredit Bureau\\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bank Credit Cards Experian\\n DELETE Right Now  XXXX XXXX XXXX  that is incorrect  Date of Inquiry  to being  XXXX  on my   T   credit report.    As mis-purported,  the allegation stands in\\n nonconformity of reporting competence because  it falls short of being provably Metro 2 certified let alone FCRA compliant.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Identification XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   that distorts the facts  Date of Inquiry  as being  XXXX   to inside my   T   credit report.    As deceptively misreported,  the\\n mis-claim stands in nonconformity of reporting competence since  it does NOT adhere to Metro 2s certified specifications or even that of the FCRAs guidelines.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX     As stated,  the claim is in deviation of\\n reporting adequacy(ies) because  it is neither Metro 2 certifiable nor FCRA compliant.\\n Inquiries\\n  \\nDR Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion\\n Delete right now  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   that gives unproven or false information  Date of Inquiry  to be\"","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T22:40:14.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10468","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14767850","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-21T22:34:11.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\n TransUnion XXXX XXXX XXXXData Reporter Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXConsumer Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Type Code: Flexible spending <em>credit</em> card <em>Credit</em> Card Flexible spending <em>credit</em> card\\n *Account Type Code: Flexible spending <em>credit</em> card <em>Credit</em> Card Flexible spending <em>credit</em> card\\n *High <em>Credit</em>/ Original Loan AmountXXXX XXXX XXXX Creditor Type: Bank <em>Credit</em> Cards Bank <em>Credit</em> Cards All Banks \\n Date Last Verified(DLV): XXXX\\n Delete Right NOW  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   that <em>provides</em> erroneous data"],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Improper use of <em>your</em> report"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"],"sub_issue":["Reporting company used <em>your</em> report improperly"]},"sort":[3.081703,"14767850"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":20,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":20}]}},"product":{"doc_count":20,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":11}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1},{"key":"Personal line of credit","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payday loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":20,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":9}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting a line of credit","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting the loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":20,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":20}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":20,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":16},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":4}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":20,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":20}]}},"company":{"doc_count":20,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rosebud Economic Development Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":20,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"HI","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":20,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":12},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":20,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":8},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}