{"took":315,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":11,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11553147","_score":22.19387,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint Against Experian for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Dear CFPB, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Experian regarding their failure to properly investigate and reinvestigate disputed information on my credit report, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Despite multiple attempts to resolve these issues, Experian has not provided adequate responses or any hard proof confirming that proper reinvestigations were conducted. \n\nThe disputed accounts include the following : 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  Specific Violations Failure to Properly Conduct Reinvestigations : Experian has not adequately investigated the disputes I submitted regarding inaccuracies in my credit file. Despite providing them with detailed documentation, they have failed to resolve these issues. \n\nFailure to Provide Proof of Reinvestigation : I have repeatedly requested documentation showing that reinvestigations were performed in compliance with FCRA standards. To date, Experian has failed to provide any hard proof or supporting documents confirming a thorough investigation. \n\nFailure to Delete Inaccurate, Incomplete, or Unverified Information : Experian continues to report inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information, despite being provided with evidence to the contrary. \n\nFailure to Provide Adequate Written Notice : Experian has not provided me with sufficient written notice of their reinvestigation results or clear explanations of how my disputes were handled.\n\nImproper Reinsertion of Deleted Information : Experian has improperly reinserted previously deleted information into my credit file without notifying me, in direct violation of FCRA provisions. \n\nFailure to Follow Reasonable Procedures : Experian has not adhered to reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported, leading to continued inaccuracies.\n\nAdditional Violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) : Failure to Fully and Accurately Convey Disputes to Furnishers : Experian distorted, truncated, and mischaracterized my disputes, preventing furnishers from properly addressing the issues. \nHarm Caused : Due to Experians willful negligence and non-compliance with the FCRA and CFPA, I have sustained damage to my reputation. As a result of inaccurate and unverified information remaining on my credit report, I have been denied credit, loans, and credit cards. This has caused significant financial hardship and harmed my ability to obtain necessary credit for personal and professional purposes.\n\nPrior Complaints : I have previously submitted complaints about Experians conduct to the CFPB If you look at my files numbers, and they refused to follow the metro 2 compliance codes that clearly state the information was incorrect and should not be furnished on my consumer reports.\n\nRequested Actions : I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate Experian for non-compliance with the FCRA and CFPA. Additionally, I seek the following remedies : A proper and thorough reinvestigation of all disputed items on my credit report. \nProvision of certified copies of all documentation related to the reinvestigation process, including communications with furnishers, results of findings, and any corrective actions taken.\n\nDeletion of any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information from my credit report.\n\nAn official explanation of why inaccurate or unverified information remains on my credit report despite my dispute.\n\nAssurance that Experian will follow proper procedures to ensure the accuracy of information reported to consumer reporting agencies. please respond with requested documents through the CFPB portal.\n\nD","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-15T18:38:26.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30038","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11553147","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-15T17:44:42.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Subject</em> : <em>Formal</em> Complaint Against <em>Experian</em> for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Dear <em>CFPB</em>, I am writing to file a <em>formal</em> complaint against <em>Experian</em> regarding their failure to properly investigate and reinvestigate disputed information on my credit report, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Despite multiple attempts to resolve these issues, <em>Experian</em> has not provided adequate <em>responses</em> or any hard proof confirming that proper reinvestigations were conducted."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[22.19387,"11553147"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11441126","_score":19.046297,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Regarding Experians Failure to Properly Investigate and Reinvestigate Disputed Information Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Experian regarding their failure to properly investigate and reinvestigate disputed information on my credit report, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). I have made multiple attempts ( 8 times or more ) to resolve the issues with Experian, but they have not provided adequate responses or hard proof to confirm that the reinvestigation was conducted properly. Below are the items in question. \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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\nExperian has violated the following provisions of the FCRA : Failure to Conduct Proper Reinvestigations : Experian has failed to properly conduct reinvestigations of disputed information in my credit file, as required by the FCRA. Despite providing them with detailed information about the disputed items, they have not taken adequate steps to resolve the dispute. \n\nFailure to Provide Proof of Reinvestigation : I have requested, multiple times, the necessary documentation proving that the reinvestigation was performed according to the standards set forth by the FCRA. To date, Experian has failed to provide any hard proof or documents demonstrating that they conducted a thorough reinvestigation. I have not received any written documentation of their investigation results. \n\nFailure to Delete Inaccurate, Incomplete, or Unverified Information : Experian has failed to delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverified information from my consumer credit file. In my dispute, I provided evidence showing that certain accounts were reported inaccurately or without verification. However, the disputed items remain on my credit report, and Experian has not adequately addressed these concerns. \n\nFailure to Provide Adequate Written Notice : As required by the FCRA, Experian has failed to provide me with adequate written notice of the results of their reinvestigation. I have not received sufficient explanation of how my dispute was handled, nor have they provided clear communication regarding their process for verifying the disputed information. \n\nImproper Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Information : Experian has improperly reinserted previously deleted information back into my credit file without properly notifying me. This constitutes a violation of the FCRA and has further harmed my credit report. \n\nFailure to Follow Reasonable Procedures : Experian has failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the credit information it reports. This has resulted in the continued inclusion of inaccurate and unverified information on my credit report. \n\nFurthermore, I believe Experian has committed unfair acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX. Specifically : Failure to Fully and Accurately Convey Disputes to Furnishers : Experian has failed to fully and accurately convey my disputes to the furnishers of the disputed information. Instead, they have distorted, truncated, and mischaracterized my disputes, which has prevented the furnishers from properly addressing and resolving the issues. \n\nDue to Experians wilful negligence and willful non-compliance with the FCRA and related laws, I have sustained significant damage to my reputation. As a direct result of Experians failure to investigate and correct inaccurate information on my credit report, I have been denied credit, loans, and credit cards. This has caused considerable financial hardship and has harmed my ability to obtain necessary credit for personal and professional purposes. The fraudulent practices employed by Experian have had a detrimental effect on my life, and I demand immediate corrective action. \n\nIn light of these violations, I am requesting that the CFPB investigate Experian for non-compliance with the FCRA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. I seek the following actions from Experian : A proper and thorough reinvestigation of all disputed items on my credit report. \nProvision of certified copies of all documentation related to the reinvestigation process, including communications with furnishers, results of their findings, and any corrective actions taken. \n\nDeletion of any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information from my credit report. \nAn official explanation of why inaccurate or unverified information has not been removed from my credit report despite my dispute. \nAn assurance that proper procedures are being followed to ensure the accuracy of information reported to consumer reporting agencies. \n\nI have previously submitted complaints regarding this matter to the CFPB on the following dates : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I have enclosed copies of the relevant documents related to my dispute with Experian for your reference. Please let me know if you require any additional information from my end.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I trust the CFPB will thoroughly investigate Experian 's actions and hold them accountable for their failure to comply with consumer protection laws. I look forward to your response.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-08T03:48:15.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92201","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11441126","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-08T03:19:23.000Z","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":["I trust the <em>CFPB</em> will thoroughly investigate <em>Experian</em> 's actions and hold them accountable for their failure to comply with consumer protection laws. I look forward to your <em>response</em>."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[19.046297,"11441126"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12540877","_score":18.938606,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CC : XXXX XXXX ( Experian - Group General Counsel ), XXXX XXXX ( Experian - Chief Compliance Officer ), CFPB, FTC Subject : Formal Response to Experians Mischaracterization of Dispute Demand for Compliance To whom it may concern, I am writing to formally address Experians improper and inaccurate classification of my disputes under CFPB Complaint IDs XXXX and XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, Experian issued two separate responses, both falsely designating my disputes as fraud-related. \nThis is an outright misrepresentation of the facts and a direct violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) and FCRA 1681e ( b ). At no point in these disputes have I alleged fraud, requested a fraud alert, or submitted any documentation indicating identity theft.\n\nFor absolute clarity and evidentiary purposes, the following documents are attached to this communication : A notarized Affidavit of Truth ( AOT ), which serves as a sworn statement supporting my claims and confirming that no fraud claim has ever been made by me in relation to these disputes.\n\nMultiple FTC Fraud Reports, formally documenting Experians fraudulent misclassification of my disputes. These reports detail Experians deliberate misuse of fraud classifications as a tactic to evade compliance, obstruct regulatory oversight, and improperly close out valid CFPB complaints. \nThese documents serve as official evidence that Experians classification of my disputes as fraud-related is factually false, legally indefensible, and constitutes a material misrepresentation of my claims. Further, the FTC Fraud Reports provide a formal record of Experians deceptive business practices, reinforcing the need for regulatory intervention and legal consequences. \nAbsolute Denial of Fraud Misclassification Any Past or Present Fraud Designations Are False and Unauthorized At no pointpast or present, on or before XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXhave I alleged fraud, requested a fraud alert, submitted any documentation indicating identity theft, or authorized any classification of my disputes as fraud-related. No fraud claim has ever been made, or is currently being made, in connection with any disputes as of XX/XX/year>. \nExperians assignment of a fraud designation to my disputes is : Factually incorrect No statement, document, or action on my part has indicated fraud in any capacity.\n\nLegally unjustified No provision under the FCRA, state consumer protection laws, or any other governing regulation permits Experian to arbitrarily classify a dispute as fraud without basis.\n\nA material misrepresentation Any reference to fraud in relation to my disputes is demonstrably false and constitutes a direct mischaracterization of my claims.\n\nExperian is Formally on Notice That : 1. No fraud designationpast, present, or futureis valid, warranted, or authorized in connection with any of my disputes filed on or before XX/XX/year>. \n2. No fraud-related classification has ever been requested, supported, or substantiated by any documentation I have submitted on or before XX/XX/year>. \n3. No fraud-related investigation, review, or designation is applicable, and any reference to such is a material misrepresentation of any dispute filed on or before XX/XX/year>. \n4. Experian has no authority, justification, or factual basis to apply a fraud designation to any disputes I have submitted on or before XX/XX/year>. \nOngoing Documentation of Experians Misconduct Systemic Pattern of Regulatory Evasion I am actively tracking, documenting, and cataloging every instance where Experian fraudulently applies a fraud classification or any other manufactured justification to improperly close out valid CFPB complaints. This includes, but is not limited to : Each instance where Experian misclassifies my CFPB complaints as fraud-related to evade directly addressing the substantive issues raised in the disputes. \nEvery case where Experian improperly closes out a valid CFPB complaint without providing a legally compliant response, citing fraud or another fabricated justification to avoid compliance. \nAll responses from Experian in the CFPB complaint portal containing deliberate misrepresentations, procedural evasion, or fraudulent classifications that obstruct my ability to obtain an official resolution. \nExperians deliberate misuse of fraud designations and other deceptive tactics to obstruct regulatory oversight is now part of a fully documented pattern of systemic noncompliance and fraudulent dispute handling. Every instance is being compiled as evidence for federal and state enforcement actions. \nLegal Consequences Regulatory Violations and Enforcement Actions Any existing, continued, or future reference by Experian to fraud, identity theft, or any other manufactured justification used to improperly close or evade a valid CFPB complaint is : Categorically false, willfully misleading, and legally indefensible. \nA violation of federal and state consumer protection laws that govern dispute handling, regulatory compliance, and fair consumer reporting practices. \nEvidence of Experians systemic abuse of the dispute process to avoid accountability. \nThis behavior constitutes : Regulatory obstruction and noncompliance with CFPB oversight.\n\nMaterial misrepresentation under FCRA 1681i ( a ) and 1681e ( b ).\n\nUnfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ).\n\nViolations of the D.C. CPPA and California UCL for deceptive trade practices.