{"took":324,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":26,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18341072","_score":24.183794,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint regarding multiple inaccurate and misleading accounts currently appearing on my EXPERIAN credit report. Despite my good-faith efforts to dispute these errors, the information continues to be reported in a manner that is incomplete, unverifiable, and inconsistent with governing credit reporting standards. These inaccuracies are materially harmful and negatively affect my creditworthiness, constituting violations of U.S. FEDERAL LAW, THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ( FCRA ), and CALIFORNIA STATE LAW.\n\nUnder the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ( 15 U.S.C. 1681E ( B ), 1681I, AND 1681S-2 ), consumer reporting agencies and furnishers are required to ensure MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ACCURACY, conduct REASONABLE REINVESTIGATIONS, and report only information that is COMPLETE, ACCURATE, AND VERIFIABLE. Additionally, the CONSUMER DATA INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ( CDIA ) METRO 2 REPORTING GUIDELINES mandate uniform and accurate reporting of account statuses, payment histories, and charge-off classifications. The continued reporting of inaccurate late payments and charge-offs demonstrates a clear failure to comply with these federally mandated duties. \n\nThe accounts in dispute include XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Each of these accounts contains inaccurately reported late payments or charge-off statuses that can not be substantiated with competent evidence. As such, these entries fail to meet the verification standards required under the FCRA and METRO 2 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS.\n\nFurthermore, these reporting failures constitute violations of CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, including the CALIFORNIA CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES ACT ( CCCRAA ), CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1785.11, 1785.14, AND 1785.25 ( A ), which prohibit the reporting of information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or not corrected after notice of dispute. California law imposes heightened duties on both furnishers and consumer reporting agencies to promptly delete or correct unverifiable or misleading information. \n\nThe continued publication of these inaccuracies by EXPERIAN and the above-named furnishers, despite proper notice of dispute, reflects systemic noncompliance with U.S. FEDERAL LAW, THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, and INDUSTRY REPORTING STANDARDS. I hereby demand an immediate and thorough reinvestigation of all disputed accounts and the deletion or correction of any information that can not be verified as accurate and complete. Failure to comply may result in further regulatory complaints and pursuit of all available legal remedies.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-29T15:25:53.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91737","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18341072","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-29T15:14:36.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As such, these entries fail to meet the verification standards required <em>under</em> the FCRA and METRO 2 <em>COMPLIANCE</em> REQUIREMENTS.\n\nFurthermore, these reporting <em>failures</em> constitute violations of <em>CALIFORNIA</em> STATE LAW, including the <em>CALIFORNIA</em> CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES ACT ( CCCRAA ), <em>CALIFORNIA</em> CIVIL CODE 1785.11, 1785.14, AND 1785.25 ( A ), which prohibit the reporting of information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or not corrected after notice of dispute."]},"sort":[24.183794,"18341072"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10267498","_score":23.711288,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to address a blatant violation regarding the unauthorized reporting of information to my credit report, as confirmed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) under Sections 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ), 1681c ( a ) ( 2 ), and 1681s-2 ( a ), and California identity theft and fraud laws, specifically California Civil Code Section 1798.92 and related statutes. \n\nIt has unequivocally come to my attention that MCM COLLECTIONS/ MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, MI XXXX has engaged in unauthorized reporting to my credit report without obtaining my explicit consent. Federal law, as outlined in the FCRA, explicitly mandates that the consent of the consumer is a non-negotiable requirement for such reporting activities under Section 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ). \n\nIn addition to federal law, California state law emphasizes the necessity of consumer consent for credit reporting. California Civil Code Section 1798.92 establishes clear guidelines for the protection of personal information and the severe consequences of identity theft and fraud. \n\nI assert with unwavering certainty that I have not provided consent for MCM COLLECTIONS/ MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, to report any information to my credit report. This undeniable lack of explicit permission constitutes a blatant violation of my rights, resulting in potential damage to my creditworthiness and an unequivocal disregard for federal and state laws. \n\nI demand, with the utmost certainty, that MCM COLLECTIONS/ MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, immediately ceases any further reporting of information to my credit report without obtaining my explicit consent, as mandated by Section 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA and California Civil Code Section 1798.92. Failure to comply within the stipulated XXXX timeframe will be viewed as willful noncompliance, subject to penalties under applicable laws, including identity fraud laws. \n\nI emphasize that obtaining consent is not a discretionary choice but a legal obligation under these specific sections of the FCRA and California state law. This is not a negotiation ; it is a demand for compliance with both federal and state regulations, protecting consumers like myself from unauthorized and damaging credit reporting. \n\nI anticipate your immediate attention to this matter and expect that MCM COLLECTIONS/ MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, will promptly rectify these egregious violations, respecting my rights under federal and state laws. \n\nDone in good faith.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-27T18:27:39.000Z","issue":"Communication tactics","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"92704","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10267498","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2024-09-27T18:13:30.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is not a negotiation ; it is a demand for <em>compliance</em> with <em>both</em> <em>federal</em> and state regulations, protecting consumers like myself from unauthorized and damaging credit reporting. \n\nI anticipate your immediate attention to this matter and expect that MCM COLLECTIONS/ MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, will promptly rectify these egregious violations, respecting my rights <em>under</em> <em>federal</em> and state laws. \n\nDone in good faith."]},"sort":[23.711288,"10267498"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8274060","_score":23.53738,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Unauthorized Credit Reporting and Demand for Resolution Reference to California FCRA Identity Theft Fraud Laws Dear WELLS FARGO, I am writing to bring to your attention a serious violation concerning the unauthorized reporting of information to my credit report, as per the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) under Sections 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ), 1681c ( a ) ( 2 ), and 1681s-2 ( a ), California Civil Code Sections 1785.11 ( a ) and 1785.25 ( a ), and identity theft fraud laws, specifically California Penal Code Section 530.5. \n\nIt has come to my unequivocal attention that WELLS FARGO has engaged in unauthorized reporting to my credit report without securing my explicit consent. Federal law, as delineated in the FCRA, explicitly mandates that consumer consent is an absolute requirement for such reporting activities under Section 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ).\n\nIn addition to federal law, California state law, specifically California Civil Code Section 1785.11 ( a ), emphasizes the necessity of consumer consent for credit reporting. Furthermore, Section 1785.25 ( a ) of the California Civil Code establishes clear guidelines for the fair reporting of consumer credit information. Simultaneously, identity theft fraud laws, such as California Penal Code Section 530.5, underscore the seriousness of unauthorized access and misuse of personal information.\n\nI assert with unwavering certainty that I have not provided consent for WELLS FARGO to report any information to my credit report. This lack of explicit permission constitutes a clear violation of my rights, potentially causing damage to my creditworthiness, and a disregard for federal and state laws.\n\nI demand, with utmost certainty, that WELLS FARGO immediately ceases any further reporting of information to my credit report without obtaining my explicit consent, as mandated by Section 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA and California Civil Code Sections 1785.11 ( a ) and 1785.25 ( a ). Failure to comply within the stipulated 30-day timeframe will be considered willful noncompliance, subject to penalties under applicable laws, including identity theft fraud laws. \n\nI emphasize that obtaining consent is not a discretionary choice but a legal obligation under these specific sections of the FCRA, California state law, and identity theft fraud laws. This is not a negotiation ; it is a demand for compliance with both federal and state regulations, protecting consumers like myself from unauthorized and damaging credit reporting. \n\nI anticipate your immediate attention to this matter and expect that WELLS FARGO will promptly rectify these egregious violations, respecting my rights under federal and state laws. \n\nDone in good faith.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T18:23:57.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90026","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8274060","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-02-02T18:18:23.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I emphasize that obtaining consent is not a discretionary choice but a legal obligation <em>under</em> these specific sections of the FCRA, <em>California</em> state law, and identity theft fraud laws. This is not a negotiation ; it is a demand for <em>compliance</em> with <em>both</em> <em>federal</em> and state regulations, protecting consumers like myself from unauthorized and damaging credit reporting."]},"sort":[23.53738,"8274060"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9982653","_score":22.019049,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Urgent Request for Removal of Fraudulent Accounts Identity Theft** Dear Affirm Inc . Compliance Officer, I hope this correspondence finds you in good order. I am writing to bring your immediate attention to a series of egregious identity theft incidents resulting in the unauthorized establishment of accounts in my name, which have appeared on my consumer credit report. These fraudulent accounts include : 1. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> 2. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> 3. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> 4. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> Each of these accounts was fraudulently opened without my knowledge or consent, and as such, they are in direct violation of both state and federal law. Please be advised that I have attached an FTC Identity Theft Affidavit, along with the necessary supporting documents, to substantiate my claim of identity theft. \n\n**Legal Obligation and Duty of Data Furnishers** As you are undoubtedly aware, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ), data furnishers such as Affirm Inc. are legally mandated to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information reported to credit bureaus. Your failure to comply with this statutory duty by continuing to report these fraudulent accounts as legitimate constitutes a clear violation of this law.\n\nMoreover, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1022.42, data furnishers are required to conduct a thorough and reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of a consumer dispute regarding information furnished to consumer reporting agencies. I expect nothing short of full compliance with these legal obligations, including the complete removal of these fraudulent accounts from all credit reporting agencies.\n\n**California Law and Consumer Protection** In addition to federal statutes, California 's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ) ( Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25 ) also imposes strict guidelines on furnishers of information, prohibiting the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information. Given that I am a resident of California, your obligations under these laws are equally binding. The willful failure to correct erroneous credit information can lead to substantial penalties, as prescribed by both the FCRA and the CCRAA, including civil liability for damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ), attorneys ' fees, and statutory penalties.\n\n**Consequences of Non-Compliance** I must remind you that under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o, your failure to conduct a prompt and adequate investigation or to take corrective action within the statutory timeframe will expose Affirm Inc. to severe legal penalties. This includes actual damages, punitive damages, and any related court costs and attorneys ' fees, should this matter escalate.\n\nFurthermore, under Californias laws ( Cal. Civ. Code 1785.31 ), your continued non-compliance could lead to punitive damages up to {$5000.00} for each violation, which, given the number of fraudulent accounts in question, may accumulate significant financial exposure.\n\n**Immediate Action Required** In light of the aforementioned laws, I demand that Affirm Inc. immediately : 1. Cease reporting these fraudulent accounts to all consumer reporting agencies.\n\n2. Conduct an in-depth investigation to ensure that no further inaccuracies or fraudulent activity is associated with my personal information. \n3. Provide written confirmation of the actions taken to rectify this issue, along with a detailed explanation of the investigation 's outcome.\n\nFailure to act within the prescribed legal timeframes will compel me to take all necessary legal actions to protect my rights, including but not limited to filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and pursuing civil litigation.\n\nI trust that Affirm Inc. will act swiftly to rectify this matter and uphold its responsibilities under the law. I expect confirmation of the removal of these accounts no later than 30 days from the receipt of this correspondence. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-01T20:36:35.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"937XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9982653","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2024-09-01T20:15:07.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I expect nothing short of full <em>compliance</em> with these legal obligations, including the complete removal of these fraudulent accounts from all credit reporting agencies.