\n\nEvery future instance of misrepresentation, fraud designation misuse, or CFPB complaint evasion will be added to an expanding record of regulatory violations and legal breaches.\n\nLegal Consequences Regulatory Violations and Enforcement Actions Any existing, continued, or future reference by Experian to fraud, identity theft, or any other manufactured justification used to improperly close, misclassify, or evade a valid CFPB complaint is : Categorically false, willfully misleading, and legally indefensible. \nA direct violation of federal and state consumer protection laws governing dispute handling, regulatory compliance, and fair consumer reporting practices. \nEvidence of Experians systemic abuse of the dispute process as a strategy to avoid regulatory accountability. \nThis behavior constitutes : Regulatory obstruction and noncompliance with CFPB oversight.\n\nMaterial misrepresentation under FCRA 1681i ( a ) and 1681e ( b ).\n\nUnfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ).\n\nViolations of the D.C. CPPA and California UCL for deceptive trade practices.\n\nEvery future instance of fraudulent misclassification, CFPB complaint evasion, or procedural obstruction will be added to an expanding regulatory record for submission to : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) for enforcement review. \nThe Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) under the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ( UDAP ) framework.\n\nThe U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Consumer Protection Branch for fraudulent misrepresentation.\n\nState Attorneys General in Washington , D.C., and California for deceptive trade practices enforcement.\n\nExperians pattern of misconduct is being actively tracked, compiled, and escalated for regulatory enforcement, legal action, and formal oversight investigations. \nExperians Fraudulent Misclassification Reputational Harm, Legal Liability, and Consumer Protection Violations Experians false classification of my disputes as fraud-related creates immediate and long-term reputational harm, legal exposure, and violations of consumer protection laws. A fraud designation, even when baseless, carries significant consequencesaffecting how financial institutions, regulatory bodies, and credit reporting agencies interpret and process my consumer data.\n\nExperians misclassification is not a clerical error ; it is a material misrepresentation that threatens my ability to engage in financial transactions, dispute inaccurate information, and maintain a fair and accurate credit profile. This deliberate misrepresentation exposes Experian to civil liability for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes.\n\n1. Defamation ( Libel ) False Written Statements That Harm Reputation Experians fraudulent misclassification has the potential to cause direct and substantial harm to my reputation, particularly if : This false classification has been shared with third parties, such as lenders, credit reporting agencies, or financial institutions.\n\nIt remains stored in Experians internal records, increasing the risk that it will be referenced in future disputes, investigations, or consumer reports.\n\nThe misclassification triggers unwarranted fraud-based scrutiny, affecting my ability to access financial services, secure credit approvals, or resolve disputes.\n\nEven if not publicly disclosed, a fraud designation within the CFPB complaint system still creates a reputational risk by interfering with my ability to correct errors on my credit report and engage with regulators.\n\n2. False Light ( Invasion of Privacy ) Creating a Misleading Public Perception Experians false fraud designation misrepresents my character and financial standing, placing me in a misleading and damaging context that could impact future regulatory and financial transactions.\n\nA fraud designation inherently suggests wrongdoing and creates an inaccurate perception that I have engaged in fraudulent activity.\n\nIf lenders, banks, or other institutions treat me differently based on Experians misrepresentation, this could support a false light claim.\n\nExperian has a legal duty to ensure that its classifications of disputes are accurate and not misleading, especially when fraud-related designations carry serious reputational and financial consequences.\n\n3. Defamation by Implication The Harmful Effect of Fraud Designation Even if Experian does not explicitly state that I committed fraud, their fraud classification implies fraudulent activity. This creates serious legal and reputational consequences, as : Fraud-related designations inherently suggest misconduct and can influence how financial institutions assess my credibility.\n\nEven an unsubstantiated fraud claim can trigger heightened scrutiny, denials, and financial restrictions.\n\nExperian has a documented history of misclassifying disputes, further increasing the likelihood that this fraudulent classification will have lasting negative effects.\n\nIf Experian fails to immediately correct this misclassification, it increases the risk that this misinformation will negatively impact my reputation within the CFPB complaint system and my ability to submit lawful disputes against Experian.\n\nBy falsely categorizing my disputes as fraud-related, Experian is creating a misleading regulatory record that could improperly influence dispute outcomes, obstruct my legal rights, and prevent regulatory agencies from conducting an unbiased review of my complaints.\n\n4. Consumer Protection Violations False and Misleading Business Practices Many state and federal consumer protection laws explicitly prohibit false or misleading statements that harm a consumers financial standing, creditworthiness, and reputation. Experians fraudulent classification of my disputes directly violates these protections, including : D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( D.C. CPPA 28-3904 ) : o Prohibits false representations and material omissions that mislead consumers or interfere with their rights.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 ) : o Prohibits fraudulent and deceptive business practices that cause reputational harm or financial damage. \nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681e ( b ) : o Requires credit reporting agencies to maintain maximum possible accuracy in all consumer records, including disputes and internal classifications.\n\no Experians misclassification of my disputes violates this statutory requirement, making them liable for both negligent and willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n and 1681o. \nMisclassification of CFPB Complaint ID XXXX Bad-Faith Attempt to Evade Compliance My complaint, CFPB ID XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/year>, was a formal demand for Experian to comply with its legal obligations regarding the suppression of my personal information. This complaint directly responded to Experians XX/XX/year>, at XXXX XXXX  EST email, which mischaracterized my suppression request, falsely invoked identity theft, and imposed baseless procedural hurdles that have no legal foundation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ), or any other applicable law.\n\nExperians response to this complaint falsely assigns a fraud designation where none exists. At no point did I allege fraud, request a fraud alert, or submit any documentation indicating identity theft. This misclassification is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the dispute process, misrepresent the nature of my request, and evade accountability for clear legal violations.\n\nBy falsely categorizing my complaint as fraud-related, Experian is engaging in willful misrepresentation and obstruction, violating multiple federal, D.C., and California consumer protection laws : FCRA 1681i ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nFCRA 1681e ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 1681c-2 ( a ) Unlawful refusal to suppress s\nensitive personal information.\n\nD.C. CPPA 28-3904 (\n\ne ) & ( f ) False and material misrepresentations regarding consumer rights. California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ), Cal. Civ. Code 1798.105 Failure to\ncomply with a consumers right to request suppression of personal data.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.81.5 Failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures to protect consumer data.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.110 Failure to disclose how consumer information is retained and used.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210 Engaging in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681n & 1681o Willful and negligent noncompliance with federal law.\n\nThis is not an oversightit is a calculated effort to evade regulatory scrutiny and suppress valid consumer claims. Experian must be immediately investigated for : 1. Deliberately misclassifying consumer disputes to evade compliance.\n\n2. Engaging in deceptive practices to obstruct lawful FCRA and CCPA requests.\n\n3. Systematically failing to protect sensitive consumer information as required by law.\n\nGiven Experians ongoing federal investigation for systemic FCRA violations ( CFPB Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ), this misclassification is further proof of their pattern of noncompliance and obstructionist practices. Their fraudulent dispute-handling tactics warrant immediate enforcement action, regulatory fines, and further legal scrutiny by both the CFPB, FTC, and California Attorney General. \nMisclassification of CFPB Complaint ID XXXX Deliberate Evasion of Compliance My complaint, CFPB Complaint ID XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/year>, was a formal notice documenting Experians blatant failure to comply with the 30-day response requirement under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) for CFPB Complaint ID XXXX. This was not a disputeit was a regulatory escalation to document Experians statutory violation and continued refusal to comply with federal law.\n\nRather than addressing the clear violation, Experian falsely assigned a fraud designation to my complaint, which has no connection whatsoever to fraud, identity theft, or unauthorized activity. This is not an errorit is a deliberate and calculated attempt to misclassify my complaint to evade enforcement, conceal statutory violations, and obstruct regulatory oversight.\n\nThis type of misclassification is a bad-faith practice that directly violates federal, D.C., and California consumer protection laws, including : FCRA 1681i ( a ) Failure to c\nonduct a reasonable reinvestigation.\n\nD.C. CPPA 28-3904 (\n\ne ) & ( f ) Material misrepresentation and omission of critical facts.\n\nCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ), Cal. Civ. Code 1798.105 Failure to comply with consumer rights to suppress personal data.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.81.5 Failure to secure sensitive consumer information.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210 Engaging in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681n & 1681o Willful and negligent noncompliance.\n\nExperian is knowingly engaging in obstructionist tactics to dismiss valid consumer complaints, conceal clear FCRA and CCPA violations, and evade financial and regulatory penalties. Given that Experian is already under federal scrutiny for systemic FCRA violations ( CFPB Case No.\n8:25-cv-24 ), this misclassification is further evidence of their ongoing pattern of noncompliance and deceptive dispute-handling practices.\n\nDocumented Cases of Experians Fraudulent Misclassification of Disputes The following section provides a detailed list of all CFPB complaints where Experian has falsely classified my disputes as fraud-related or used other deceptive tactics to improperly close out valid complaints. This list will continue to be updated and expanded as additional instances of misconduct are documented. \nList of Affected CFPB Complaints ( all attached ) : Complaint ID Date Filed Date of Experians Fraudulent Classification Description of Misclassification / Evasion Tactic XXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nXXXX XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> @ XXXX XXXX  EST We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. \nExperians deliberate misclassification of my disputes is not an isolated occurrenceit is part of a broader pattern of systemic misconduct. This fraudulent misclassification strategy is actively being tracked, documented, and compiled into a comprehensive legal and regulatory case. The ongoing documentation of Experians deceptive dispute-handling tactics will be presented in all formal regulatory complaints, legal actions, and enforcement proceedings Experians False Statements on a Federally Regulated Consumer Complaint Platform Violations of Federal, D.C., and California Law Experians deliberate misclassification of my disputes as fraud-related on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) complaint portal is not merely a bad-faith procedural tacticit is an intentional misrepresentation made on a federally regulated platform, with supporting federal fraud reports ( FTC ), in direct violation of federal and state consumer protection and fraud laws.\n\nThis misconduct extends beyond mere procedural noncompliance ; it constitutes a knowing and willful submission of false information to a federal regulatory body regarding an ongoing consumer protection matter. Because these complaints were formally submitted through the CFPBs federally monitored complaint system, Experians actions may amount to : Fraudulent misrepresentation in federal regulatory filings. \nObstruction of a federal consumer protection process. \nDeceptive business practices designed to evade regulatory accountability. \nThese violations warrant immediate regulatory enforcement and legal action to ensure that Experian is held accountable for submitting false and misleading information on a federally monitored platform. \nLegal Violations Why This is a Major Federal Issue By knowingly submitting false information on a federal consumer protection platform and misrepresenting the nature of my disputes, Experian has violated multiple laws across federal, D.C., and California jurisdictions, including : 1. Federal Law Violations 18 U.S.C. 1001 False Statements to a Federal Agency o This statute makes it a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal agency.\n\no The CFPB complaint system is a federal regulatory platform, and Experians false classification of my complaints directly misleads a federal agency regarding their legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\n15 U.S.C. 45 ( FTC Act ) Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices ( UDAP ) o The FTC Act prohibits deceptive business practices, including false representations made in regulatory filings, consumer disclosures, or complaint responses.\n\no Experians fraudulent misclassification directly interferes with my rights as a consumer and obstructs the regulatory process intended to protect me from Experians violations.\n\nFCRA 1681n Willful Noncompliance with Federal Law o The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes liability for willful violations, including misrepresentations that obstruct a consumers right to a fair and lawful investigation.\n\no Experians intentional misclassification of my complaints as fraud-related when they are not constitutes willful noncompliance, which allows me to pursue statutory and punitive damages.\n\nFCRA 1681s ( a ) ( 2 ) Duty to Provide Accurate Information to Regulators o Consumer reporting agencies are legally required to provide truthful and accurate information to federal regulators regarding disputes and complaint resolutions.\n\no Experians misrepresentation of my complaint status as fraud-related is an explicit violation of this requirement.\n\n2. Washington, D.C. Law Violations D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( D.C. CPPA ) 28-3904 ( e ) & ( f ) False and Misleading Statements o The D.C. CPPA prohibits material misrepresentations and omissions of consumer rights, particularly in transactions involving consumer credit and reporting agencies.\n\no Experians fraudulent misclassification on the CFPB portal constitutes : A material misrepresentation of my dispute status to avoid legal compliance.\n\nA deceptive business practice intended to obstruct regulatory enforcement.\n\nD.C. Identity Theft Protection Act 22-3227.02 ( a ) Duty to Protect Personal Information o Experians fraudulent reclassification of my dispute as fraud-related contradicts the evidence I submitted and increases my exposure to further identity verification risks.\n\no This false designation may also interfere with my ability to take corrective action on my credit report by forcing unnecessary identity theft-related procedures upon me.\n\n3. California Law Violations California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) Cal. Civ. Code 1798.110 & 1798.130 o The CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with accurate records of how their information is used and reported.\n\no Experians false classification of my dispute as fraud-related violates my CCPA rights by misrepresenting the nature of my requests and failing to provide transparency regarding how my information is being processed.\n\nCalifornia Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210 o The UCL prohibits unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, including : Submitting false or misleading information to regulators ( CFPB ).\n\nObstructing lawful consumer complaints through deception.\n\no Experians misrepresentation directly violates this law and exposes them to state enforcement penalties.\n\nCalifornia Civil Code 1798.81.5 Failure to Secure Consumer Data o Experians fraudulent dispute classification places me at risk for further unnecessary fraud investigations while failing to address their obligations to suppress my personal data properly.\n\no By misrepresenting my dispute as fraud-related, Experian has actively failed in its duty to ensure the responsible handling of my personal information.\n\nWhy This is a Major Regulatory and Legal Issue Experians false statements on the CFPB portal, especially when FTC fraud reports were attached to my complaints, expose several layers of liability : 1. Obstruction of a Federal Consumer Protection System o The CFPB portal is a federal enforcement tool that relies on truthful submissions to regulate credit reporting agencies. \no By knowingly submitting false information, Experian is undermining the integrity of a federal system designed to enforce consumer protection laws.\n\n2. Attempted Evasion of Regulatory Penalties o Experians misclassification is a strategic attempt to avoid liability under FCRA, the D.C. CPPA, and CCPA.\n\no By labeling my complaints as fraud-related, they are creating a false justification for noncompliance with consumer protection laws.\n\n3. Denial of My Consumer Rights Under Multiple Laws o Misrepresenting my dispute obstructs my right to a fair reinvestigation under FCRA 1681i ( a ), which ensures consumers have access to proper dispute resolution.\n\no Deceptive classification tactics directly interfere with my right to privacy and accuracy under both the D.C. and California consumer protection statutes. \nExperian has demonstrated a systemic and deliberate strategy of deception that is not only ethically indefensible but legally actionable. Their fraudulent misclassification of disputes on a federally regulated complaint platform, combined with the presence of attached FTC fraud reports, constitutes a direct attack on the integrity of the regulatory system designed to protect consumers. \nExperians Fraudulent Dispute Misclassification Aligns with the CFPBs Federal Lawsuit Systemic Pattern of Consumer Deception Experians misclassification of my disputes as fraud-related on the CFPB complaint portal is not an isolated eventit is part of a broader pattern of deceptive business practices that aligns directly with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) lawsuit against Experian ( Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ). This lawsuit highlights Experians long-standing violations of consumer protection laws, including its failure to properly investigate disputes, its use of misleading consumer disclosures, and its obstruction of consumer rights.\n\nThe CFPBs case against Experian provides clear evidence that Experian has engaged in systemic misconduct, and my case directly reinforces the allegations raised in the lawsuit.\n\nKey Allegations in CFPB v. Experian ( Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ) That Align with My Complaints The CFPB lawsuit against Experian identifies multiple patterns of deceptive and unlawful behavior that match exactly what I have experienced. These include : 1. Fraudulent Dispute Handling and Misclassification of Consumer Complaints The CFPB has accused Experian of : o Misrepresenting how consumer disputes are processed.\n\no Failing to conduct proper investigations.\n\no Using misleading classifications to avoid compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nThis is exactly what Experian did in my casemisclassifying my legitimate dispute as fraud-related to evade their legal obligations.\n\n2. Obstruction of Consumer Rights Under the FCRA The CFPB lawsuit details how Experian obstructs consumer efforts to correct their credit reports by : o Providing inaccurate dispute responses.\n\no Imposing unnecessary procedural barriers.\n\no Failing to provide consumers with accurate information about their disputes.\n\nExperian obstructed my rights in the same way by falsely claiming my dispute was fraud-related, knowing that this would delay or prevent a proper resolution.\n\n3. Knowingly Providing False and Misleading Information to Consumers and Regulators The CFPB has accused Experian of : o Misrepresenting its dispute process to consumers and federal regulators.\n\no Providing misleading or incomplete information about dispute resolutions.\n\no Manipulating consumer complaint responses to minimize liability.\n\nExperians false fraud designation on my CFPB complaints is another clear example of this type of misconduct.\n\nThey knowingly submitted false information to a federal platform ( CFPB ) while attached FTC fraud reports were present, making this a serious violation.\n\n4. Violations of Federal Consumer Protection Laws, Including the FCRA and UDAP The CFPB lawsuit charges Experian with : o Failing to comply with FCRA 1681i ( a ) by not properly investigating disputes.\n\no Engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices ( UDAP ) under federal law.\n\no Providing misleading information in federally monitored complaint systems.\n\nThis mirrors what Experian did in my caseknowingly filing false dispute classifications in a federal consumer complaint system.\n\nMy Dispute Experience is Direct Proof That Experians Violations Are Ongoing Experians actions in my experience provide real-time, documented proof that they are still engaging in the misconduct outlined in CFPB v. Experian ( Case No. 8:25-cv-24 ). Their fraudulent misclassification of my dispute is an escalation of their deception, as it involves knowingly submitting false information to a federal complaint system. The CFPB, FTC, and state regulators must act swiftly to prevent further consumer harm and impose additional financial penalties for these violations.\n\nExperians systemic pattern of misrepresentation, obstruction, and deception is now well-documented in both the CFPBs lawsuit and my direct complaints. The next step must be immediate regulatory enforcement to hold them accountable for their continuous abuse of consumer rights and the law.\n\nImmediate Corrective Action Required to Prevent Further Harm Given the serious risk of reputational damage, obstruction of lawful disputes, and regulatory harm, Experian must take immediate corrective measures to ... .... CONTINUE READING FULL COMPLAINT AT \" Formal Response to Experians Mischaracterization of Dispute Demand for Compliance.PDF ''","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-18T03:27:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20008","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12540877","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-18T03:17:48.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CC : XXXX XXXX ( <em>Experian</em> - Group General Counsel ), XXXX XXXX ( <em>Experian</em> - Chief <em>Compliance</em> Officer ), <em>CFPB</em>, FTC <em>Subject</em> : <em>Formal</em> <em>Response</em> to <em>Experians</em> <em>Mischaracterization</em> of Dispute Demand for <em>Compliance</em> To whom it may concern, I am writing to <em>formally</em> address <em>Experians</em> improper and inaccurate classification of my disputes under <em>CFPB</em> Complaint IDs XXXX and XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, <em>Experian</em> issued two separate <em>responses</em>, both falsely designating my disputes as fraud-related."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[18.938606,"12540877"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13659269","_score":18.720577,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting and Request for Proper Reinvestigation To Whom It May Concern : This letter serves as my formal dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i, regarding inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading information being reported on my credit file by Experian. Additionally, I contend that Experian has failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of my prior disputes in violation of the FCRA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ).\n\nUpon reviewing my current three-bureau credit report dated XX/XX/year>, I identified several materially inaccurate and derogatory accounts reported by Experian that are either ( 1 ) inaccurate, ( 2 ) not updated to reflect the true account status, or ( 3 ) remain unverified or unresponsive to supporting documentation I previously submitted. These include, but are not limited to : XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Reported as a charge-off with an outstanding balance, despite discrepancies across bureaus and lack of clarity in payment application. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Continues to show as a charge-off, even though supporting documentation shows settlement discussions and/or resolution. \n\nXXXX Account # : XXXX Misrepresented reporting regarding account status and delinquency without acknowledgement of discharge/resolution status.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), Experian is required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information contained in consumer reports. Furthermore, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), Experian must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information and notify the consumer of the results, including any corrections or deletions. Yet, Experian : Failed to convey all relevant documentation and dispute context to data furnishers, resulting in surface-level, insufficient verifications. \n\nRelied solely on the Automated Credit Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) system responses from furnishers, despite conflicting evidence provided and on-file with Experian.\n\nUsed vague or incorrect dispute codes, which mischaracterized the nature of my disputes and limited the likelihood of meaningful review.\n\nFailed to provide clear, complete reinvestigation results, instead issuing generic outcome notices that did not identify what, if any, updates occurred or why.\n\nThis conduct is not only a violation of the FCRA but also constitutes an unfair and deceptive act or practice under the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5536. The CFPBs recent action ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) affirms systemic failures on Experians part to meet its statutory reinvestigation and notification obligations to consumers.\n\nTherefore, I demand the following : A full, good faith reinvestigation of the accounts listed above, including all supporting documentation previously provided or attached herein.\n\nWritten disclosure of the outcome of each reinvestigation in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ), including which data was verified, corrected, or deleted.\n\nImmediate deletion of any information that can not be verified or is found to be inaccurate or incomplete.\n\nA copy of my updated credit file following the completion of the reinvestigation. \n\nIf these violations are not resolved within the required timeframe ( 30 days from receipt of this letter ), I reserve the right to pursue legal remedies, including filing a complaint with the CFPB, FTC, and my state attorney general, and seeking damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-22T16:49:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13659269","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-22T16:40:46.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX <em>Subject</em> : <em>Formal</em> Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Reporting and Request for Proper Reinvestigation To Whom It May Concern : This letter serves as my <em>formal</em> dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i, regarding inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading information being reported on my credit file by <em>Experian</em>."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[18.720577,"13659269"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11791713","_score":18.064922,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint Category : Credit Reporting Issue : Inaccurate Credit Reporting, Failure to Reinvestigate, and Identity Theft Mishandling Complainant Information Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute of Inaccurate Information in My Credit Report Dear Experian, I am writing to formally dispute inaccurate and incomplete information on my credit report, which remains unresolved despite my previous attempts to address these errors. This letter serves as an official demand for correction, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and recent findings from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). \n\nSpecifically, my disputes have not been resolved adequately, and XXXX actions mirror those identified in the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX complaint ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). These include : XXXX. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation : Under FCRA 1681i ( a ), Experian is required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and notify furnishers with all relevant information. Despite providing sufficient documentation and clear explanations for my disputes, Experian has either mischaracterized my claims or relied unreasonably on furnishers responses without verifying their accuracy. \nXXXX. Failure to Provide Accurate Results : Experians reinvestigation results have been incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory, as outlined in the CFPBs complaint ( Paragraphs 64-80 ). Notices stating outcomes such as Updated or Processed fail to clarify what has changed or why inaccuracies remain unresolved.\n\n3. Failure to Ensure Maximum Possible Accuracy : Under FCRA 1681e ( b ), Experian must implement reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of information. The disputed items continue to harm my credit profile unjustly, resulting in financial injury.\n\nI am submitting this complaint against Experian Information Solutions for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and failing to address disputes regarding inaccuracies and fraudulent entries on my credit report. Despite multiple attempts to resolve these issues directly with Experian, the disputed items remain on my report, harming my credit profile and causing financial hardship. \n\nThe issues include : XXXX. Inaccurate Bankruptcy Reporting : Experian falsely claims verification of XXXX bankruptcies ( Reference Numbers : XXXX and XXXX ) through the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, despite written confirmation from the court that it does not report or verify data 2. Identity Theft-Related Fraudulent Accounts : Numerous fraudulent accounts opened in my name due to identity theft have not been removed, despite providing evidence such as an FTC Identity Theft Affidavit, a police report, and debt validation requests 3. Failure to Investigate or Verify : Experian relies on unverifiable data from third-party vendors and automated systems ( e.g., e-OSCAR ), rather than conducting a manual investigation as required by FCRA 1681i 4. Reporting Inconsistencies : Experians reporting fails to comply with Metro 2 standards, resulting in discrepancies in account balances, statuses, and dates Specific FCRA Violations : 1. FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy of reported information.