\n\n**<em>California</em> Law and Consumer Protection** In addition to <em>federal</em> statutes, <em>California</em> 's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ) ( Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25 ) also imposes strict <em>guidelines</em> on furnishers of information, prohibiting the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information."]},"sort":[22.019049,"9982653"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9982622","_score":21.982674,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Urgent Request for Removal of Fraudulent Accounts Identity Theft** Dear XXXX  XXXX. Compliance Officer, I hope this correspondence finds you in good order. I am writing to bring your immediate attention to a series of egregious identity theft incidents resulting in the unauthorized establishment of accounts in my name, which have appeared on my consumer credit report. These fraudulent accounts include : 1. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> 2. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> 3. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> 4. Account XXXX : XXXX, opened XX/XX/year> Each of these accounts was fraudulently opened without my knowledge or consent, and as such, they are in direct violation of both state and federal law. Please be advised that I have attached an FTC Identity Theft Affidavit, along with the necessary supporting documents, to substantiate my claim of identity theft. \n\n**Legal Obligation and Duty of Data Furnishers** As you are undoubtedly aware, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ), data furnishers such as Affirm Inc. are legally mandated to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information reported to credit bureaus. Your failure to comply with this statutory duty by continuing to report these fraudulent accounts as legitimate constitutes a clear violation of this law.\n\nMoreover, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1022.42, data furnishers are required to conduct a thorough and reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of a consumer dispute regarding information furnished to consumer reporting agencies. I expect nothing short of full compliance with these legal obligations, including the complete removal of these fraudulent accounts from all credit reporting agencies.\n\n**California Law and Consumer Protection** In addition to federal statutes, California 's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ) ( Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25 ) also imposes strict guidelines on furnishers of information, prohibiting the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information. Given that I am a resident of California, your obligations under these laws are equally binding. The willful failure to correct erroneous credit information can lead to substantial penalties, as prescribed by both the FCRA and the CCRAA, including civil liability for damages ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ), attorneys ' fees, and statutory penalties.\n\n**Consequences of Non-Compliance** I must remind you that under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o, your failure to conduct a prompt and adequate investigation or to take corrective action within the statutory timeframe will expose XXXX XXXX to severe legal penalties. This includes actual damages, punitive damages, and any related court costs and attorneys ' fees, should this matter escalate. \n\nFurthermore, under Californias laws ( Cal. Civ. Code 1785.31 ), your continued non-compliance could lead to punitive damages up to {$5000.00} for each violation, which, given the number of fraudulent accounts in question, may accumulate significant financial exposure.\n\n**Immediate Action Required** In light of the aforementioned laws, I demand that XXXX XXXX immediately : 1. Cease reporting these fraudulent accounts to all consumer reporting agencies. \n2. Conduct an in-depth investigation to ensure that no further inaccuracies or fraudulent activity is associated with my personal information.\n\n3. Provide written confirmation of the actions taken to rectify this issue, along with a detailed explanation of the investigation 's outcome. \n\nFailure to act within the prescribed legal timeframes will compel me to take all necessary legal actions to protect my rights, including but not limited to filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and pursuing civil litigation. \n\nI trust that XXXX XXXX will act swiftly to rectify this matter and uphold its responsibilities under the law. I expect confirmation of the removal of these accounts no later than 30 days from the receipt of this correspondence. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-01T20:36:44.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"937XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9982622","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-09-01T20:36:42.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I expect nothing short of full <em>compliance</em> with these legal obligations, including the complete removal of these fraudulent accounts from all credit reporting agencies.\n\n**<em>California</em> Law and Consumer Protection** In addition to <em>federal</em> statutes, <em>California</em> 's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ) ( Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25 ) also imposes strict <em>guidelines</em> on furnishers of information, prohibiting the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information."]},"sort":[21.982674,"9982622"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8695336","_score":21.701393,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint against Citibank regarding their handling of a debt collection matter, which I believe constitutes a violation of consumer protection laws at both the federal and state levels. \n\nI was served with a lawsuit initiated by Citibank alleging non-payment of a debt related to a credit card account. The debt in question originated from a credit card issued by Citibank, Upon reviewing the original credit card agreement provided by Citibank, I discovered a binding arbitration clause, which states : This arbitration clause is significant as it establishes the agreed-upon method for resolving disputes related to the credit card account. It specifies that disputes must be resolved through binding arbitration, replacing the right to go to court, have a jury trial, or initiate or participate in a class action. Furthermore, it outlines the procedures, limitations, and requirements for arbitration, emphasizing arbitration as the primary mechanism for dispute resolution. \n\nCitibank 's decision to pursue litigation in court instead of adhering to the arbitration provision outlined in the credit card agreement constitutes a breach of contract. Their failure to abide by the terms of the arbitration clause violates the contractual agreement entered with me. \n\nFurthermore, Citibank 's actions have several legal consequences : Enforcement of Arbitration Clause : I request that the CFPB take appropriate action to ensure that Citibank complies with the arbitration provision and dismisses the court case. Citibank should be compelled to resolve disputes through arbitration as outlined in the contract. \n\nFederal Arbitration Act ( FAA ) : The FAA governs the enforcement of arbitration agreements in contracts involving interstate commerce. Under the FAA, arbitration agreements are generally favored and must be enforced according to their terms. Citibank 's failure to abide by the arbitration provision is a violation of the FAA since it acted contrary to the agreement 's requirements.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Regulations : Citibank 's actions are against the guidelines and regulations established by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). One area of focus for the CFPB is ensuring fair and transparent practices in consumer financial products and services. This includes scrutinizing the use of arbitration agreements and dispute resolution processes by financial institutions like Citibank.\n\nIn the case of Citibank 's failure to comply with the arbitration clause in the credit card agreement, the CFPB should investigate whether Citibank 's actions align with its guidelines and regulations. This could involve assessing whether Citibank 's handling of the dispute resolution process adequately protects consumers ' rights and ensures fair treatment.\n\nSanctions or Penalties : Parties who disregard arbitration agreements or engage in litigation in violation of contractual provisions should face appropriate sanctions or penalties. I urge the CFPB to investigate this matter thoroughly and consider imposing sanctions against Citibank if it is found to have violated the arbitration clause.\n\nIn addition to federal law, Citibank 's actions have violated California consumer protection laws, including but not limited to : Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ) : Citibank 's disregard for the arbitration provision violates California 's UCL because its unfair and deceptive.\n\nCalifornia Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( CLRA ) : Citibank 's actions violate CLRA rules. In the context of Citibank 's actions, Citibank 's disregard for the arbitration provision constitutes an unfair and deceptive business practice, Citibank 's failure to comply with the arbitration clause is deceptive and unfair behavior under the CLRA, as it may mislead consumers about their rights and options for dispute resolution.\n\nContract Law : Citibank 's failure to comply with the arbitration clause may constitute a breach of contract under California law. In the case of Citibank 's failure to comply with the arbitration clause in the credit card agreement, it constitutes a breach of contract under California law. The arbitration clause represents a material term of the contract, establishing the agreed-upon method for resolving disputes between Citibank and the cardholder. When Citibank initiated litigation in court instead of adhering to the arbitration provision, it disregarded a fundamental aspect of the contract. By failing to fulfill their obligation to resolve disputes through arbitration as outlined in the agreement, Citibank breached the terms of the contract.\n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB investigate Citibank 's practices in this matter and take appropriate enforcement action to ensure compliance with federal and state consumer protection laws. Additionally, I seek guidance on the appropriate steps to resolve this dispute and protect my rights as a consumer.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and assistance in addressing this issue. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-04T18:54:56.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"945XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8695336","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2024-04-04T18:43:18.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In the context of Citibank 's actions, Citibank 's disregard for the arbitration provision constitutes an unfair and deceptive business practice, Citibank 's <em>failure</em> to comply with the arbitration clause is deceptive and unfair behavior <em>under</em> the CLRA, as it may mislead consumers about their rights and options for dispute resolution.\n\nContract Law : Citibank 's <em>failure</em> to comply with the arbitration clause may constitute a breach of contract <em>under</em> <em>California</em> law."]},"sort":[21.701393,"8695336"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17113423","_score":21.679579,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  False Reporting, Metro-2 Violations A collection account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to both Experian and XXXX  in XXXX with a rental application. I was denied the rental unit and later received a full refund of my deposit, confirming that no debt ever existed and no outstanding balance was owed. \nDespite the refund and confirmation that the matter was resolved, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reported a balance and continued collection reporting. I disputed this account with both consumer reporting agencies under FCRA 611, requesting debt validation and review for Metro-2 accuracy and CDIA compliance . \n\nStill Experian nor XXXX  provided legally sufficient validation the debt nor a proper Method of Verification as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). And the account remains despite being unverified.\n\nKey Issues : No legally valid debt deposit refunded Collection continued after account was resolved Failure to provide proof of the alleged debt Failure to provide method of verification Metro-2 data reporting conflicts Metro-2 Compliance Failures Observed The tradeline reporting appears non-compliant with Metro-2 standards, including : No supporting documentation for the alleged obligation Conflicting dates ( DOFD, date of last activity, placement ) Incorrect status codes and dispute handling Balance reporting after confirmed deposit refund Missing or inaccurate Metro-2 base segment data fields Failure to furnish accurate dispute codes per CDIA guidelines Federal & State Law Concerns These actions appear to violate : FCRA 611 failure to conduct proper reinvestigation FCRA 623 inaccurate reporting after notice FCRA 607 ( b ) duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy FDCPA 809 ( b ) continued collection without validation California Civil Code 1788.17 unfair collection practices Consumer Harm Experienced : Due to the inaccurate and unverified reporting, I suffered : Negative credit score impact Loss of housing opportunity Emotional distress and financial inconvenience Requested CFPB Action","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-08T19:42:15.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"949XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17113423","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-08T19:04:51.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["reporting after confirmed deposit refund Missing or inaccurate Metro-2 base segment data fields <em>Failure</em> to furnish accurate dispute codes per CDIA <em>guidelines</em> <em>Federal</em> & State Law Concerns These actions appear to violate : FCRA 611 <em>failure</em> to conduct proper reinvestigation FCRA 623 inaccurate reporting after notice FCRA 607 ( b ) duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy FDCPA 809 ( b ) continued collection without validation <em>California</em> Civil Code 1788.17 unfair collection practices Consumer Harm Experienced"]},"sort":[21.679579,"17113423"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17113233","_score":21.64485,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unverified Collection, False Reporting, Metro-2 Violations A collection account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to both XXXX  and TransUnion in XXXX with a rental application. I was denied the rental unit and later received a full refund of my deposit, confirming that no debt ever existed and no outstanding balance was owed. Despite the refund and confirmation that the matter was resolved, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reported a balance and continued collection reporting. I disputed this account with both consumer reporting agencies under FCRA XXXX, requesting debt validation and review for XXXX accuracy and CDIA compliance XXXX Still XXXX  nor TransUnion provided legally sufficient validation the debt nor a proper Method of Verification as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). And the account remains despite being unverified. Key Issues : No legally valid debt deposit refunded Collection continued after account was resolved Failure to provide proof of the alleged debt Failure to provide method of verification Metro-2 data reporting conflicts Metro-2 Compliance Failures Observed The tradeline reporting appears non-compliant with Metro-2 standards, including : No supporting documentation for the alleged obligation Conflicting dates ( DOFD, date of last activity, placement ) Incorrect status codes and dispute handling Balance reporting after confirmed deposit refund Missing or inaccurate Metro-2 base segment data fields Failure to furnish accurate dispute codes per CDIA guidelines Federal & State Law Concerns These actions appear to violate : FCRA 611 failure to conduct proper reinvestigation FCRA 623 inaccurate reporting after notice FCRA 607 ( b ) duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy FDCPA 809 ( b ) continued collection without validation California Civil Code 1788.17 unfair collection practices Consumer Harm Experienced : Due to the inaccurate and unverified reporting, I suffered : Negative credit score impact Loss of housing opportunity Emotional distress and financial inconvenience Requested CFPB Action","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-08T19:45:43.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"949XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17113233","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-08T19:42:31.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["reporting after confirmed deposit refund Missing or inaccurate Metro-2 base segment data fields <em>Failure</em> to furnish accurate dispute codes per CDIA <em>guidelines</em> <em>Federal</em> & State Law Concerns These actions appear to violate : FCRA 611 <em>failure</em> to conduct proper reinvestigation FCRA 623 inaccurate reporting after notice FCRA 607 ( b ) duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy FDCPA 809 ( b ) continued collection without validation <em>California</em> Civil Code 1788.17 unfair collection practices Consumer Harm Experienced"]},"sort":[21.64485,"17113233"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13180470","_score":19.729092,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> To : AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  RE : FORMAL LEMON LAW & CREDIT REPORTING DISPUTE XXXX XXXX XXXX LANE ASSIST MALFUNCTION ) DEMAND FOR REMEDY WITHIN 30 DAYS To Whom It May Concern : This letter serves as formal notification and demand under the XXXX  Lemon Law ( XXXX Consumer Warranty Act XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), as well as a dispute notice under XXXX XXXX Compliance and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681, regarding serious and ongoing defects with my XXXX XXXXXXXX vehicle, which you currently finance. \nDespite this being a new model-year vehicle, I have experienced persistent and unresolved issues with the lane assist system, which has malfunctioned repeatedly since delivery. This defect directly compromises the safety, usability, and reliability of the vehicle. \nFurthermore, I was charged a down payment, which is now part of a financial agreement that you service. Due to the manufacturers failure to provide a functional, defect-free vehicle, that payment and any associated interest is under dispute. I am asserting my rights under both California law and federal credit reporting law. \n\nYOU ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING : The vehicle qualifies as a \" lemon '' under XXXX XXXX as it has undergone repair attempts for the same issue without resolution, or remains substantially impaired in safety and function. \n\n\nAs a financial creditor, you are now on notice of this breach, and your obligation to cease collection and report accurately applies under both XXXX XXXX Compliance guidelines and the FCRA. \n\n\nIf this matter is not resolved within XXXX calendar days from the date of this notice, I will pursue a full legal remedy, including : Demand for a complete buyback of the vehicle under XXXX Lemon Law ; Full refund of the down payment, interest charges, taxes, and fees ; Correction and deletion of any credit reporting associated with this disputed transaction ; Filing formal complaints with the California Attorney General, CFPB, and FTC ; Legal action against American Honda Finance Corp. for violations of the FCRA, if inaccurate or incomplete credit reporting is found. \n\n\n\nSETTLEMENT DEMAND : I am open to a mutually acceptable resolution, including : A full buyback of the vehicle ; {$43000.00} Immediate termination of financing obligations ; Return of all payments made, including the unjust down payment ; {$1500.00} Complete removal or update of any credit trade lines related to this transaction. \n\n\nFailure to settle or respond appropriately within 30 days will result in immediate escalation through legal counsel and regulatory channels. I recommend this be handled by your XXXX resolution team or legal department without delay. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-25T20:49:46.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"94565","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13180470","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP","date_received":"2025-04-25T20:35:47.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a financial creditor, you are now on notice of this breach, and your obligation to cease collection and report accurately applies <em>under</em> <em>both</em> XXXX XXXX <em>Compliance</em> <em>guidelines</em> and the FCRA."]},"sort":[19.729092,"13180470"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13322642","_score":19.642845,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear : CFPB Between XX/XX/year>, and XX/XX/year>, I received repeated notifications from Equifax stating that they could not locate my consumer credit file, despite my submission of the proper identifying information. During this same period, an unauthorized XXXX XXXX XXXX ( ending in XXXX ) continued to be reported on my consumer credit report without my consent or valid verification. \n\nThis XXXX XXXX XXXX  was previously disputed through the CFPB XXXX under Complaint Reference Number XXXX on XX/XX/year>. Despite that dispute, no proper verification was ever provided by XXXX XXXX, and Equifax has continued to report this account in violation of both federal and state consumer protection laws. \n\nXXXX XXXX has failed to provide any legally sufficient documentation ( such as a signed application, original contract, or proof of ownership or debt obligation ). Equifax, in turn, has failed its duty under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to : conduct a proper reinvestigation ( FCRA 1681i ), provide me a full and accurate copy of my consumer credit file ( FCRA 1681g ), and ensure furnishers respond properly ( FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ). \n\nFurthermore, Equifax and XXXX XXXX have failed to follow XXXX XXXX and XXXX  compliance procedures. Specifically, the disputed XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX was not properly marked with the required Compliance Condition Code XB, which indicates that the account is under active dispute. This is required under XXXX XXXX Guidelines and is a vital protection for consumers during investigations. If the account was instead marked with XC or XH prematurely indicating the dispute was completed or the data remains unchanged that would be an improper and deceptive practice in violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). \n\nThe continued use of stall tactics and the failure to provide me a consumer report, while simultaneously maintaining derogatory, unverified data, shows a pattern of noncompliance with XXXX XXXX standards, negligence in dispute handling via XXXX, and likely violations of CFPB UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) standards. \n\nAdditionally, under California Civil Code 1785.10 and 1785.25, I have a right to accurate, verified credit information and timely correction of errors. Equifax and XXXX XXXX have ignored these obligations. \n\nAs a Secured Party Creditor under U.C.C. 1-308 and 9-102, I reserve all rights, and I do not authorize the unauthorized securitization, reporting, or commercialization of my personal credit estate without proper consent or compensation. \n\nSummary of Violations : FCRA 1681i Failure to reinvestigate consumer dispute FCRA 1681g Failure to provide full consumer file FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) Failure of furnisher to respond properly XXXX XXXX XXXX Account not marked with XB or incorrectly marked XC or XH during open dispute e-OSCAR Violation Mishandling or neglect of dispute resolution through ACDV process CFPA / UDAAP Engaging in deceptive, misleading conduct harming consumer rights California Civil Code 1785.10 & 1785.25 State-level reporting accuracy and dispute handling violations U.C.C. 1-308 and 9-102 Commercial liability and estate protection as Secured Party Creditor","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-04T01:59:35.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93534","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13322642","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-04T01:34:43.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Specifically, the disputed XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX was not properly marked with the required <em>Compliance</em> Condition Code XB, which indicates that the account is <em>under</em> active dispute. This is required <em>under</em> XXXX XXXX <em>Guidelines</em> and is a vital protection for consumers during investigations. If the account was instead marked with XC or XH prematurely indicating the dispute was completed or the data remains unchanged that would be an improper and deceptive practice in violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b )."]},"sort":[19.642845,"13322642"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14797329","_score":16.901669,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To : Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Date : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Subject : Formal Dispute and Debt Validation Demand First Federal Credit Collection {$610.00} Dear Equifax Dispute Department, I am formally disputing the collection account listed below that is currently reporting on my Equifax credit file : Creditor Name : First Federal Credit Account Balance : {$610.00} I do not recognize this account, and I dispute its accuracy, origin, and legal basis to appear on my consumer report. This account is causing undue damage to my credit profile and is in direct violation of numerous federal consumer protection laws, including but not limited to the following : Legal Basis for Removal : 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) ( FDCPA ) : I hereby demand a cease in collection communications, including through the credit reporting system, until this account is fully validated.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) : I request debt validation as required by the FDCPA. Until the collector provides proper documentation, they are barred from continued collection, including reporting.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681b ( FCRA ) : The reporting of this debt without permissible purpose violates my right to privacy under federal law.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681o & 1681n : Knowingly reporting inaccurate or unverifiable data is a willful violation, subject to statutory damages, attorneys fees, and punitive damages.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1666b ( Fair Credit Billing Act ) : If finance charges or fees were assessed, I demand a full breakdown and proof of compliance with billing regulations.\n\n12 CFR 1026.13 : This requires timely correction of billing errors and immediate notice to the consumer of resolution.\n\nRegulation F ( 12 CFR 1006.34 ) : The debt collector must provide a validation notice disclosing the name of the creditor, itemization of the debt, and explanation of consumer rights.\n\nDebt Validation Letter ( Embedded Within Dispute ) To Whom It May Concern : This is a formal request for debt validation made in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Please provide the following documents for the XXXX XXXX XXXX collection account listed above : The complete chain of title including the original creditor 's name, account number, and balance. \nA copy of the signed assignment contract between XXXX XXXX XXXX and any third-party collection agency reporting this debt. \nThe Forward Flow Agreement, if applicable, showing transfer of servicing or ownership. \nA complete payment and charge-off history, showing how the alleged amount of {$610.00} was derived. \nProof that you are licensed and authorized to collect debts in the state of California, with your NMLS or state registration number. \nA copy of the contract, note, or application allegedly bearing my signature, linking me to this debt. \nUnless you can fully verify this account with the documents requested above, you are legally required to delete it from my credit report under both FCRA and FDCPA guidelines. \nNext Steps In accordance with FCRA 1681i, Equifax has 30 days to complete a reasonable reinvestigation. If the account is found to be unverifiable, inaccurate, or incomplete, it must be permanently deleted from my file. \nFailure to act in compliance will result in formal complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. I reserve the right to seek civil damages in federal court for willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1692k. \nI respectfully request written confirmation once this matter has been fully investigated and the account has been deleted from my credit report. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-22T22:21:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"435XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14797329","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-22T22:05:14.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Failure</em> to act in <em>compliance</em> will result in formal complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), <em>Federal</em> Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the <em>California</em> Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. I reserve the right to seek civil damages in <em>federal</em> court for willful noncompliance <em>under</em> 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1692k. \nI respectfully request written confirmation once this matter has been fully investigated and the account has been deleted from my credit report."]},"sort":[16.901669,"14797329"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8350205","_score":15.755407,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, California XXXX Dear MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, I am writing to address your [ letter or phone call ] dated XX/XX/2023, a copy of which is enclosed, as I contest the validity of the asserted debt. \n\nThis marks the initiation of communication on this matter, and pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically under section 809 - Validating Debts, I insist on a comprehensive written response providing the following information : 1. A detailed breakdown of the alleged debt and its origin ; 2. A clear and transparent exposition of the calculations leading to the purported amount owed ; 3. Provision of all documentation demonstrating my agreement to the indebtedness ; 4. Identification of the original creditor in question ; 5. Verification or furnishment of any judgment pertaining to this matter ( if applicable ) ; 6. Presentation of evidence of your licensing in accordance with the laws of my state, along with relevant license numbers ( if applicable ).\n\nI am acutely aware of my rights under both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It is imperative that you understand : Any imposition of interest or fees is permissible only as stipulated in the original contract and state legislation.\n\nYour obligation to respond to this dispute is limited to declaring your intent to either cease collection efforts or pursue lawful avenues for debt recovery.