\n\n2. FCRA 1681i ( a ) : Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information.\n\n3. FCRA 1681c : Reporting obsolete or inaccurate information.\n\n4. FCRA 1681n and 1681o : Willful and negligent non-compliance with investigation requirements.\n\nEvidence and Supporting Documents : 1. Proof of Identity Theft : FTC Identity Theft Affidavit ( Report # XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX ) Police report confirming theft of my wallet, fraudulent account openings, and unauthorized use of my credit cards. \nXXXX. Correspondence with Experian : Dispute letters requesting reinvestigation and proper validation of accounts, including detailed Method of Verification ( MOV ) requests Experians inadequate responses, which failed to provide detailed methods of verification 3. Debt Validation Letters : Letters sent to creditors XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, showing that other credit bureaus removed disputed accounts due to lack of verification 4. Fraudulent Accounts : Evidence of fraudulent accounts and their impact on my credit report, including discrepancies in account balances and statuses","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-27T20:46:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60653","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11791713","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-27T20:21:46.000Z","state":"IL","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":["XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX <em>Subject</em> : <em>Formal</em> Dispute of Inaccurate Information in My Credit Report Dear <em>Experian</em>, I am writing to <em>formally</em> dispute inaccurate and incomplete information on my credit report, which remains unresolved despite my previous attempts to address these errors. This letter serves as an official demand for correction, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and recent findings from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( <em>CFPB</em> )."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[18.064922,"11791713"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11842812","_score":15.2283125,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB has filed a lawsuit against Experian for major failure to uphold the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) laws by failing to properly conduct reinvestigations of disputed information in consumer credit files ; failing to delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverified information in consumer credit files ; failing to provide adequate written notice to consumers of the results of its reinvestigations ; failing to prevent the improper reinsertion of previously deleted information from consumer credit files ; and failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the credit information Experian reports on consumers. In addition, the complaint alleges that Experian committed unfair acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by ( 1 ) failing to convey consumers disputes to furnishers fully and accurately, and instead distorting, truncating, and mischaracterizing consumers disputes ; ( 2 ) relying excessively on furnishers to resolve disputes, routinely doing nothing more than sending the dispute to a furnisher and implementing the furnishers response, despite having evidence of that furnishers unreliability ; On XX/XX/XXXX I filed my own CFPB report to Experian for violations and illegal behavior under the FCRA with directives the inaccurate and unlawful information Experian has been reporting on my credit report. And exactly how the CFPB has alleged that Experian has failed to act and properly conduct their investigations correctly I am now a victim of this directly. Experian has failed to uphold the law, and if Experian fails to correct it's unlawful behavior I will be filing a pre-lawsuit and taking necessary steps legally to correct these inaccuracies and illegal behavior. \n\nI will provide here the inaccuracies and unlawful reporting on my credit report per individual law. \n\nUnder the definition provided in 15 U.S.C. 6809, a furnisher of information to credit agencies qualifies as a financial institution. According to 15 U.S.C. 1681, Section 604 ( a ) ( 2 ), it is explicitly stated that : \" In general, subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : in accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. '' As a financial institution, the furnisher of information to Experian, along with Experian itself, does not have my permission to furnish, collect, store, or distribute my consumer information. Furthermore, Experian does not have my written consent to do so. Therefore, I hereby revoke any and all consentwhether verbal, non-verbal, written, implied, or otherwisepreviously given to Experian or any furnisher of information reporting to Experian regarding the collection, use, or dissemination of my personal and financial data.\n\nAdditionally, under 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ) - ( c ), it is required that : \" A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless the consumer is provided with a clear explanation of how they can opt out of such disclosure. '' At no point was I informed by Experian or any furnisher of information of my right to opt out of such disclosure, which is a direct violation of this statutory requirement. Given Experian 's failure to provide proper notice and obtain my explicit authorization, I demand the immediate cessation of any further collection, reporting, or distribution of my consumer information.\n\nAdditionally, 15 USC 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) clearly states that 'Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may include in any consumer report any adverse information, other than records of convictions of crimes, which antedates the report by more than seven years. ' The account in question is an adverse item that is being reported without my permission, which is a clear violation of this statute. The continued reporting of this information is not only unauthorized but also illegal under federal law. According to 15 U.S. Code 1681a ( 2 ) Exclusions ( A ) ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; This clearly states that any credit report containing my transaction history is illegal. Which Experian are in violation of.\n\nAdditionally, 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) explicitly states : \" Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may include in any consumer report any adverse information, other than records of convictions of crimes, which antedates the report by more than seven years. '' The adverse accounts in question are being reported by Experian beyond the legally permissible timeframe and without my explicit consent, which constitutes a clear violation of this statute. The continued inclusion of this outdated and unauthorized information in my consumer report is not only improper but also illegal under federal law.\n\nFurthermore, 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) states : \" Report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report. '' This provision makes it clear that any credit report containing my personal transaction history is illegal. By continuing to collect, store, and distribute this information without my consent, Experian is in direct violation of this statutory exclusion.\n\nGiven these clear legal violations, I demand the immediate removal of this adverse information from my credit report and an official confirmation of compliance.\n\nAccording to 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. '' Additionally, 15 U.S. Code 1681e mandates : \" Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. '' Experian has failed to uphold these legal requirements by not implementing or maintaining reasonable procedures to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate information within my credit report. Their failure to ensure accuracy has resulted in direct harm to me.\n\nFurthermore, under 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance, the law states : \" 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 of ( 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}. '' Given that Experian has willfully violated federal law, I am entitled to full compensation for damages under 15 U.S. Code 1681n. This includes actual damages I have incurred as a result of Experian 's noncompliance, as well as statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation.\n\nI demand an immediate resolution, including the removal of any inaccurate, outdated, or improperly furnished information from my credit report and compensation for the damages I have sustained due to Experians willful violations of federal law.\n\nFurthermore, under 12 CFR 1016.7, it is clearly stated : \" A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. '' Therefore, I am formally opting out of Experians reporting services, as is my right under federal law. I hereby revoke any and all consentwhether verbal, non-verbal, written, implied, or otherwisepreviously given to Experian regarding the collection, storage, reporting, or dissemination of my consumer data.\n\nAdditionally, 15 U.S.C. 6805 establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) as the proper agency to enforce my rights, stating : \" Under subtitle E of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5561 et seq. ], by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, in the case of any financial institution and other covered person or service provider that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau and any person subject to this subchapter, but not with respect to the standards under section 6801 of this title. '' As Experian is subject to CFPB enforcement, I respectfully request that the CFPB enforce my rights and require Experian to fully comply with my opt-out request, remove my consumer information, and cease all unauthorized reporting.\n\nFurthermore, I demand that Experian be held accountable for violations of my rights, and I request that all applicable remedies and corrective actions be granted as outlined in the Fair Resolution page of this complaint.\n\nThank you. \n\nXXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-30T03:41:34.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20814","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11842812","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-30T03:15:41.000Z","state":"MD","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":["under section 6801 of this title. '' As <em>Experian</em> is <em>subject</em> to <em>CFPB</em> enforcement, I respectfully request that the <em>CFPB</em> enforce my rights and require <em>Experian</em> to fully comply with my opt-out request, remove my consumer information, and cease all unauthorized reporting."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[15.2283125,"11842812"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12954528","_score":9.68005,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nExperian Information Solutions , Inc. and XXXX XXXX, Defendants. \n\nCase No. _______ Complaint for Violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC Act Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise under federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( via 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( d ) ). The Court also has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for federal court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2. Supplemental/Additional Jurisdiction : To the extent any state law claims or regulatory violations are asserted or applicable ( including unfair/deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and parallel state laws ), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. ( Note : The primary causes of action are federal ; no diversity jurisdiction is required or asserted. ) 3. Venue : Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because the Plaintiff resides in Oregon, the harm to Plaintiffs credit and reputation occurred in Oregon, and Defendants conduct substantial business in Oregon. Defendants regularly sell products/reports and maintain data on Oregon consumers ( including Plaintiff ), and many of the acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District.\n\nParties 4. Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ) is a natural person and consumer residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OR XXXX. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ) ) and FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) ). Plaintiff has no significant personal debts or credit obligations currently in her name, as evidenced by public records ( see infra 15 ).\n\n5. Defendant Experian : Defendant Experian Information Solutions , Inc. ( Experian ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). Experian is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. Experian regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \nXXXX. Defendant XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties in Oregon. \n7. Agency Liability : At all relevant times, Defendants acted individually and through their agents, employees, and representatives, each of whom was acting within the scope of their employment and authority. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of such agents as described herein. \n\nFactual Background 8. Overview : This case arises from Defendants willful and reckless failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws in connection with inaccurate and unlawful information on Plaintiffs credit reports. In summary, Experian and XXXX have been reporting multiple erroneous accounts and a bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file that do not belong to her or are otherwise unverifiable. Despite repeated notices and disputes from Plaintiff including an official identity theft report and detailed dispute letters Defendants failed to reasonably reinvestigate the disputed information, refused to remove the unlawful entries, and continued reporting them, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants conduct violates the FCRAs requirements for accuracy and reinvestigation, the FDCPAs prohibitions on false debt information ( to the extent applicable ), and constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the FTC Act and CFPB regulations. \n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early XXXX, Plaintiff discovered that her Experian and XXXX credit reports contained several inaccurate derogatory entries, including five account tradelines and a purported bankruptcy that she did not authorize. These disputed items, which remain on her reports as of the date of filing this Complaint, are : XXXX  XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX  XXXX reported as a charge-off. No account number is listed on the credit report for this debt, and the account is unverified and inaccurately reported. This account had been subject to prior legal proceedings ( including a bankruptcy matter ), yet it is still being reported as an outstanding charge-off, which is misleading. \nXXXX  XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened ~XX/XX/XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account , also listed as a charge-off with no account number on the report. Like the above, this account is unverified, appears to have been included in past bankruptcy litigation, and is being illegally re-aged or misreported as a valid debt despite the absence of supporting information. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ( # XXXX ) : A mortgage tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an open date that is not verified. The reporting on this account contains fraudulent and deceptive inaccuracies for example, the accounts status and date of first delinquency are unconfirmed, and the information reported is inconsistent across Experian and XXXX. The furnisher XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX has provided no documentation ( such as an original promissory note or payment history ) to substantiate this debt, calling into question its validity. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account ( Opened XXXX XXXX ) : An auto finance account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misclassified on the credit reports as an auto lease when in fact it was a standard retail installment loan. This account is inaccurate and unverifiable ; the furnishing source has failed to verify its legitimacy. The misclassification and lack of verification render the reporting false and misleading. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account ( Opened ~XX/XX/XXXX ) : A second auto finance account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX similarly falsely reported as an auto lease instead of a loan. This tradeline is also inaccurate and unverified under FCRA guidelines, lacking proper documentation or proof that it belongs to Plaintiff or was reported correctly. \nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX bankruptcy at any time. There is no court case number or documentation provided with this entry. In fact, the federal PACER system ( Public Access to Court Electronic Records ) does not furnish bankruptcy data to credit bureaus ; therefore, the presence of this entry on Plaintiffs credit report is wholly unsupported and unlawful. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity or misattribution, yet Defendants have continued to report it without any proof of its authenticity. \n10. No Supporting Documentation : For each of the above-listed disputed accounts and the bankruptcy, Defendants have no legitimate proof or documentation demonstrating that the information is accurate or that the accounts actually belong to Plaintiff. Plaintiff owes no such debts. Notably, as of XX/XX/XXXX, a search of the Oregon Secretary of States UCC ( Uniform Commercial Code ) filings under Plaintiffs name yielded No file entries, indicating that Plaintiff has no recorded liens or personal debt obligations in the public record. This public record confirmation underscores that the accounts appearing on her credit reports are not valid debts of hers. Defendants have been reporting these items without any underlying contractual documents, account statements, judgments, or court records tying them to Plaintiff. \nXXXX. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, XXXX initiated disputes with Experian and XXXX to correct these egregious errors. XXXX prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both Experian and XXXX ( as well as to XXXX ) identifying each incorrect account and the bogus bankruptcy, and demanding their immediate deletion. In her dispute correspondence, Plaintiff cited the relevant provisions of federal law and highlighted the legal deficiencies of each reported item. For example, Plaintiffs letter ( a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ) explicitly noted that : ( a ) the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-offs were reported without the required creditor notice and appeared to involve misreported bankruptcy status ; ( b ) the accounts lacked a proper first date of delinquency, raising concerns of illegal re-aging ; ( c ) the XXXX accounts were mischaracterized in type ; and ( d ) the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX bankruptcy was not hers and could not be verified through any official source. Plaintiffs dispute letter put Defendants on clear notice that the information was inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally impermissible to report. Along with her dispute letter, Plaintiff provided supporting evidence, including an FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ) and proof of her identity and address, to facilitate the investigation. This Identity Theft Report, filed with the Federal Trade Commission, formally declared that fraudulent or erroneous accounts were being reported in Plaintiffs name. \n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, Experian and XXXX failed to perform a meaningful reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ). Instead of removing the plainly invalid accounts, Defendants continued reporting them with no changes. Upon information and belief, Defendants either ignored some of Plaintiffs dispute submissions or failed to forward all relevant information to the furnishers of the accounts, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). Notably, in subsequent communications, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any new information or documentation to substantiate the disputed items legitimacy. In fact, Experian and XXXX failed to even maintain the documents Plaintiff provided : at least one of the Defendants admitted to having lost Plaintiffs FTC Identity Theft Report that she had submitted, which made a proper reinvestigation impossible. By effectively conducting sham investigations or no real investigation at all, Defendants violated their reinvestigation duties under the FCRA. \n13. Failure to Mark or Notify ( FCRA & FDCPA Duties ) : In addition, Defendants did not properly mark the disputed accounts as disputed on Plaintiffs credit file during the investigation period, nor did they notify the furnishers of the disputes in a timely and effective manner. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) requires that when a consumer disputes information, the credit reporting agency must note that dispute in all subsequent consumer reports for that item until it is resolved. On information and belief, Experian and XXXX did not include a notice of dispute on at least some of the accounts when sharing Plaintiffs credit report with third parties, thereby misrepresenting the status of the debts. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants acted as agents of the furnishers or worked in concert with them, their continued reporting of these disputed debts without clarification or verification also constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), it is a deceptive practice for a debt collector to communicate credit information which is known ( or should be known ) to be false or disputed. By extension, Defendants actions in publishing disputed, false debts to others without indicating the disputes or ensuring accuracy are unfair and deceptive acts in connection with debt collection and credit reporting. \nXXXX. Willful Reporting of False Bankruptcy : The inclusion of the non-existent XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit reports is especially damaging and unlawful. Plaintiff has never filed for bankruptcy, and Defendants were so informed. This bankruptcy entry lacks any courthouse, case number, or filing date, yet Defendants treated it as a legitimate public record. Because XXXX and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts do not directly furnish data to consumer reporting agencies, Defendants have no permissible source to verify this entry. The presence of this false bankruptcy indicates a grave failure in Defendants procedureseither a case of mixed credit files ( attributing someone elses bankruptcy to Plaintiff ) or reliance on inaccurate third-party public record data. Either scenario reflects a willful failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy as required by FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Even after Plaintiffs disputes, Experian and XXXX did not remove the bankruptcy, demonstrating reckless disregard for truth. Reporting a derogatory public record without a permissible purpose or proper verification is a direct violation of FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) as well, because Defendants had no authorization or legitimate reason to be reporting a bankruptcy that was never filed by the consumer. \n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from Experian and XXXX directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against Experian and XXXX regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint XXXX ). The CFPB forwarded the complaint to the Defendants. In her CFPB complaint, Plaintiff reiterated the unlawful reporting and attached her prior dispute letter and evidence ( including the FTC Identity Theft Report # XXXX, her dispute letter, and the Oregon UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put Experian and XXXX on notice that federal regulators were now involved and that the companies were expected to comply with their legal obligations promptly. However, Defendants again failed to take corrective action within the required time frame. By a status update on XX/XX/XXXX, each Defendant provided only an interim response to the CFPB, indicating that they were still working on the issue. As of the date of this Complaint ( and well over 30 days since Plaintiffs disputes were initiated ), Defendants have not deleted the disputed accounts or the false bankruptcy from Plaintiffs credit files. The 30-day deadline for completing a reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) has passed with no resolution. Defendants failure to fully respond and correct the information within 30 days ( or even 45 days, if applicable ) constitutes another FCRA violation. Their pattern of delay and non-response demonstrates willful non-compliance and has prolonged Plaintiffs injuries. \nXXXX. Harm to XXXX : Defendants conduct has caused significant harm to Plaintiff. The continued presence of these false and derogatory items on her credit reports has severely damaged Plaintiffs credit score and reputation, leading to credit denials and other adverse actions. Plaintiff has been denied credit opportunities and has suffered XX/XX/XXXX, humiliation, and emotional distress from the ordeal of having her good name tarnished by incorrect information. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended time and resources in her efforts to correct these issues including drafting dispute letters, filing the CFPB complaint, conducting public record research, and now preparing this lawsuit all of which are a direct result of Defendants unlawful practices. Defendants willful refusal to comply with the law ( despite multiple notices ) demonstrates a blatant disregard for Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff therefore seeks statutory damages, actual damages ( for credit harm and emotional distress ), and punitive damages to punish and deter such conduct, as well as injunctive relief to prevent further recurrences. \n\nCauses of Action By reason of the facts aforesaid, Defendants Experian and XXXX have willfully ( and negligently in the alternative ) violated multiple provisions of law. Each of the following constitutes a separate count against one or both Defendants : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to conduct a proper investigation after receiving notice of dispute ( Defendants failed to ensure that furnishers investigated and corrected the disputed information, resulting in continued reporting of inaccurate data ). \nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 1 ) improper reporting of a XXXX bankruptcy ( Defendants reported a bankruptcy that was not filed by Plaintiff, which is obsolete or impermissible information under the FCRAs public record reporting standards ). \nFCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate / sham investigation of disputed information ( Defendants did not meaningfully reinvestigate Plaintiffs disputes within 30 days, failed to review all relevant information, and simply left the false information on the reports ). \nFCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer information without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and disseminating Plaintiffs credit information including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the information itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ). \nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable. Defendants conduct in reporting and attempting to collect ( through credit reporting mechanisms ) debts not owed by Plaintiff, and failing to note disputes, is unfair and deceptive. This includes, but is not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false or misleading representation of debts and credit information ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ). ( While Experian and XXXX are credit bureaus, their actions facilitated collection of invalid debts in a manner that violates the FDCPAs consumer protections. ) Unfair and Deceptive Practices ( FTC Act ) engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and equivalent CFPB regulations. Defendants willful misreporting of information and failure to correct known errors constitute unfair and deceptive practices affecting commerce. Federal regulators ( FTC/CFPB ) prohibit consumer reporting agencies from such conduct, and Defendants actions were in knowing disregard of these standards. \n\nEach of the above violations was committed willfully ( or at least negligently ), entitling Plaintiff to relief under FCRA 616 and 617 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ), FDCPA 813 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ), and other applicable provisions. \n\nDemand for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and grant the following relief against XXXX Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX : XXXX. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs Experian and XXXX XXXX files, and permanently prohibiting Defendants from reporting those accounts or any related information on Plaintiffs credit report without first obtaining competent verification that the information is accurate and truly pertains to Plaintiff. This includes, but is not limited to, deletion of the following entries : the XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX Financial Services accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), and the bogus XXXX bankruptcy record. \nXXXX. Statutory Damages : Award statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation for Defendants numerous willful violations of the FCRA and ( where applicable ) the FDCPA. Given the multiple unlawful accounts and acts involved, Plaintiff seeks an amount not less than {$6000.00} ( for the six disputed items/violations enumerated above ) per Defendant, or such greater amount as the evidence may show, as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ). \nXXXX. Actual Damages : Award actual damages according to proof at trial, for the financial harm and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered. This includes, inter alia, credit denials, increased costs of credit, lost opportunities, damage to reputation, and the stress, anxiety, and humiliation endured as a result of Defendants conduct. ( Actual damages are available under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and 1681n, and under 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) ).\n\n4. Punitive Damages : Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, to punish Defendants for their willful, egregious misconduct and to deter such conduct in the future ( pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 2 ) ). Defendants have shown reckless or knowing disregard for the law and for Plaintiffs rights, warranting an exemplary damages award.\n\n5. Attorneys Fees and Costs : Award Plaintiff her reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including court fees and ( if Plaintiff retains counsel ) attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 3 ). ( Plaintiff is currently self-represented ; however, she reserves the right to seek attorneys fees if she later retains counsel for this action or as otherwise allowable. ) 6. Further Relief : Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any declaratory relief or additional measures that may be needed to ensure Defendants compliance with the law and to fully vindicate Plaintiffs rights. This may include Court monitoring of Defendants credit reporting relating to Plaintiff and any other equitable relief within the Courts power. \n\nDated : XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nRespectfully","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:33:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12954528","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:33:19.000Z","state":"OR","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":["<em>CFPB</em> Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate <em>responses</em> from <em>Experian</em> and XXXX directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a <em>formal</em> complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( <em>CFPB</em> ) against <em>Experian</em> and XXXX regarding these unresolved disputes ( <em>CFPB</em> Complaint XXXX ). The <em>CFPB</em> forwarded the complaint to the Defendants."