\n\nPursuing a judgment without adequately validating the debt will be contested in a legal forum, and non-compliance with FDCPA guidelines will be brought to the courts attention.\n\nI explicitly communicate my decision to record all telephonic conversations, preserve all correspondence, and promptly report any violations to the State Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nGiven that I have formally disputed this debt, any reporting to credit-reporting agencies must reflect its disputed status. Failure to adhere to this requirement violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681s-2.\n\nIn the event that you do not hold the rights to collect this debt, I demand immediate transmission of this dispute letter to the original creditor for their awareness.\n\nConcluding, pursuant to section 805 ( c ) - Ceasing Collections, of the Fair Debt Collection Act, I assert my right to be contacted solely via official mail. Any correspondence should be limited to notification of the termination of debt collection efforts or specific actions permitted by law. \n\nYour adherence to these directives is expected, and I anticipate your prompt and thorough response to this dispute. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-16T06:00:27.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"33169","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8350205","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2024-02-16T05:53:53.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Pursuing a judgment without adequately validating the debt will be contested in a legal forum, and non-<em>compliance</em> with FDCPA <em>guidelines</em> will be brought to the courts attention."]},"sort":[15.755407,"8350205"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11335025","_score":14.742505,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, D.C. XXXX Subject : Follow-Up Complaint Against Equifax Regarding Credit Report Errors Dear CFPB, I am writing this second letter to follow up on a prior complaint I submitted regarding Equifax and its handling of inaccurate accounts on my credit report. My initial complaint explicitly requested the immediate removal or deletion of all negative accounts that have been repeatedly disputed. And have returned verified and accurate. This very moment Equafax initiated two diputes and have falsly and fraudulently reported statements such as \" This account is being disputes by the consumer \" doing this is reporting more inaccurate information on my credit report because I have already disputed this these accounts and it has returned acurate and verified, NO this nonsence must stop and it must stop right now Iwrote a COMPLAINT to the CFPB ABOUT THE CRA VIOLATING MY CONSUMER RIGHTS AND TO DEMAND THEY DELETE THESE ACCOUNTS THAT ARE VIOLATING MY CONSUMER RIGHTS ALREADY MORE THEN ONE DISPUTE THIS OR THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE ALREADY RETURNED VERIFIED AND ACCURATE AND NOW EQUAFAX IS COMMITING FRUAD ON MY REPORT BY REPORTING ON MY REPORT A INACURATE STATEMENT THAT I AM CURRENTLY DISPUTING THE ACCOUNTS AGAIN THAT IS A LIE! THIS IS NOT A DISPUTE IT IS A COMPLAINT! Equifax has had ample time, as provided by the law, to reinvestigate these disputes. This current correspondence is not a dispute but a formal complaint, as Equifax has clearly violated my rights as a consumer. \n\nInstead of addressing my complaint, Equifax responded by initiating disputes on the accounts in question. This is not the purpose of a complaint, and such a response is both inappropriate and dismissive of my original concerns. Their actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for their obligations under the law, specifically the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nAs a result of Equifax 's failure to accurately report or properly investigate my disputes, I have been denied credit sixteen times over the past year. This is unacceptable and a direct consequence of Equifax 's continued negligence. The law is explicit : credit reports must be accurate, and if a reinvestigation does not resolve inaccuracies, the erroneous accounts must be removed from the report. \n\nI have already disputed these accounts with the credit agency Im writing a complaint against equafax because I fully intend on suing this reporting agency because it continues to violate my rights as a consumer should it not delete these items that have already been disputed this is not and I repeat that this is not a dispute letter equafax is already in violation and I don't want these accounts that have already been verified by this criminal greedy company equafax reporting these accounts that have already violated my rights! \n\n\nEquifax 's conduct mirrors that of organized criminal behavior, as it disregards clear legal standards set forth to protect consumers.In the state of California and under federal law, my rights as a consumer have been violated. I demand that Equifax immediately remove the accounts in question. The time for reinvestigation has already passed, and further delays or inaction will result in legal action against Equifax for its non-compliance. \n\nFor your reference, I have included the following laws and their associated penalties : XXXX. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) - Section 611 - This section mandates that credit reporting agencies conduct a proper investigation of disputed information within 30 days. If the information can not be verified, it must be deleted or corrected. \n- Penalties for non-compliance include damages, attorneys fees, and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n.\n\n2. California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ) - The CCRAA requires consumer reporting agencies to ensure the accuracy of their reports and provide consumers with remedies for violations. \n- Penalties include statutory damages, attorney 's fees, and potential civil liability. \n\n\nYes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) contains a provision that addresses this issue. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ), if a credit reporting agency fails to verify the accuracy of disputed information during a reinvestigation, the information must be corrected or deleted. Equafax has done neither corrected nor deleated the account disputes several times returning verified and accurate every time. Now Equafax must delete or get sued. The specific language of the law states : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Treatment of Inaccurate or Unverifiable Information \" ( A ) In general If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph ( 1 ) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall ( i ) promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation; and ( ii ) promptly notify the furnisher of that information that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer. '' And its this point where the CRA 's try to spin things ; This is a complaint to the CFPB I made this specifically to report that Equafax had violated my rights as a consumer. \nEquafax is reporting inaccurate accounts on my credit report that the creditors that I am asking to purchase things that I need to live and servive. \nI am being denied credit as a result. \n\nI have disputed several times already accounts that are incomplete, inaccurate, and unverifiable. \n\nThese dispute keep returning verified and accurate. \nA reinvestigation should have already have happened after a second dispute was launched on the same account but that did not happen either. \nWell what about the third time a dispute had been launched, no, no investigation, no reinvestigation, nothing. \n\nSo now I file a complaint with the CFPB about equafax and how they disregarded my disputing an account over and over and over again but no matter what verified and accurate. \n\nEquafax sees this as if it's a dispute launches an investigation into these accounts on my report and places a fraudulent and inaccurate statement on my report stating that the consumer had launched the investigation when that is not a true statement. \n\nI am writing a complaint to the CFPB and in THAT COMPLAINT I am demanding for a deletion of the accounts that are inaccurate being reported as verified and accurate to my creditors. \n\nI NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DISPUTING. \n\nI NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT REINVESTIGATION.\n\nYOUVE ALREADY CAUSED ME HARM. \n\nI HAVE THE RECIEPTS IN THE FORM OF DENIAL LETTERS. \n\nYOU MUST DELETE BECAUSE THE LAW YOU ARE NOT ABOVE SAYS SO CLEARLY. \n\nTHIS IS NOT FUNNY AND IT IS NOT A JOKE. \nTHIS IS MY LIFE THAT YOUR MESSING WITH. \n\nThese accounts where marked verified and accurate but never modified and that is why they must be deleted! \n\n\n\nThe requirement for credit reporting agencies to ensure accurate reporting is found in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), codified in 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). The specific language of the law is as follows : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy of Report \" Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. '' This provision requires credit reporting agencies to implement and maintain procedures to ensure that the information they provide in consumer reports is as accurate as possible. \n\nIf a consumer disputes inaccurate information, additional protections under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) mandate that the agency investigate and correct the information.\n\nIn summary : If the information is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable after a reinvestigation, it must be deleted If the agency re-verifies the information but it is still inaccurate, this could constitute a violation of the FCRA.\n\n****** There are two accounts equafax has pulled into a dispute that is incorrectly marked that costumer has disputed this account. That is a dishonest statement for i have already disputed the two accounts and both have returned as varified and accurate. At that time equafax had violated my rights and as a result of that violation i demand that the accounts be deleted from my report. Equafax may not redispute these accounts at my request because i sent a complaint into the CFPB and not a dispute. \n\nAgain I'm writing a complaint against the agency Equafax for violating my rights and demanding that they remove these accounts that have already been disputed already returned varified and accurate but are not accurate. \n\nThat violated my consumer rights. \nThey must not reinvestigate but delete these accounts. \nIf they do not delete these accounts I will sue, and then sue again!\n\nYou may use this provision to argue that the agency is obligated to remove the inaccurate information if it can not properly verify its accuracy. \n\n\n\nI expect the CFPB to hold Equifax accountable for their violations and ensure that my credit report is corrected immediately. If Equifax continues to disregard my rights, I will pursue legal action to enforce compliance with the law. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Equifax Violations Consumer Protection Laws in California Failure to Provide Accurate Credit Reports : Equifax has been cited for reporting outdated or incorrect information, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act 's requirement for accuracy in consumer reports. \nSource : Fair Credit Reporting Act Overview Failure to Investigate Disputes : Equifax has failed to properly investigate disputes raised by consumers, as required by both the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California 's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. \nSource : Fair Credit Reporting Act Overview Privacy Violations : Mishandling of personal information and failure to adequately protect consumer data are recurring issues, violating both the CCPA and the FCRA. \nSource : Common Violations of the FCRA These violations highlight Equifax 's shortcomings in complying with both federal and state consumer protection laws. \n\n\n\n\n... ... ... ... Relevant Laws Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Violations : Failure to Correct Inaccurate Information : Credit reporting agencies must investigate disputed information and correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable items within 30 days. \n\nFailure to Provide Notice of Negative Information : Creditors are obligated to notify consumers when reporting negative information to credit reporting agencies. \n\nImproper Dispute Procedures : Agencies must ensure disputes are processed properly and fairly, including verifying disputed data with furnishers or removing unverifiable items. \nSource : Most Common Violations of the FCRA California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) : Violating Consumer Privacy Rights : Companies must provide clear notice about the data they collect, how it will be used, and obtain proper consent. Failure to do so can result in significant penalties. \n\nConsumer Rights to Data Control : The CCPA grants Californians the right to access, delete, and opt-out of the sale of their personal data. Violations include failing to honor these requests or not providing consumers with accessible methods to exercise their rights. \nSource : California Consumer Privacy Act Overview This section provides a concise summary of key laws that protect consumers and hold credit reporting agencies accountable. \n\n\nThe Importance of Consumer Protection Laws Consumer protection laws are critical to safeguarding individuals ' rights and promoting accountability in business practices, especially in the financial sector. Credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) have a pivotal role in managing and sharing credit information, making adherence to these laws essential. Failures in compliance by CRAs can lead to devastating consequences for consumers, including financial hardship and reputational harm. \n\nThe Purpose of Consumer Protection Laws These laws aim to : Ensure Fair Treatment : Protecting consumers from discriminatory or unjust practices in their interactions with businesses. \n\nPromote Transparency : Enforcing the provision of accurate and complete information, empowering consumers to make sound decisions. \n\nPrevent Fraud : Establishing strict guidelines to combat deceptive or predatory practices. \n\nProtect Privacy : Securing personal data and ensuring its responsible use and management. \n\n\nBy addressing these objectives, consumer protection laws create a more equitable environment for individuals in their financial dealings. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Broader Importance of Credit Reporting Agencies Credit reporting agencies are integral to the financial ecosystem. They not only facilitate individual credit decisions but also support larger economic functions : Economic Stability : By providing lenders with detailed credit histories, CRAs help mitigate risks of lending, contributing to financial system stability. \nConsumer Empowerment : Reliable credit reporting allows consumers to access loans, mortgages, and other financial products tailored to their creditworthiness.