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[9.68005,"12954528"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858508","_score":7.5365424,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858508","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:57:33.000Z","state":"MN","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":["For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet <em>Experian</em> continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were <em>subject</em> to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet <em>Experian</em> did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness <em>Experian</em> had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[7.5365424,"12858508"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858504","_score":7.5365424,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858504","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:57:33.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet <em>Experian</em> continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were <em>subject</em> to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet <em>Experian</em> did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness <em>Experian</em> had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist."]},"sort":[7.5365424,"12858504"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12858035","_score":7.496787,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Demand Please take notice that I hereby demand the immediate deletion of multiple charged-off and late-payment accounts from my credit files. These accounts ( identified in detail below ) are inaccurately reported and unlawfully retained on my credit reports despite : Debt Cancellation : The debts were canceled/discharged, triggering IRS reporting of canceled debt as income ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ) and implicating IRS Publication 4681 on canceled debts. A canceled debt is no longer an enforceable obligation, and continuing to report it as owed is false. ( Indeed, IRS Pub. 4681 notes that a taxpayer may not have to include canceled debt in income under certain conditions underscoring that the debt is treated as extinguished. ) UCC Public Filings : I have filed and perfected UCC-1 Financing Statements ( Delaware Filing XXXX XXXX ; Minnesota Filing XXXX XXXX ) accompanied by executed security agreements. These filings are public records that put all parties on notice that the referenced debts have been secured and settled. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an account is defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation ( including credit card or loan receivables ). The above filings establish my secured interest and rights in these accounts, meaning any remaining debt obligations have been resolved via security interest or set-off. Continuing to report these accounts as delinquent ignores the UCC Article 9 rights and the fact that the obligations have been addressed.\n\nApostilled Documents : The relevant security agreements and affidavits have been apostilled pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention, confirming their authenticity as public documents internationally. This means the discharge of debt and transfer of rights in those accounts are not only recorded domestically but also recognized internationally. The Credit Bureaus have constructive and actual notice of these apostilled public filings, yet have failed to adjust my reports accordingly. \nPrior Disputes FCRA Non-Compliance : I have disputed these accounts, yet you have failed to investigate and correct the information as required. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are obligated to maintain maximum possible accuracy and to promptly delete or correct information that can not be verified or is inaccurate. However, the accounts remain, showing months of false derogatory information. This is a blatant violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ( b ). The FCRA and its implementing regulations also require furnishers and bureaus to ensure information reflects the true status of the debt. For example, CFPB regulations define accuracy to mean that furnished information correctly reflects liability and performance on the account Reporting a canceled or otherwise settled debt as a charge-off with a balance due is inaccurate by definition under these standards.\n\nDemand : I demand that each Credit Bureau delete the accounts listed below in full from my credit reports. Written confirmation of deletion and updated credit reports should be provided within 5 calendar days of your receipt of this letter ( note : FCRA also requires that upon deletion after a dispute, the consumer be notified and provided a copy of the updated report within 5 business daysFailure to comply will result in immediate legal action, regulatory complaints, and pursuit of all available remedies against you.\n\n________________________________________ 2. Legal Basis for Removal of These Accounts 2.1 Debt Cancellation IRS Treatment and Federal Law Under federal law, a debt that is canceled or forgiven is treated as income to the debtor, because it is no longer an obligation to repay ( 26 U.S.C. 61 ( a ) ( 12 ) ). I have received IRS Form 1099-C for the relevant accounts ( or the creditors were obligated to issue them ), meaning the creditors formally canceled the debts. Once a debt is canceled, the creditor writes off the debt, and the IRS considers it discharged. In fact, IRS Publication 4681 explicitly notes that a taxpayer may exclude canceled debt from income in cases of insolvency or other exceptions reinforcing that the debt itself has been extinguished.\n\nImplication : If a debt no longer exists for purposes of collection ( and is only an IRS reportable event ), it is patently inaccurate for the Credit Bureau to continue reporting the account as an outstanding balance, past-due, or charge-off. Doing so misrepresents the consumers obligations and creditworthiness. By reporting a canceled debt as a live delinquency, you are furnishing false credit information. This runs afoul of the FCRAs accuracy mandate and also potentially constitutes deceptive conduct, since the true status ( discharged debt ) is not reflected. It also may violate 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they know or have reason to know is inaccurate.\n\nFurthermore, federal regulations and banking guidelines require that creditors charge off delinquent accounts ( e.g. credit cards after 180 days of non-payment ) and cease treating them as assets. Once charged off, the debt is no longer carried on the creditors books, and if its also canceled ( with a 1099-C issued ), it is effectively resolved from a legal standpoint. Continuing to report such an account as if its an enforceable debt is not only inaccurate but also undermines the purpose of those regulations ( which is to accurately reflect when a debt is uncollectible ).\n\nIn summary, the presence of a 1099-C or charge-off on an account means the debt should not be reported as owed. I have included in prior disputes copies of relevant 1099-C forms and affidavits of debt cancellation. Your failure to remove these accounts despite evidence of cancellation is a willful violation of FCRAs requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy XXXX. \nXXXX UCC Financing Statements and Security Agreements I have taken the additional step of securing my rights through the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) filings mentioned above. These UCC-1 Financing Statements, filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State, give public notice of a security interest in the accounts/debts at issue. In the underlying security agreements ( duly executed and notarized ), the original creditors agreed ( by acquiescence or contract ) to transfer rights and title in the accounts to me, the secured party, as part of a settlement and discharge of the debt. These documents have been apostilled for authenticity under the Hague Convention of 1961, making them valid for recognition internationally.\n\nUnder UCC Article 9, an account is broadly defined as a right to payment of a monetary obligation, including those arising from loans or credit card transactions The debts being reported by your agency fall squarely within this definition. As the secured party of record on these accounts, I hold the senior rights to those obligations. In effect, the obligations have been assigned to me and discharged they are no longer owed by me to the original creditors. Therefore, from the perspective of any third-party ( including a CRA ), there is a XXXX balance and no delinquency the original creditor has been made whole or has relinquished its claim, and I, as the secured party, am not reporting any claim of delinquency on myself ( obviously ). \nYour reporting of these accounts as charge-offs or past-due ignores the UCC record and the reality that the debts have been settled via a security interest exchange. This not only violates FCRA ( by reporting fundamentally inaccurate account status ) but also interferes with my rights under UCC law. Minnesotas adoption of the UCC ( Minn. Stat. 336.9-101 et seq. ) and Delawares UCC provisions both dictate that a perfected security interest puts the world on notice of the secured partys rights. By continuing to report the debt as owed to the original creditor ( and in default ), you are publishing information that is inconsistent with public records and derogatory to the secured partys interest.\n\nI remind you that federal law ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) requires furnishers to update and correct information that is no longer accurate. Here, the furnishers ( original creditors ) have documentation of these UCC filings and should have instructed deletion ; if they failed to do so, both they and you are liable for willful FCRA violations.\n\nThe existence of a publicly filed UCC-1 Financing Statement is easily verifiable evidence that the debt status is disputed and transferred failing to consider or investigate that is a violation of your duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ).\n\n2.3 FCRA Violations by the Credit Bureaus and Furnishers The FCRA imposes strict duties on credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) like Experian, XXXX, and XXXX, as well as on the furnishers of information ( the creditors ). Your handling of these accounts breaches multiple FCRA provisions : Failure to Assure Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Every time you prepare a consumer report, you must have reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. Reporting a debt as outstanding when it was canceled ( or continuing to report a charge-off with a balance that was forgiven ) is not accurate, let alone maximally accurate. The law requires you to do more than simply parrot whatever a furnisher sent in the past you must ensure the info remains current and correct. Given the ample notices and disputes I provided, your procedures ( or lack thereof ) have clearly failed this standard. This is a textbook violation of 1681e ( b ).\n\nFailure to Reinvestigate and Delete ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : When I disputed these accounts, you were obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. If information is found inaccurate or can not be verified, you must delete it from the file. In my case, either the information was not verified ( e.g., the creditor failed to prove the debt was still owed, especially in light of a 1099-C or UCC filing ), or the reinvestigation was not reasonable. In fact, the continued presence of these accounts indicates you willfully ignored the evidence. Notably, 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) requires that disputed information that is inaccurate or unverifiable shall be promptly deleted from the credit file. Your refusal to delete is unlawful. Even worse, your own records ( as shown on my credit report ) indicate that some of these accounts were updated in response to my disputes rather than deleted an inadequate response since the only proper outcome was deletion, not an artificial update that left the derogatory mark in place.\n\nFurnisher Duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : After you received my dispute, you were required to notify the furnishers ( creditors ) within 5 business days ( which I believe you did ). Then each furnisher must investigate and report back to you the results, including correcting or deleting any information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the furnisher confirms the info is inaccurate or can not verify it, they must instruct you to modify, delete, or permanently block the information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ) .Either the furnishers failed to do their job or you failed to implement their instructions, but either scenario is a violation : furnishers are liable under 1681s-2 ( b ) and you, the CRA, are liable under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i. The law even provides a fee-shifting provision for consumers to sue on these violations, which I will utilize if needed.\n\nFailure to Mark Accounts as Disputed : Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), any information under dispute must be noted as disputed in a consumers file if it is not deleted. My credit reports did not consistently show a dispute notation on these accounts after my disputes ( some show generic comments, others do not ). This is another FCRA violation failing to flag a disputed debt can itself give rise to liability ( its seen as furnishing incomplete information, which courts have held as actionable ).\n\nContinuing to Report After Notice of Error : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) forbids a furnisher from reporting information after they have been notified of its inaccuracy, if it is in fact inaccurate. My disputes and provided documentation were such notice. Therefore, each month that the furnishers ( creditors ) allowed these tradelines to remain and update on my reports, they violated this section. While direct consumer enforcement of 1681s-2 ( a ) is limited ( primarily enforceable by regulators ), those violations underpin the willfulness of the 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i violations, strengthening my case for damages. Moreover, I reserve the right to report those furnishers to the CFPB and banking regulators for regulatory action.\n\nIn short, the FCRA has been violated on multiple counts. Your agencies have willfully reported inaccurate data and failed to correct it after disputes, and the furnishers have failed to conduct proper investigations or inform you of necessary deletions. The law provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance up to {$1000.00} in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages and punitive damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ). I have enumerated each month of false reporting as a separate violation below for damage calculation purposes.\n\n2.4 Violations of Minnesota Law and Federal Regulations Your conduct also implicates state law and other federal rules : Minnesota Statutes Chapter 47 : Minnesota law ( Chapter 47, Financial Corporations ) reflects a strong policy against false reporting by financial entities. For example, Minn. Stat. 47.26 makes it a felony for any officer or agent of a corporation to willfully violate the law and continue such violation for over 10 days. Reporting patently false credit information about a Minnesota consumer and stubbornly refusing to correct it after repeated notice ( for months on end ), could be construed as the type of willful, continued violation that the state considers criminal. Whether or not a prosecutor pursues such charges, this statute underscores the seriousness of your misconduct.\n\nAdditionally, to the extent the furnishers are financial institutions, providing false information to credit bureaus may violate Minnesotas banking laws ( Chapter XXXX ) and could invite action from the Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX. I will be forwarding a complaint to state authorities to review whether your actions constitute any breach of Minnesota law or regulations ( including but not limited to any unfair or deceptive practice statutes or regulations on reporting obligations ).\n\n12 C.F.R. CFPB Regulations ( Regulation V ) and OCC/FDIC Guidelines : Federal regulations require robust accuracy and integrity policies. The CFPBs Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 and Appendix E ) obligates furnishers to establish internal controls to ensure the accuracy and integrity of furnished information. The continued reporting of these discharged debts indicates a failure of those controls. It suggests that either the furnishers did not properly update the status to the CRAs, or the CRAs ignored or mishandled the updates. Either way, regulatory guidelines were broken. Moreover, banking regulators ( OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve ) have issued guidelines ( e.g. the Uniform Retail Credit Classification Policy ) requiring timely charge-off of delinquent debts ( generally at 180 days past due ) and cessation of accruing interest, etc. If after charge-off a bank chooses to cancel the debt ( often to claim a tax benefit or comply with XXXX rules ), that information must be accurately reflected. By failing to note the true status ( canceled ) on credit reports, the furnishers ( and you as their conduit ) are effectively publishing a false account of the banks own credit loss ( making it look as if the bank could still collect money which it has legally discharged ). This could even raise issues with 12 C.F.R. 621.5 ( for institutions governed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) which requires writing off uncollectible loans, or other agency-specific rules, by creating a discrepancy between the banks books and consumer credit reports.\n\n31 C.F.R. Treasury Regulations : Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Claims Collection Standards and other rules regarding debt collection. When a debt is conclusively deemed uncollectible ( as is the case with these accounts ), federal policy ( e.g. 31 C.F.R. 285 and 903 under the Debt Collection Improvement Act standards ) is to stop active collection and update records accordingly. In spirit, continuing to report a canceled debt as if owed is contrary to these federal standards. It also potentially mischaracterizes the debts legal status, which could be seen as an unfair collection practice if done to pressure payment on a nonexistent obligation. \nIn summary, your actions are not only violating the FCRA but also undermine state law protections and regulatory frameworks designed to ensure truthful credit reporting and financial transparency. I will not hesitate to invoke all relevant laws in a court of law to hold you accountable. \nXXXX Federal Securities Law Considerations ( Exchange Act of XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, and Experian ( through its parent company ) are publicly traded companies subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This means you file annual reports ( Form 10-K ) and other disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) , and you are required to disclose material legal proceedings and risks. By engaging in systemic FCRA violations and accruing significant potential liabilities to consumers like myself, you XXXX also be violating SEC disclosure requirements if you fail to adequately disclose these issues to your shareholders. \nNotably, in Equifaxs most recent Form 10-K, the company acknowledged that the number of consumer lawsuits alleging FCRA violations have increased substantially over the past several years. This indicates that these bureaus are aware of widespread non-compliance problems. TransUnions filings likewise disclosed that the CFPB issued a NORA ( Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ) letter alleging TransUnion violated FCRA dispute investigation requirements.\n\nSuch an allegation from the CFPB is serious ; if TransUnion ( or any bureau ) fails to correct known FCRA issues, it could lead to enforcement action or large fines clearly material information for investors.\n\nIf you continue to willfully flout the FCRA ( as in my case ) and do not disclose the scope of this non-compliance in your SEC filings, you could be engaging in securities fraud by omission. Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act prohibits making any untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading. By now, it is clear that your business faces material risks due to the way you handle consumer disputes and credit reporting accuracy ( the multitude of lawsuits and CFPB inquiries is evidence of that ). Should litigation arise from my case or others like it, or should regulatory fines hit, your investors would rightfully say : why wasnt this fully disclosed?\n\nI put this in my demand letter to underscore that your legal troubles do not exist in a vacuum they affect your duties to regulators beyond the CFPB. I fully intend to submit copies of my complaints and any eventual lawsuit to the SECs enforcement division, so they can evaluate whether you have properly disclosed the legal and compliance risks related to your credit reporting practices. Equifaxs 10-K even warns that the CFPB can seek penalties of up to {>= $1,000,000} per day for knowing violations of consumer finance laws. Consider this letter as notice that your FCRA violations are knowing and willful if you choose to ignore this and not remediate, any resulting penalties ( at potentially {$1.00} million per day per violation ) will be on your heads and will certainly interest your investors and the SEC.\n\nBottom line : It is in your own corporate and shareholder interest, as well as your legal obligation, to delete the inaccurate information immediately. Continuing to report false data not only harms me, but exposes you to mounting liability and regulatory risk, which you can avoid ( or limit ) by doing what the law requires correcting the information now.\n\n3. Inaccurate Accounts and Damage Calculations Below is a breakdown of each inaccurate account that remains on my credit reports, the period of wrongful reporting, and the statutory damages I will seek if this matter proceeds to litigation. Each month that an account was reported with false information after it should have been removed is counted as a separate FCRA violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n provides up to {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance ). I will also seek punitive damages and attorneys fees as allowed. The damages calculation here is an estimate of FCRA statutory damages alone, which will be adjusted as necessary.\n\n3.1 Experian Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts on my Experian credit file are inaccurately reported and must be deleted. Experian failed to remove these even after disputes, in violation of the FCRA. \nCreditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on Experian Inaccuracy Period Months of Violation Damages ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$5600.00} balance ( should be {$0.00} debt canceled ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 17 months {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$6100.00} balance, {$4000.00} past due ( debt canceled; balance should be {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off/collection ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX Bank Credit Card # XXXX Charged-Off, {$2300.00} balance ( debt canceled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off with balance ) 14 months {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Charged-Off Auto Loan, ~ {$40000.00} balance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX set-off should show paid as agreed or {$0.00} ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported monthly as charge-off ) 13 months {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Capital Auto Lease # XXXX Charged-Off, {$3800.00} past due ( lease contract terminated, balance not owed ) file- XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported as charge-off XXXX 3 months {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personal Loan # XXXX ( Opened XX/XX/XXXX ) Open, {$21000.00} balance, {$4200.00} past due ( inaccurate debt was subject to UCC lien, should not be reporting as past XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( reported XXXX days late continuously ) 6 months {$6000.00} Experian Total Statutory Damages : {$68000.00} for XXXX violation-months XXXX XXXX punitive damages for willful conduct. \nNotes : Each listed account should have been deleted entirely. For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet Experian continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were subject to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet Experian did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness Experian had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and Liability The following accounts remain on my XXXX credit report with similar inaccuracies ( it is expected TransUnions data mirrors Experians, as the furnishers provided the same false information to all bureaus ). XXXX has likewise failed to delete these entries after my disputes. \n( If account details differ slightly on XXXX, they will be identified by the creditor and account number. The same rationale from XXXX table applies. ) Creditor ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Bank ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$5600.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX Card ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$6100.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Bank # XXXX Charged-Off, balance {$2300.00} ( debt canceled ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Auto Loan # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX balance ( debt set-off ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 13 {$13000.00} Santander/Chrysler Cap Lease # XXXX Charged-Off Lease, ~ $ XXXX past XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX Federal XXXX Pers. Loan # XXXX Open, {$4200.00} past due ( should be {$0.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX was included in the same disputes and received the same evidence. It is equally liable for each month it continued reporting these accounts. Notably, TransUnions own records should reflect my disputes ( including any CFPB complaint I filed ). Its failure to correct or even mark the accounts as disputed demonstrates a reckless disregard of its duties. \nXXXX XXXX Accounts to Delete and XXXX The XXXX credit report also contains these erroneous accounts. XXXX liability is calculated similarly : XXXX ( Account ) Account XXXX. Status on XXXX Inaccuracy Period Months Damages ( @ $ XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$5600.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 17 {$17000.00} XXXX XXXX  ( Chase ) # XXXX Charged Off, {$6100.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$14000.00} XXXX XXXX  # XXXX Charged Off, {$2300.00} balance ( canceled debt ) XX/XX/XXXX Feb 2025 14 {$14000.00} XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charged-Off Auto, ~ $ XXXX balance ( set-off ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$13000.00} XXXX XXXX Lease # XXXX Charged-Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX past due ( not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$3000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Open, past due {$4200.00} ( inaccurate, not owed ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$67000.00} ( estimated ). \nNotes : XXXX has historically had issues with credit report accuracy ( as its risk disclosures concede and it appears the same pattern occurred here. All three bureaus are expected to coordinate deletion once one confirms an error, yet in my case none took proper action thus all three face parallel liability. \nXXXX XXXX ( All Bureaus ) : {$200000.00} in preliminary statutory damages ( Experian $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX + XXXX $ XXXX ), plus any actual damages to my credit and emotional distress ( to be determined ) and punitive damages for willful FCRA violations. These figures far exceed the threshold for federal litigation, and I will seek the maximum allowed, including possibly class-action remedies if applicable ( noting that the patterns here XXXX affect many consumers ). \nI highlight these amounts to make clear that ignoring my rightful demands could prove extremely costly to your companies. And these are per consumer ; regulators can and do seek even higher penalties ( as noted, CFPB can fine up to {$1.00} XXXX per day per violation, which could theoretically dwarf my private claim ). This is entirely avoidable if you simply do what the law requires now. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDemand for Immediate Action I hereby demand the following relief from each Credit Bureau, to be completed within XXXX calendar days of receipt of this letter : XXXX. Permanent Deletion of Listed Accounts : Remove in their entirety the above-referenced accounts from my credit file. This means deleting the trade line, not just changing the status to paid or disputed. The only acceptable outcome under law is deletion, given the circumstances ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ). No reinsertion is permitted unless verified by new certified information, and you must notify me if any reinsertion is attemp\n\nted ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ). However, since the facts show these accounts are not verifiable and not owed, they should not ever be reinserted.\n\n2. Written Confirmation : Provide written confirmation on your company letterhead that each disputed account has been deleted due to inaccuracies. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 8 ), you must send me notice of the results of my dispute and a copy of my revised credit report showing the deletions within 5 business days. I expect this confirmation by email and mail given the urgency.\n\n3. Cease Reporting to Others : Ensure that these accounts are deleted across all your reporting and no longer provided to any third parties. Additionally, notify any other consumer reporting agency to which you furnish data ( if any, such as secondary bureaus or resellers ) of the deletions, as required by law ( furnishers must update all CRAs, and CRAs should communicate results under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ). This includes updating any data you have shared with insurance scoring companies, tenant screening, or employment screening companies that might have obtained my report with these erroneous entries. \nXXXX. Damages and Compensation ( Reservation ) : While deletion is necessary, I also demand that you preserve all records related to these accounts and my disputes, as I am evaluating further legal action for the harm already caused. My XXXX XXXX and opportunities have suffered due to your reporting of false delinquencies ( for instance, I have been denied credit and faced higher interest rates, which are provable actual damages ). I XXXX seek monetary compensation in addition to the statutory damages outlined if we proceed to court. This letter is not an offer to settle my damages claim ; it is a demand for compliance. If you wish to discuss a broader settlement ( including monetary relief to avoid a lawsuit ), you XXXX contact me in writing with an offer after you have deleted the accounts and provided proof. \nXXXX. Refrain from Retaliation or Secondary Reporting : Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert these items or replace them with any coded notation that could indirectly harm my credit ( such as labeling them as consumer disagrees or some obscure code ). The only correct action is a clean deletion. Also, do not sell or transfer information about these disputed debts to any third-party debt XXXX or data aggregators if any such activity is detected, it will be met with additional legal action for breach of the FCRA and XXXX the FDCPA if applicable. \nResponse Deadline 5 Days : XXXX is of the essence. You have XXXX calendar days from receipt of this notice to complete the deletions and confirm in writing. This timeline is reasonable and in fact slightly more lenient than FCRAs own dispute timeline in cases where the information is obviously wrong or unverifiable. Given that you have had months of prior notice through my disputes, and that I have now provided a detailed legal rationale, you should need no additional time to investigate. Any delay beyond 5 days will be considered further willful non-compliance. If by the end of the XXXX day I do not have written confirmation of deletion from each of you, I will proceed with the following without further notice : File a lawsuit against each of you for violations of the FCRA ( and any other applicable laws, such as defamation and Minnesota state law ). I will seek the full $ XXXX in damages itemized above, plus attorneys fees and punitive damages. \nI will also seek injunctive relief as appropriate. Be advised that courts have awarded significant punitive damages in cases of willful FCRA violations where agencies ignored multiple dispute notices. Your conduct here is egregious and meets the standard for willfulness ( especially after this letter puts you on clear notice ). Each bureau will be sued in federal court ( with venue in my district ). \nFile regulatory complaints : I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, my states Attorney General, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and any other relevant oversight body. These complaints XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-07T18:58:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"55112","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12858035","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-07T18:45:23.000Z","state":"MN","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":["For example, the XXXX XXXX debt was canceled in XXXX, yet <em>Experian</em> continued to report it as a charge-off every month into XXXX. The XXXX XXXX accounts were <em>subject</em> to my XXXX agreement filings in XXXX, yet <em>Experian</em> did not remove them and even updated them as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, showing substantial delinquency. This demonstrates willfulness <em>Experian</em> had notice but chose to let the damaging, false information persist."