\n\nInfluence on Policy and Lending Trends : The aggregated data from CRAs often informs regulatory policies and industry lending standards. \nReal-World Failures of Credit Reporting Agencies The failures of credit reporting agencies have led to widespread consequences. Consider the following examples : Inaccurate Reporting : A XXXX study found that 34 % of consumers discovered at least one error in their credit report that could negatively affect their credit score. Such inaccuracies can prevent individuals from securing loans or result in higher interest rates. \nNegligent Investigations : According to a CFPB report, over 50 % of consumers who filed disputes with CRAs felt that their issues were inadequately addressed, leaving critical errors unresolved. \nPrivacy Breaches : The XXXX Equifax data breach exposed the personal information of over XXXX XXXX individuals, including Social Security numbers, birth dates, and addresses, leading to widespread identity theft and fraud. \nAddressing the Failures : Potential Solutions To mitigate these challenges and ensure CRAs fulfill their responsibilities, the following measures can be considered : Enhanced Data Accuracy : CRAs should implement stricter data verification processes before reporting information. \nRegular audits and data validation checks can reduce the prevalence of errors. \nStronger Consumer Dispute Mechanisms : Agencies must streamline the dispute process, ensuring faster and more transparent resolutions. \nCollaboration with third-party mediators could provide impartial assessments of disputes. \nRegulatory Oversight : Errors in credit reports are alarmingly common. A Federal Trade Commission study found that XXXX in XXXX consumers had an error on their report that could affect their credit score. \nConsequences include denied credit applications, inflated interest rates, and missed opportunities for financial growth. \nNegligent Investigations Many consumers report dissatisfaction with how CRAs handle disputes. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), over 50 % of complaints are inadequately resolved, leaving errors uncorrected. \nThese unresolved issues perpetuate financial harm and undermine trust. \n\nPublic education campaigns should inform individuals of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \nProviding consumers with tools for regular credit monitoring can help them detect and correct errors early. \nBy implementing these measures, credit reporting agencies can regain public trust.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-31T23:22:09.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90026","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11335025","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-31T22:29:20.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Equifax 's conduct mirrors that of organized criminal behavior, as it disregards clear legal standards set forth to protect consumers.In the state of <em>California</em> and <em>under</em> <em>federal</em> law, my rights as a consumer have been violated. I demand that Equifax immediately remove the accounts in question. The time for reinvestigation has already passed, and further delays or inaction will result in legal action against Equifax for its non-<em>compliance</em>."]},"sort":[14.742505,"11335025"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16845093","_score":13.923629,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Experian XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX TransUnion Consumer Solutions XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, PA XXXX Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX RE : Formal Dispute and Demand for Immediate Deletion of Inaccurate Information Reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Under Investigation for Fraud, Misconduct, and Failure to Implement Department of Education-Ordered Loan Discharges.\n\nTo Whom It May Concern : I am writing to formally dispute inaccurate, fraudulent, and legally non-compliant information appearing on my consumer credit report ( s ) as furnished by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Missouri ( XXXX ). This letter serves as my official notice under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., demanding the immediate investigation and permanent deletion of all disputed items reported by XXXX, a loan servicer currently under investigation by multiple state attorneys general, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), and facing multiple federal lawsuits for systematic fraud, misconduct, and failure to implement U.S. Department of Education-ordered loan discharges. \n\nCRITICAL NOTICE : XXXX FRAUD AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISCHARGE ORDERS As a borrower directly harmed by XXXX 's documented fraud and systematic misconduct, and pursuant to XXXX Department of Education discharge determinations, I am entitled to be relieved of any further obligation to repay these student loans. XXXX has systematically failed to implement loan discharges ordered by the Department of Education, continued to demand payment on discharged loans, and continued reporting these discharged debts to credit reporting agencies as current obligations. This constitutes fraud, willful FCRA violations, and actionable misconduct causing severe financial harm to millions of student loan borrowers, including myself. \nXXXX XXXX 's Documented Fraud, Systematic Misconduct, and Ongoing Federal Investigations XXXX is currently under investigation by multiple federal and state authorities for widespread fraud and misconduct that has financially harmed millions of student loan borrowers. The following documented evidence establishes XXXX 's pattern of fraudulent and deceptive practices : A. Active Federal Lawsuits and Legal Actions : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Filed by the AFT, represented by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, this groundbreaking federal lawsuit alleges that XXXX illegally overcharged borrowers on monthly bills, failed to timely process critical paperwork, actively misled borrowers about repayment options and loan forgiveness programs, and implemented a systematic 'call deflection scheme ' that made it impossible for XXXX XXXX borrowers to obtain assistance. The lawsuit exposes XXXX to billions of dollars in potential liability. \nXXXX. XXXX v. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : California student borrowers filed federal lawsuit alleging XXXX failed to implement Department of Education-ordered student loan discharges, continued demanding payment on discharged loans, and continued reporting discharged debts to credit agencies as current obligations. The XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX XXXX California denied XXXX 's attempts to dismiss the case twice ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ), with the court stating that XXXX would be an affront to the dignity of California if an entity like XXXX were permitted to avoid suit in California based on alleged commercial misconduct towards California residents. ' This case directly parallels my situation as an affected borrower whose loans should have been discharged.\n\nB. Multi-State Attorney General Investigations and Federal Enforcement : Multiple State Investigations ( XXXX ) : Multiple state attorneys general initiated confidential investigations into XXXX beginning XXXX late XXXX, focusing on XXXX 's XXXX in calculating monthly payments, billing customers incorrectly, failing to process paperwork, and other systematic misconduct that turned costly for borrowers. \nCongressional Investigations : XXXX. Senators XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX have led multiple XXXX investigations and hearings exposing XXXX 's systematic failures. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX investigators revealed that XXXX 's failure to provide advance notice of loan transfers contributed to nearly XXXX XXXX credit reporting errors. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX led a hearing specifically on XXXX 's failures during return to repayment and mismanagement of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX program. \nDepartment of Education XXXX Actions : In XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of Education withheld {$7.00} XXXX in payment to XXXX as punishment for failing to send bills to XXXX XXXX borrowers, causing XXXX borrowers to miss payments. In XX/XX/XXXX, the Department stopped awarding XXXX new accounts and threatened contract termination due to XXXX 's failures to inform the agency about massive backlogs of applications for income-driven repayment plans and continued poor performance. \nCFPB and XXXX XXXX XXXX : In XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and AFT sent formal complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( FDIC ), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( XXXX ), warning federal financial regulators about XXXX 's potentially unlawful practices, including forcing borrowers to waive their legal rights. \nXXXX Specific Documented Misconduct Allegations- Quantified Data : XXXX XXXX borrowers did not receive monthly bills, resulting in XXXX borrowers missing payments through no fault of their own ; XXXX borrowers were illegally overcharged for loan payments because XXXX used incorrect calculation guidelines ; XXXX XXXX total borrowers affected by XXXX 's systematic failures, with documented evidence showing XXXX in XXXX XXXX customers experienced servicing failures ; Nearly XXXX XXXX credit reporting errors caused by XXXX 's failure to provide advance notice of loan transfers to credit reporting agencies ; Systematic 'call deflection scheme ' : XXXX XXXX directed millions of borrowers away from staffed call centers toward websites and 'self-help ' options that were often inoperative or unable to resolve critical issues, despite receiving over {$1.00} XXXX from the Department of Education since XXXX specifically to staff call centers and provide borrower assistance ; Illegal deduction of payments from borrowers ' bank accounts without consent ; Misinforming borrowers about paperwork deadlines for affordable repayment plans and loan forgiveness programs ; Failure to process Department of Education-ordered loan discharges XXXX XXXX failed to implement loan discharges for students who attended XXXX predatory for-profit institutions ( XXXX XXXX of XXXX, Corinthian Colleges, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX demand payment and report these XXXX debts to credit bureaus ; Worst performance scores : XXXX currently holds the worst customer satisfaction and performance scores among all federal student loan servicers. \nXXXX. Department of Education Loan Discharge Determination and Relief from Repayment Obligation As an affected borrower harmed by XXXX 's documented fraud and systematic misconduct, I am entitled to relief from any further obligation to repay these student loans pursuant to Department of Education discharge determinations and federal consumer protection law. The Department of Education has issued group discharge orders for borrowers who attended predatory for-profit institutions that engaged in widespread fraud and misconduct. However, XXXX has systematically failed to implement these discharges, as evidenced by the ongoing federal litigation in XXXX v. XXXX. \nBetween XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of Education announced group discharges for former students from six predatory for-profit institutions after finding these schools engaged in rampant misconduct, including 'financial exploitation of students ' and 'widespread misrepresentations. ' The Department explicitly notified affected borrowers that they had been 'released from any further obligation to repay ' their loans. Despite these clear discharge orders, XXXX has : Failed to process the Department XXXX XXXX discharges ; Failed to issue authorized refunds to discharged borrowers ; Continued reporting discharged debts to credit reporting agencies as current obligations ; Continued illegally demanding payments from borrowers whose loans have been discharged by federal authority . \nThis conduct constitutes willful fraud and knowing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Any continued reporting of these discharged debts is per se inaccurate and must be immediately and permanently deleted from my credit file. \nXXXX. Inaccurate Account Information and Personal Data Reported by XXXX The information reported by XXXX contains multiple material inaccuracies that have caused substantial and undue hardship, severe financial harm, and damage to my creditworthiness. Given XXXX 's documented pattern of systematic misconduct affecting millions of borrowers, any information furnished by XXXX must be presumed unreliable and inaccurate. Specifically : Account Balance and Payment History Inaccuracies : The account balances, payment histories, and status information reported by XXXX are demonstrably incorrect. XXXX has admitted to systematically overcharging XXXX borrowers and sending inaccurate bills. Given XXXX 's documented pattern of calculation errors and fraudulent billing practices, all balance information furnished by XXXX is inherently unreliable and must be deleted. \nPersonal Information Errors : XXXX has furnished incorrect personal identifying information, including errors in names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and employment information. The XXXX investigation revealed nearly XXXX XXXX credit reporting errors caused by XXXX 's failures. Such widespread inaccuracies demonstrate XXXX 's complete disregard for data accuracy requirements under FCRA XXXX ( b ). \nCredit Reporting During Discharge Period : XXXX 's continued reporting of loan obligations during periods when the Department of Education had ordered discharges constitutes willful and knowing false reporting under the FCRA. This fraudulent reporting has caused severe harm to my credit profile and ability to access credit, employment, and housing. \nIV. Undue Hardship, Severe Financial Harm, and Quantified Damages XXXX 's fraudulent and inaccurate reporting has caused me severe and quantifiable undue hardship, including but not limited to : Catastrophic reduction in my credit score due to fraudulent reporting of discharged or inaccurate debt obligations ; Denial of credit applications, or approval only at usurious interest rates, resulting in thousands of dollars in additional costs ; Inability to obtain housing due to fraudulent negative information on credit reports relied upon by landlords ; Adverse employment decisions, as employers increasingly review credit reports during hiring processes ; Increased insurance premiums and denial of favorable insurance rates ; Severe emotional distress, anxiety, XXXX, and mental anguish resulting from XXXX 's fraudulent debt collection attempts on discharged loans ; Hundreds of hours spent attempting to contact XXXX through their deliberately obstructive 'call deflection ' system ; Loss of financial opportunities and economic advancement due to artificially depressed creditworthiness ; Reputational damage and harm to personal and professional relationships resulting from fraudulent portrayal of my financial status. \nV. Violations of Seven-Year Reporting Rule and Unauthorized Data Sales Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ), consumer reporting agencies are prohibited from reporting accounts placed for collection or charged off that antedate the report by more than seven years. XXXX and the credit reporting agencies have violated this statutory mandate by reporting obsolete information beyond the permissible reporting period. \nAdditionally, XXXX and the credit bureaus have been selling my inaccurate personal information to third parties, including marketing companies, insurance providers, employment screening services, and other financial institutions, without legitimate permissible purposes as required by FCRA 1681b. This unauthorized sale of inaccurate information for commercial benefit constitutes willful FCRA violations and creates additional liability for all parties involved.\n\nVI. Applicable Legal Standards and FCRA Requirements The Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes strict obligations on both furnishers of information and consumer reporting agencies. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), XXXX is required to provide accurate information and conduct reasonable investigations when notified of disputes. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i, you are required to conduct reasonable reinvestigation within thirty ( 30 ) days. \nGiven XXXX 's documented pattern of fraud and systematic misconduct affecting millions of borrowers, any information furnished by XXXX must be treated as presumptively unreliable and inaccurate. The ongoing federal lawsuits, multi-state investigations, Department of Education enforcement actions, and CFPB oversight demonstrate that XXXX can not be relied upon to provide accurate information. Recent CFPB guidance ( XXXX XXXX ) requires that investigations can not be superficial or automated and must include independent verification beyond mere confirmation with the furnisher. \nXXXX. IMMEDIATE DEMANDS FOR DELETION AND REMEDIAL ACTION In light of XXXX 's documented fraud, systematic misconduct, failure to implement Department of Education-ordered loan discharges, and ongoing federal investigations, I demand that you immediately : XXXX. PERMANENTLY DELETE all information reported by XXXX from my credit file. Given XXXX 's documented pattern of fraud affecting XXXX XXXX borrowers and ongoing federal litigation, no information from XXXX can be considered reliable or accurate ; 2. CEASE AND DESIST all reporting of any MOHELA-furnished information to third parties immediately. Continued reporting of information from a servicer under federal investigation for fraud constitutes willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n ; 3. CEASE AND DESIST from selling, transferring, or providing my personal information to any third parties, including marketing companies, data brokers, insurance companies, employers, or financial institutions ; 4. ACKNOWLEDGE that as a borrower affected by Department of Education-ordered loan discharges, any continued reporting of discharged loan obligations constitutes fraud and per se FCRA violations ; 5. CONDUCT a thorough investigation recognizing that XXXX is an unreliable furnisher currently under multi-state investigation and federal litigation for systematic fraud ; 6. PROVIDE written confirmation of all deletions within the statutory thirty ( 30 ) day period ; 7. FURNISH me with an updated credit report reflecting all deletions, at no charge, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681j ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; 8. SEND updated reports to all parties who received reports in the past 6 months ( employment ) or 2 years ( credit ) ; 9. NOTIFY all previous data purchasers of the deletion of all MOHELA-reported information ; 10. CONFIRM in writing that you will no longer accept or report any information furnished by XXXX given its documented unreliability and ongoing fraud investigations. \nXXXX. Statutory Compliance Timeline Day XXXX : Date you receive this letter Day 5 : Must forward dispute to XXXX ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( 2 ) ) Day 30 : Investigation must be completed and all XXXX information deleted Day 35 : Written results and updated credit reports must be provided IX. Legal Consequences of Non-Compliance and Preservation of Rights I am preserving all legal rights and remedies available under federal and state law, including but not limited to : FCRA Statutory Damages : XXXX provides actual damages plus punitive damages of $ XXXX {$1000.00} per violation for willful noncompliance. Continued reporting of information from a servicer under investigation for fraud constitutes willful violations ; Attorney Fees and Costs : 1681o provides for recovery of attorney fees and costs ; Regulatory Complaints : Filing complaints with CFPB, FTC, Department of Education, and state attorneys general already investigating XXXX ; Class Action Participation : Joining existing federal class actions against XXXX or initiating new actions for systematic FCRA violations ; State Consumer Protection Claims : Violations under state consumer protection acts, privacy laws, and unfair/deceptive practices statutes ; Federal Fraud Claims : Claims related to fraudulent reporting of discharged debts and knowing misrepresentations.\n\nBe advised that federal courts have already ruled twice against XXXX 's attempts to dismiss borrower lawsuits, and multiple state attorneys general are actively investigating XXXX 's misconduct. Your failure to immediately delete all MOHELA-furnished information will be deemed willful noncompliance and will be pursued through all available legal channels. \nX. Supporting Evidence and Documentation of XXXX Fraud This dispute is supported by extensive documented evidence of XXXX 's fraud and misconduct, including : Federal court records from AFT v. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) ; Federal court records from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX California, XX/XX/XXXX ), including XXXX court orders denying XXXX 's dismissal attempts ; XXXX XXXX Papers ' investigation by AFT and Student XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX reports by Senators XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; Department of Education XXXX XXXX and XXXX withholdings ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) ; CFPB, FDIC, and XXXX regulatory complaints filed by XXXX and AFT XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) ; Documentation of multi-state attorney general investigations ( XXXX ). \nThis letter constitutes my formal written dispute under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Given XXXX 's documented pattern of fraud affecting millions of borrowers, failure to implement Department of Education-ordered discharges, and ongoing federal investigations and litigation, I expect immediate deletion of all MOHELA-furnished information. This dispute is made in good faith based on extensive documented evidence of XXXX 's systematic misconduct. \nI expect your full cooperation and compliance with federal law. Please acknowledge receipt of this dispute and begin your investigation immediately. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-27T18:21:08.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"759XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16845093","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-27T18:20:43.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I expect your full cooperation and <em>compliance</em> with <em>federal</em> law. Please acknowledge receipt of this dispute and begin your investigation immediately. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[13.923629,"16845093"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14079791","_score":13.671705,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear CFPB, Re : RESPONSE TO J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANKS STATEMENT REGARDING CFPB COMPLAINT I write to respectfully but urgently dispute the wholly inadequate and disingenuous response submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . ( Chase ) concerning my CFPB complaint. Chase 's response fails to address serious issues of elder financial abuse, institutional negligence, and compliance failures under both federal guidelines and Californias Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ( EADACPA ), which imposes heightened duties on financial institutions interacting with XXXX \nChases blanket assertion that this matter involved only customer-initiated transactions is a dangerous oversimplification of what federal regulators and California law recognize as a growing epidemic of elder financial exploitation, often masked by the victims own unwitting involvement under manipulation by bad actors. EADACPA explicitly defines such exploitation, where property is obtained from an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, as financial abuse ( XXXX ), irrespective of superficial \" authorization '' obtained through deception. \nBelow are several compelling legal and regulatory deficiencies in Chases handling of this matter, warranting immediate regulatory scrutiny : 1. Failure to Act on Clear Warning Signs in Violation of Interagency Guidance JPMorgan Chase 's assertion that these were merely \" customer-initiated transactions '' dangerously ignores the critical obligations financial institutions owe under federal guidelines and EADACPAs imposition of a heightened \" duty of care '' for businesses interacting with XXXX, especially when serving vulnerable populations such as XXXX  clients. The XXXX Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, issued jointly by the CFPB, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and other federal regulators, provides specific expectations for financial institutions when encountering signs of elder financial exploitation. This includes unusual transaction patterns, sudden changes in banking activity, or other behavior that deviates markedly from a customers established history. \nIn this case, Chase was not only presented with multiple warning signs but failed to escalate them appropriately. As a long-standing Chase customer, my banking behavior prior to Fall XXXX showed no pattern of large, repeated transfers. Suddenly, and without precedent, I began initiating high-value transfers totaling more than {$200000.00} to multiple recipients. This stark deviation from my historical activity constituted clear undue influence and wrongful use of funds under EADACPA 15610.30 and should have triggered Chases fraud detection systems or, at minimum, internal review. \nThe fact that I am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  citizen, and that these transactions were allegedly conducted with unfamiliar entities for opaque business purposes, only reinforces the necessity for elevated scrutiny under federal elder financial protection protocols and EADACPAs mandate to protect elders from precisely this form of exploitation. These red flags are precisely the scenarios envisioned by the Interagency Guidance and EADACPA, which stress that even customer-permitted transactions may constitute exploitation when the elder is manipulated by external bad actors.\n\nBy not investigating these anomalies thoroughly or escalating them to a higher level of scrutiny, Chase failed in its duty to follow regulatory best practices and breached its statutory duty of care under EADACPA. In fact, Chases failure to act on these irregularities may reflect systemic deficiencies in its internal compliance and elder protection protocols. The CFPB has emphasized that financial institutions are on the front lines of identifying and stopping fraud before irreversible harm occurs. In this instance, Chase not only failed to prevent harm, but it also enabled it through passivity and noncompliance. \nThis is not merely a matter of hindsight. The Interagency Guidance was published over a decade ago, and EADACPA has imposed clear duties on institutions since its enactment. Chase, as one of the largest banks in the country, can not credibly claim ignorance. The banks negligence created the perfect environment for the fraud to proceed unchecked. If Chase had intervened when the anomalies first emergedas their federal obligations requirethe ensuing financial devastation could have been mitigated or entirely prevented.\n\nI therefore urge the CFPB to investigate whether Chase has violated the Interagency Guidance standards, failed to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities and EADACPA duties, and whether these systemic failures represent a pattern of institutional neglect toward elder clients vulnerable to financial exploitation. Enforcement action is warranted to compel Chase to adopt necessary corrective measures and redress the harm caused by its inaction. \n\n2. Violation of California Law ( Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ) The State of California has some of the strongest protections in the country against elder abuse, including financial exploitation. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( d ) ( 1 ) provides as follows : Any mandated reporter of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult who has direct contact with the elder or dependent adult or who reviews or approves the elder or dependent adult 's financial documents, records, or transactions, in connection with providing financial services with respect to an elder or dependent adult, and who, within the scope of his or her employment or professional practice, has observed or has knowledge of an incident, that is directly related to the transaction or matter that is within that scope of employment or professional practice, that reasonably appears to be financial abuse, or who reasonably suspects that abuse, based solely on the information before him or her at the time of reviewing or approving the document, record, or transaction in the case of mandated reporters who do not have direct contact with the elder or dependent adult, shall report the known or suspected instance of financial abuse by telephone or through a confidential Internet reporting tool, as authorized pursuant to Section XXXX, immediately, or as soon as practicably possible. If reported by telephone, a written report shall be sent, or an Internet report shall be made through the confidential Internet reporting tool established in Section XXXX, within XXXX working days to the local adult protective services agency or the local law enforcement agency. \n\nUnder Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1, financial institutions are required to report suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult immediately, or as soon as practically possible, by telephone, followed by a written report within two working days. Critically, this duty to report is mandatory, not discretionary, and applies even when the elder customer denies being defrauded, as many victims of manipulation often do. Furthermore, EADACPA provides a civil cause of action against entities that \" take, secrete, appropriate, or retain property for a wrongful use '' ( 15610.30 ) or fail in their duty to prevent such exploitation. Chases failure to report and intervene exposed it to liability under both statutes.\n\nIn this case, Chase Bank has already acknowledged that at least one branch-level employee questioned me about the nature of the high-value transactions. The bank alleges that I confirmed the transactions were business-related. However, the statute does not require certainty or confirmation of abuse to mandate reporting. It only requires reasonable suspicion. The law specifically anticipates scenarios where an elder may not recognizeor may even denythat they are being exploited, due to manipulation, shame, or lack of full understanding. EADACPA expressly recognizes that financial abuse occurs when an elder is deceived into \" voluntarily '' surrendering assets through undue influence, fraud, or coercion ( 15610.30 ( a ) ( 3 ) ).\n\nChase failed to act when it mattered most. If their employee had enough concern to question me, then they had more than enough basis to initiate a mandatory report under California law. Instead, Chase did not report the activity until well after my funds were depleted, and only after it became too late to protect me. This dereliction of duty directly enabled the continuation of fraudulent withdrawals and significantly contributed to my financial devastation. This failure constitutes per se negligence under EADACPA, potentially entitling me to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and court costs ( XXXX  ). \nMoreover, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( c ) explicitly mandates training for bank employees to recognize warning signs of XXXX abuse and to act on them without hesitation. The failure by Chase to recognize the red flags, despite a clear deviation from my account history, repeated high-value transfers, and XXXX status, reflects a systemic breakdown in their compliance and training programs. Chases late reporting, after the damage was done, further confirms the banks disregard for its statutory duties and its breach of EADACPAs duty of care. \nIt is especially troubling that this failure occurred in multiple branches and over a sustained period. This indicates a lack of internal checks, oversight, or escalation protocolseach of which is expected under Californias regulatory framework. When one branch fails to act, it may be negligence. When multiple locations enable suspicious conduct repeatedly over months, it suggests institutional noncompliance warranting punitive damages under EADACPA XXXX for recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. \nFurthermore, Chases failure to report extended to a separate XX/XX/XXXX incident where I was defrauded through a XXXX business loan scam. In my attempt to meet the scammers demands, I paid approximately {$5000.00} to fraudulent agents and made XXXX payments via Chase to XXXX XXXX ( {$1300.