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[7.496787,"12858035"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15309192","_score":5.2249794,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I am filing this formal complaint against [ XXXX  / Experian / XXXX  ] for their continued reporting of inaccurate, unverifiable, misleading, and duplicate information on my credit reports, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.\n\nDespite multiple disputes, these items remain on my reports without proper verification or correction. These entries have significantly damaged my credit score, hindered my ability to obtain housing and credit, and caused emotional and financial distress.\n\nIncorrect Addresses to Be Deleted XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : These addresses are not now, nor have they ever been, my legal residences. Their presence in my credit file is a direct violation of FCRA 1681e ( b ), which requires maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. I have never signed any contracts, utility bills, lease agreements, or other documents tying me to these addresses. Including them creates a false profile of my residence history, exposes me to identity theft, and makes it appear that I have lived in multiple locations tied to unrelated debts. This is particularly harmful when lenders use address history to assess stability. Under FCRA 1681i ( a ), you are required to investigate and remove unverifiable addresses within 30 days. \nXXXX XXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charge-off * * Issue : Reported as a charge-off with a {$610.00} balance ; unverifiable. \nLaw : FCRA 1681i, FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\nStory : I dispute the accuracy of this account because I have not been provided with a signed original agreement, complete account statements, or proof that the alleged debt is valid and collectible. The creditor has failed to validate the debt under FDCPA 809 ( b ), which requires a debt collector to provide verification of the debt upon request. Continuing to report this tradeline as charged-off without lawful proof is an act of negligence and reckless disregard for accuracy. This derogatory mark is damaging my credit score, causing credit denials, and subjecting me to financial hardship.\n\nXXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-off * * Issue : Balance of {$860.00} marked as charge-off without proof. \nLaw : FCRA 1681i ( a ), FDCPA 809 ( b ).\n\nStory : This account appears with a negative status despite my repeated requests for validation. The creditor has failed to produce documentation showing the chain of custody from original creditor to current furnisher. Without such proof, the tradeline is not legally reportable. Reporting this as a charge-off suggests I am unwilling to pay debts, which is inaccurate and defamatory when no proof exists. \nXXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-off * * Issue : {$0.00} balance but still marked charged-off. \nLaw : FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\nStory : A {$0.00} balance indicates payment or settlement ; however, retaining a charge-off status misrepresents the accounts true standing. This is a willful mischaracterization that unfairly impacts my creditworthiness. If the balance is XXXX, it must either be updated to Paid or deleted entirely. Anything else constitutes misleading reporting. \nXXXX Account # XXXX Charge-off * * Issue : No proof of delinquency or default. \nLaw : FCRA 1681i.\n\nStory : This account is reported as charged-off without providing a single piece of verified documentation. The creditor has not shown any evidence of a late payment history, default notices, or proof of assignment. Inaccurate negative information like this can lead to unjustified credit denials and is prohibited under federal law.\n\nXXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charge-off * * Issue : {$0.00} balance but derogatory status remains. \nLaw : FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\nStory : The creditors records contradict themselves by showing a XXXX balance yet maintaining a negative charge-off. This misrepresentation unfairly lowers my score and damages my credibility with lenders. The FCRA mandates removal of data that is inconsistent or unverifiable. \nXXXX XXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charge-off * * Issue : {$0.00} balance with derogatory status. \nLaw : FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\nStory : The reporting of this account is inconsistent with basic credit reporting accuracy standards. Keeping a negative mark after resolution is deceptive and has a chilling effect on my ability to access fair credit terms. \nXXXX Account # XXXX Late Payment XXXX XXXX  Issue : {$130000.00} balance with reported late payments ; accuracy disputed. \nLaw : FCRA 1681i, Higher Education Act protections.\n\nStory : This account shows late payments during periods where I was under approved deferment or forbearance status. Reporting lates during legally protected payment suspensions is prohibited. This not only misrepresents my payment history but also violates federal student loan servicing guidelines.\n\nXXXX Account # XXXX Late Payment Issue : {$9700.00} balance with lates ; unverifiable. \nLaw : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ).\n\nStory : The servicer has not provided accurate payment records showing the exact dates and reasons for each late mark. Without precise records, these derogatory entries are speculative and must be deleted.\n\nXXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issue : Duplicate/inconsistent reporting. \nLaw : FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\nStory : This appears to be a duplicate of the previous account, creating the false appearance of multiple defaults when only one exists. Duplicate reporting artificially inflates derogatory marks and must be corrected immediately.\n\nXXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issue : Inaccurate late payment report. \nLaw : FCRA 1681i.\n\nStory : No documentation has been provided showing when and how this late occurred. Reporting unverifiable lates damages my ability to secure housing, employment, and credit at fair rates. \nXXXX  Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Issue : {$0.00} balance with derogatory status. \nXXXX : FCRA XXXX ( b ). \nStory : This reporting is contradictory and misleading. If there is no outstanding balance, the account must be marked as Paid or removed entirely. Keeping a derogatory mark under these conditions is a willful violation of my rights.\n\nXXXX  Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Balance Owed : {$0.00} Charge-off Issue : This account is reported as a charge-off despite showing a XXXX balance. \nLaw : FCRA 607 ( b ) requires maximum possible accuracy in consumer reporting.\n\nStory : Reporting an account as charged-off when the balance is {$0.00} creates a false narrative about my credit history, implying there is an unresolved derogatory debt when there is none. I have never received any proof from the creditor that this account was lawfully charged-off. This inaccurate reporting is misleading to potential creditors and directly harms my ability to obtain credit, housing, or employment. Without concrete, original documentation proving the validity of this charge-off, this entry must be deleted immediately to comply with federal law. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance Owed : {$0.00} Charge-off Issue : Account shows derogatory status with no amount owed. \nLaw : FCRA 611 ( a ) requires deletion of unverifiable information upon dispute. \nStory : I have no recollection of entering into an agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX for the alleged debt in question. No creditor has provided an original signed contract, full account history, or payment records that validate this entry. The ongoing reporting of a charge-off for a debt that does not exist creates unnecessary harm to my financial reputation, prevents me from accessing fair credit opportunities, and misleads any lender who reviews my report. This is a clear violation of my rights and must be corrected. \nXXXX  Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance Owed : {$0.00} Charge-off Issue : Listed as charged-off without a balance owed. \nLaw : FCRA 602 ( a ) emphasizes that credit reports must be fair, accurate, and impartial.\n\nStory : This derogatory mark is damaging without a legal or financial basis. At no point have I received statements, contracts, or proof of default that would justify this reporting. The continued presence of such an entry creates a distorted picture of my creditworthiness, undermining my ability to rebuild credit and placing me in an unfair financial position. The law does not permit the retention of unverifiable or misleading data, and therefore this account must be removed immediately.\n\nXXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance Owed : {$0.00} Charge-off Issue : Incorrect and misleading reporting. \nLaw : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) prohibits furnishing information known to be inaccurate.\n\nStory : I have requested multiple times for validation of this debt and have received no proof of its legitimacy. Without an original creditors signed agreement, full payment history, and lawful charge-off notice, this entry violates my rights. The damage caused by such an error is not minor it directly affects my credit scores, increases interest rates, and restricts my access to fair lending. This account must be deleted unless fully validated. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance Owed : {$0.00} Charge-off Issue : Charge-off reported without a valid balance. \nLaw : FCRA 605 ( a ) forbids outdated or inaccurate information from remaining in a credit file.\n\nStory : I have never been given an opportunity to review or verify the accuracy of this account. Its continued presence is both unfair and unlawful, leading to unjust denials of credit and other financial opportunities. Without original supporting documents, this account should be removed immediately. \nXXXX  Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Balance Owed : {$590.00} Collection Issue : No legal proof of ownership of debt. \nLaw : FDCPA and FCRA both prohibit reporting unverifiable accounts.\n\n\nStory : This account was added to my credit report without any supporting evidence. I have never been contacted by the original creditor or provided with statements or contracts proving the debt is mine. Without verification, the law requires that it be removed.\n\nXXXX  XXXX Bankruptcy Reference # XXXX Court U.S. Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Issue : Discharged debts still showing derogatory statuses. \nLaw : U.S. Bankruptcy Code 524 prohibits post-discharge derogatory reporting. \nStory : After my XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy was discharged, all included debts should have been updated to show XXXX balances and no derogatory status. Instead, several creditors continue to report these debts in violation of my bankruptcy protections and the FCRA. This is illegal and must be corrected immediately. \nHard Inquiries ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Issue : Multiple unauthorized credit inquiries. \nLaw : FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 2 ) prohibits inquiries without permissible purpose.\n\nStory : Many of these inquiries occurred without my consent or application for credit, suggesting that my credit file may have been accessed improperly. Unauthorized inquiries lower my credit score and can indicate potential identity theft. All unauthorized inquiries must be removed immediately to restore the accuracy of my file.\n\nHarm Caused : These inaccuracies have caused multiple credit denials, increased interest rates, and emotional distress. They have impacted my ability to secure stable housing, obtain fair credit terms, and maintain financial stability. The continued presence of these unverifiable and inaccurate items is unlawful and violates my rights under federal law. \nRequested Resolution : Conduct a full and independent investigation into each disputed account.\n\nProvide me with copies of all original documents, contracts, and account statements used to verify these debts. \nDelete any item that can not be verified in full compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA. \nRemove all unauthorized hard inquiries. \nUpdate all bankruptcy-related accounts to show Discharged in Bankruptcy with XXXX balances. \nPlease ensure that your response includes proof of each investigation and the steps taken to correct my credit reports.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-15T20:51:38.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"72204","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15309192","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-15T20:49:24.000Z","state":"AR","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":["Dear <em>CFPB</em>, I am filing this <em>formal</em> complaint against [ XXXX  / <em>Experian</em> / XXXX  ] for their continued reporting of inaccurate, unverifiable, misleading, and duplicate information on my credit reports, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.\n\nDespite multiple disputes, these items remain on my reports without proper verification or correction."],"company":["<em>Experian</em> Information Solutions Inc."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the <em>CFPB</em> and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[5.2249794,"15309192"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":11,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":11}]}},"product":{"doc_count":11,"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}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":11,"issue":{"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":7,"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":6},{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":11,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":11}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":11,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":9},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":11,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":11}]}},"company":{"doc_count":11,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":9},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":11,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MN","doc_count":3},{"key":"AR","doc_count":1},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":11,"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":10}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":11,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_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":{}}}