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$1700.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$250.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, and {$1000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ). \nI reported this fraud in person to a Chase official named XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA ) branch on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX. No action was taken, and XXXX was not notified as required. In a XX/XX/XXXX call, Chase confirmed these visits and my contact with XXXX but admitted no notes were taken. \nEven worse, Chase delayed reporting to XXXX for months, only acting after I filed this CFPB complaint. XXXX agent XXXX XXXX received a referral ( bank unnamed ) on XX/XX/XXXX, and visited my home on XX/XX/XXXX, weeks after my final fraudulent transfer ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and only after regulatory pressure. This pattern of belated reporting underscores institutional disregard for statutory duties. \nChases failure to act upon observable patterns of exploitation violates not only state law but also undermines the very intent of elder financial protection policies. The consequence of this failure has left me financially destitute, emotionally distressed, and physically vulnerable. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Follow Its Own Risk Controls and Duty of Care JPMorgan Chase Banks handling of the transactions at issue reflects a deep institutional failure to uphold its fiduciary duty, adhere to its own internal risk controls, and apply industry-standard safeguards for elder clients in violation of EADACPAs imposition of a duty of care ( XXXX ). As one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, Chase has long touted its robust fraud detection systems, Know Your Customer ( KYC ) protocols, and customer-first policies. However, none of these safeguards were applied meaningfully in my case. \nAs a Chase customer for many years, my account had established, predictable activity : modest, consistent monthly balances and no history of high-volume business-to-business wire transfers. Beginning in Fall XXXX, I initiated large, repeated transfers to unfamiliar recipients. These transactions totaled over {$200000.00} and represented a XXXX departure from my historical activity. Chases internal fraud systems, which are designed to flag anomalous behavior, failed to detect or act on these changes. This failure constitutes a breach of its duty of care to a vulnerable elder under XXXX XXXX. \nBanking institutions are not passive conduits of customer will. They have both a legal and operational obligation to assess the legitimacy of unusual financial activity, particularly when the customer is XXXX. This is not an abstract or novel standard. It is enshrined in federal anti-fraud frameworks and industry best practices. Chase had both the technology and the duty to identify the fraud scheme in progress. Its failure to do so demonstrates a systemic breakdown or a negligent disregard for customer protection. \nThe duty of care is heightened when the bank is dealing with an elderly, long-term account holder showing signs of financial irregularity. Even according to Chases own XXXX Account XXXX ( XXXX ), which encourages customers to review statements for irregular activity, the bank still retains the right and responsibility to block, investigate, or flag suspicious transactions. Chase did none of those things. Its inaction facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, meeting XXXX 's definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nChases excuse that the transactions were customer-initiated ignores the regulatory and ethical requirement to investigate when multiple high-risk markers are triggered. This includes ( XXXX ) account holder age, ( XXXX ) sudden transaction volume spikes, ( XXXX ) recipient accounts newly added, ( XXXX ) opaque business purposes, and ( XXXX ) known fraud patterns such as pig butchering scams. Had any of these markers alone been investigated, the fraud might have been interrupted. In combination, they formed an unmistakable profile of financial exploitation requiring intervention under XXXX. \nAdditionally, no XXXX ever required additional verification or approval, despite the fact that these transactions were not typical for my account and would have represented high-risk events under even the most lenient fraud detection models. This suggests that Chase either failed to employ such models or chose not to act on the information they produced. \nThe impact of this failure is not theoretical, it is quantifiable, deeply personal, and devastating. I have lost my savings, my credit is in ruins, and I am now facing mortgage pressure and potential bankruptcy. Chases indifference in the face of its own data, policy obligations, and duty of care can not be excused and warrants the full range of remedies available under XXXX, including restitution, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees. \nThe CFPB should treat this matter as a demonstration of Chases systemic noncompliance and evaluate whether their risk control protocols meet federal expectations for fraud mitigation, especially when elder exploitation is at stake. A failure to investigate and act must result in institutional accountability. \n\nXXXX. Obfuscating Liability Through XXXX Chase Banks core defense that the fraudulent transactions in question were customer-initiated and therefore not subject to reimbursement grossly misrepresents the legal and regulatory landscape concerning authorized fraud and elder financial exploitation. This defense reflects not only a misapplication of fraud classifications but also an intentional obfuscation of Chases institutional responsibilities in preventing scam-induced transactions, especially when the customer is elderly and vulnerable. \nThe banks position relies on a narrow, self-serving interpretation of what constitutes fraud. While it is true that under Regulation XXXX of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, unauthorized transactions typically trigger reimbursement requirements, this case does not fall cleanly into that framework. Instead, it concerns a scenario the CFPB has extensively documented and warned the public about : scams involving social engineering and psychological manipulation that lead victims to \" authorize '' their own financial ruin. These are widely recognized as authorized fraud cases, where the transaction is technically permitted by the account holder, but only because the customer has been deceived, coerced, or manipulated. \nIn this situation, I was targeted through a pig butchering scheme that gradually manipulated me into believing I was entering a legitimate business venture. Like thousands of similarly situated scam victims, I was coaxed into making large transfers to what I believed were authentic business recipients. The banks involved, including Chase, facilitated these transactions without adequate internal scrutiny or protective friction, even when my transactional activity drastically diverged from my prior account history. \nImportantly, Chases claim that these were voluntary transactions and thus beyond its responsibility is not supported by federal guidance on elder financial abuse. The CFPB, XXXX, and the FTC all recognize that elders are uniquely susceptible to XXXX  exploitation and often do not recognize fraud until it is too late. It is precisely for this reason that financial institutions are held to higher standards of vigilance and intervention when sudden, anomalous activity arises in an elder customers account. \nFurthermore, Chases own fraud protection policies in other jurisdictions undermine its defense here. As I previously noted, Chase XXXX offers fraud protection for authorized fraud transactions, recognizing the ethical and reputational harm in allowing vulnerable customers to be financially destroyed while the bank takes no responsibility. That Chase XXXX disclaims this obligation, despite operating under the same brand, ethos, and customer trust, highlights a troubling inconsistency that must be addressed by U.S. regulators. \nChase can not escape liability by hiding behind contract language and technical definitions of authorization. When its fraud detection systems fail, when its staff observe but do not act upon irregularities, and when its customer is an elderly individual experiencing manipulation, the bank has crossed from neutrality into complicity. These are not merely business decisionsthey are failures of care, compliance, and conscience. \nThe CFPB should treat this definitional shell game for what it is : a regulatory avoidance strategy. It must be rejected. Chase must not be allowed to benefit from its refusal to modernize its fraud protections in light of emerging scam typologies, especially those that exploit XXXX \n\n5. Institutional Liability for Enabling Fraud Infrastructure JPMorgan Chase Banks role in this case goes beyond passive negligence, it actively enabled the infrastructure that allowed this fraud scheme to succeed. By approving and maintaining multiple recipient business accounts that received illicit transfers from my account, Chase facilitated the operation of a pig butchering scam targeting a vulnerable XXXX The presence of this infrastructure within the banks own system exposes it to institutional liability for allowing its platform to be used in the commission of financial elder abuse. \nPig butchering scams often rely on a network of recipient accounts created for the sole purpose of laundering funds extracted from victims. These accounts are typically opened under legitimate-sounding business names, but their true purpose is fraudulent. In my case, I was instructed to transfer funds from my Chase business account to other Chase business accounts allegedly belonging to parties involved in an herbal product supply agreement. I later learned these accounts were set up under false pretenses and were used to funnel money to international actors as part of a fraud ring. Chases facilitation of these transfers constitutes \" aiding and abetting '' the financial abuse of an elder under EADACPA principles. \nAt no point did Chase question the legitimacy of these recipient accounts, despite the fact that they were receiving large and sudden transfers from a XXXX customer with no prior history of high-volume transactions. It is the responsibility of financial institutions to monitor not only outgoing transactions but also inbound flows to newly created accounts, especially when they fit well-documented fraud profiles. This failure reflects a reckless disregard for its duty to prevent exploitation under EADACPA XXXX\n\nMoreover, many of the recipient accounts receiving these transfers were opened at different Chase branches across the U.S., suggesting a broader pattern that should have triggered internal fraud alerts. This activity is precisely what modern anti-money laundering ( AML ) systems are designed to detect, yet Chase failed to act. If one Chase branch is enabling high-volume deposits into a newly opened business account, and another Chase branch is facilitating suspicious outgoing transfers to it from an elderly customer, the banks systems should correlate these events and escalate for review. That did not happen here. This systemic failure makes Chase liable for permitting the financial abuse to occur. \nChases failure to flag and investigate the destination accounts makes it more than a bystanderit became a conduit. As courts have increasingly recognized, when banks provide the financial rails used by fraudsters and fail to take preventive action despite obvious red flags, they may be liable for aiding and abetting or negligently enabling fraud. This is particularly true when the victim is part of a protected class, such as an elderly consumer under California law.\n\nAdditionally, the lack of any meaningful Know Your Customer ( KYC ) due diligence in approving these accounts further supports institutional liability. Chase has never explained what steps, if any, it took to verify the legitimacy of the recipient entities or to track the outflow and inflow of substantial sums across its business customer network. This lack of diligence directly facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, satisfying EADACPAs definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nI respectfully request that the CFPB investigate Chases onboarding, monitoring, and internal control procedures for business accounts involved in this and similar elder-targeting scams. If one victim like me can be exploited through Chases network of accounts, there are likely others. This matter demands systemic review, and Chase must be held accountable for enabling financial exploitation through its own commercial platform.\n\n6. Ongoing Harm, Distress, and Financial Ruin What distinguishes XXXX financial abuse from other forms of fraud is not just the monetary lossit is the cascading and often permanent damage to the victims emotional, physical, and financial well-being. In my case, the unchecked and unchallenged fraud facilitated by JPMorgan Chase Bank has left me not only destitute but also psychologically traumatized, on the brink of bankruptcy, and living with the grim consequences of a breach of trust by the very institution tasked with safeguarding my assets. EADACPA exists precisely to address such devastating outcomes and provides for comprehensive remedies, including compensatory damages for economic losses and emotional distress, punitive damages for reckless conduct, attorneys fees, and costs ( XXXX  ). \nI am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  who lived a financially modest but stable life. I was targeted not just because I had money, but because I was perceived, accurately, as someone vulnerable to manipulation. The fraud scheme I fell victim to was not an isolated incident ; it was part of a larger pattern of what experts now classify as pig butchering scams. These scams deliberately isolate victims, use social and professional deception, and create the illusion of opportunity. They are especially dangerous to older adults, who often trust authority and may lack the digital literacy to identify spoofed communications or fake platforms.\n\nAs a direct result of this fraud, enabled by Chases inaction, I have lost over {$200000.00}. The financial devastation is only the beginning. I now face mounting debt obligations, including mortgage pressures that threaten my housing stability. My credit rating has been irreparably harmed, impacting my ability to finance essentials or obtain emergency resources. The emotional fallout has been no less severe. The shame, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX stemming from this exploitation have become part of my daily reality. Compounding this, Chase Bank has closed my account due to fraud, making it impossible to independently assess the full transaction history or quantify the total losses. \nAccording to studies cited in the Interagency Guidance on XXXX  abuse, victims of financial exploitation are three times more likely to die prematurely than similarly situated individuals. This is not an exaggeration, it is a warning rooted in public health data.\n\nWorse still, Chase has offered no meaningful recourse. The bank 's response not only denied reimbursement but also ignored the evident trauma I have endured. Its refusal to acknowledge its role in facilitating the abuse and in failing to act when warning signs were visible, has added to my distress. Instead of being treated as a client in crisis, I was treated as a procedural burden. \nI have also experienced a lack of empathy and urgency from Chase 's internal systems. It was only after the damage was complete that Chase filed a delayed report to Adult Protective Services, resulting in a home visit from XXXX  last week. But that action came far too late to prevent my financial ruin. This delay underscores the very problem I have outlined throughout this complaint : Chase had opportunities to act earlier but chose not to.\n\nThe CFPB has repeatedly acknowledged the seriousness of XXXX  financial abuse and its societal toll. This case is a vivid example of the damage that results when a major banks duty of care collapses under the weight of procedural shortcuts, profit priorities, or regulatory complacency. I implore the Bureau not to treat this as an individual complaint but as a test case for broader enforcement. If this can happen to me, it can happen to countless others. \nOnly meaningful regulatory pressure, penalties, and structural reforms will restore trust, and only full restitution will begin to repair the damage I have suffered. In consideration of the foregoing, I respectfully urge the CFPB to exercise its regulatory oversight and : a. Formally investigate Chase Banks conduct in this matter for possible violations of elder protection laws and failure to adhere to CFPB-endorsed Interagency Guidelines ; b. Assess whether Chase violated the spirit or letter of Californias mandatory elder abuse reporting law, particularly Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ; c. Mandate that Chase reimburse the fraudulently induced transfers, given its admitted failure to report suspected abuse and its violation of the duty of care ; d. Mandate that Chase reopen my bank account and grant me unfettered access to my account ; and e. Issue supervisory guidance or public enforcement actions aimed at improving institutional response to pig butchering and similar elder-targeted scams. \n\n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-14T19:59:19.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"92026","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14079791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-06-14T19:48:39.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chase 's response fails to address serious issues of elder financial abuse, institutional negligence, and <em>compliance</em> <em>failures</em> <em>under</em> <em>both</em> <em>federal</em> <em>guidelines</em> and <em>Californias</em> Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ( EADACPA ), which imposes heightened duties on financial institutions interacting with XXXX \nChases blanket assertion that this matter involved only customer-initiated transactions is a dangerous oversimplification of what <em>federal</em> regulators and <em>California</em> law recognize as a"]},"sort":[13.671705,"14079791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7490965","_score":10.852719,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"PART ( 2 ) adding on from part 1 [ DISCOVER ] *******Another critical provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( b ) - Communication with third parties. This section is of great significance, and I believe its crucial that Discover understands its implications. 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( b ) - Communication with third parties : The FDCPA explicitly states that, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector, including Discover, may not communicate with any person other than the consumer, their attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector. While I represent myself in this matter, it is essential that Discover fully comprehends the scope of this provision. Any communication with third parties not covered by the exceptions outlined in the FDCPA constitutes a violation of my rights as a consumer. I urge Discover to promptly review its practices and ensure strict compliance with 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( b ). Violations of this provision can have severe legal consequences, and I am committed to protecting my rights as a consumer. I have identified numerous violations of 15 U.S. Code 1692d, which explicitly forbids harassment or abuse in the context of debt Consumers : ** Your actions, including disclosing my personal information in the context of debt collection, resemble the prohibited publication of a list of consumers who refuse to pay debts, as outlined in 1692d ( 3 ). **Advertisement for Sale of Debt : ** The manner in which you've pursued payment, including threats and coercion, could be construed as an attempt to advertise the sale of the debt, contravening 1692d ( 4 ). I have thoroughly reviewed your debt collection practices, and it has come to my attention that there are numerous violations concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ), as stipulated in 47 U.S.C. 227. The TCPA establishes strict regulations regarding telemarketing calls, auto-dialing systems, and unsolicited facsimile advertisements, among other things. Each violation of the TCPA can result in penalties of up to {$1500.00} per violation. Upon reviewing your actions, it has become evident that you have consistently engaged in practices that run afoul of the TCPA. 2. Failure to Obtain Consent : The TCPA mandates that prior express consent must be obtained before initiating any telemarketing calls or sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements. It appears that you have not consistently obtained this required consent. 3.Lack of Opt-Out Mechanisms : The TCPA also requires that telemarketing calls provide recipients with an easy means to opt out of future communications. It is evident that your communications have not consistently included these opt-out mechanisms. 4. Calling Without Prior Consent : Your actions show that you have made numerous calls without the requisite prior consent, constituting violations of the XXXX. Given the severity of TCPA violations and the potential penalties of up to {$1500.00} per violation, it is crucial that you rectify these violations immediately. I strongly urge you to cease these practices and take corrective action promptly to avoid further consequences. I am acutely aware of the numerous violations concerning 15 U.S. Code 1666a - Billing Error Resolution that Discover has committed against me through their correspondence and billing practices. The law is explicit about the obligations of creditors, especially when an obligor has reported a billing error. These violations include : 1. Failure to Acknowledge Billing Errors Promptly : Discover has consistently failed to acknowledge billing errors promptly upon receipt of written notice. The law stipulates that creditors should acknowledge such notices within thirty days.\n\n2. Failure to Make Appropriate Corrections : Instead of making appropriate corrections in response to reported billing errors, Discover has often chosen to continue collection activities without the requisite corrections or clarification. The law mandates that creditors must correct billing errors within XXXX complete billing cycles or no later than XXXX XXXX. Lack of Transparency in Providing Documentation : When a billing error is reported, Discover has failed to provide adequate explanations, clarifications, or copies of documentary evidence as required by law. This lack of transparency infringes upon my rights as a consumer. 4. Continued Collection Efforts Despite Billing Errors : Discovers continued collection efforts following reported billing errors, without adhering to the required procedures for resolution, constitute a significant violation of this law. 5. Restricting or Closing Accounts Prematurely : The law prohibits creditors from restricting or closing accounts solely due to an obligors failure to pay the amount indicated to be in error. However, Discover has not consistently followed this mandate. 6. Failure to Forfeit Rights After Noncompliance : Discover has failed to forfeit its right to collect the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) of subsection ( a ) when it does not comply with the laws requirements. Under the law, creditors may forfeit this right, and any finance charges thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited may not exceed {$50.00}. It has come to my attention that Discover you have acted in a manner that violates the FDCPA. Specifically, these violations relate to 15 U.S. Code 1692b ( 5 ) and 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ) of the FDCPA. 15 U.S. Code 1692b ( 5 ) - Acquisition of Location Information : I have reason to believe that Discover has communicated with parties not expressly permitted under this section of the FDCPA. Such actions raise concerns about compliance with federal law and the safeguarding of my rights as a consumer. It is imperative that communications pertaining to debt collection strictly adhere to the statutory guidelines set forth in the FDCPA.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ) - False or Misleading Representations : There is also evidence that Discover has engaged in communications that are perceived to me as misrepresentations, particularly implying that certain communications were from an attorney, which may not have been the case. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits such false representations. I draw your attention to a matter of potential concern regarding the use of your corporate logo on certain correspondence sent to me, which may be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). In the recent correspondence received from Discover Financial Services, I have noted the prominent display of your corporate logo. While I understand the importance of branding and corporate identity, it has come to my attention that such usage on correspondence related to debt collection may contravene the provisions of the FDCPA, specifically 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 5 ). 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 5 ) - Use of Symbols or Language Indicating Debt Collection : This section of the FDCPA explicitly prohibits the use of any language or symbol on envelopes or within the contents of communication that indicates the debt collector is in the debt collection business or that the communication relates to the collection of a debt. The intent of this provision is to ensure that consumers are not misled or intimidated by the appearance of debt-related correspondence. The prominent use of your corporate logo on correspondence, which is unmistakably linked to the collection of a debt, raises many violation concerns about compliance with this provision of the FDCPA. It is imperative that debt collection communications adhere to the spirit and letter of the law to safeguard the rights and interests of consumers.I emphasize that my intention in bringing this matter to your attention is not merely to highlight a potential violation but also to ensure that debt collection practices are conducted ethically and in strict compliance with federal law. Attention, a matter that raises concerns regarding potential violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically pertaining to 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ). 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ) - Failure to Disclose Debt Collection Status : This section of the FDCPA mandates that debt collectors must disclose, both in the initial written communication with the consumer and in the initial oral communication if the initial contact is oral, that they are attempting to collect a debt and that any information gathered during this process will be used for that purpose. Furthermore, it stipulates that in subsequent communications, it is essential to disclose that the communication is from a debt collector, except for formal pleadings made in connection with a legal action. I have received numerous communications from Discover Financial Services, which are considered attempts to collect a debt, yet these communications have consistently lacked the required disclosure that they are from a debt collector. This is a critical omission that could led to misunderstandings and violations of consumers rights under the FDCPA. It is imperative that debt collection communications fully comply with the provisions of the FDCPA to ensure transparency and protect the rights of consumers. Even if the absence of the specific phrase debt collector is argued, it remains essential that consumers are aware that the communication pertains to debt collection, as mandated by the law. This is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692e ( 11 ). All communications, both past and future, should unmistakably convey the nature of the communication as being related to debt collection. My intent in raising this concern is to ensure that Discover Financial Services adheres to the FDCPAs principles and provides consumers with clear, honest, and legally compliant debt collection communications. a Attention, another matter that raises concerns regarding potential violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), particularly related to 15 U.S. Code 1692f - Unfair Practices. 15 U.S. Code 1692f - Unfair Practices : This section of the FDCPA explicitly prohibits the use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. It outlines several specific practices that are considered violations. Here are some of the key violations I have observed : ( XXXX ) Unauthorized Collection Amounts : I have received communications from Discover Financial Services that include claims for amounts beyond the principal debt. These additional amounts, including interest, fees, charges, or expenses, were not authorized legally. It is in violation of the FDCPA. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Discover Financial Services has allegedly accepted checks and other payment instruments that were postdated by more than five days. However, I was not provided with written notification of your intent to deposit these instruments as required by law. This lack of notification is seen as a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692f ( 2 ). In your communications, Use of Language or Symbols on Envelopes : Discover Financial Services has used language or symbols on envelopes when communicating with me that do not comply with the FDCPAs guidelines. Specifically, using anything other than your address on envelopes could be considered a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692f ( 8 ). It is essential to reiterate that adherence to the FDCPA is paramount in ensuring fair and ethical debt collection practices that protect consumers rights and interests. I am aware that under the FDCPA, each violation may incur a penalty of up to {$1000.00}. However, my primary objective is to foster compliance and ethical conduct, rather than seeking penalties. I encourage Discover Financial Services to rectify these potential violations and commit to transparent, lawful debt collection practices. 15 U.S. Code 1692g - Validation of Debts : This section of the FDCPA mandates certain actions and disclosures by debt collectors to ensure transparency and fairness in the debt collection process. It is imperative for Discover Financial Services to be in full compliance with these requirements.\n\nHere are some of the key violations I have observed : ( a ) Notice of Debt ; Contents : Discover Financial Services failed to provide the required written notice to me within five days after the initial communication in connection with the collection of the debt. The notice must include specific information such as the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement of my rights to dispute the debt. This omission may constitute a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( a ). ( b ) Disputed Debts : Upon my written request within the thirty-day period as described in subsection ( a ), Discover Financial Services was obligated to cease collection activities related to the debt until verification of the debt or other requested information was provided. Despite my written request, collection activities persisted, which is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( b ). Regarding the XXXX of XXXX in your correspondence. I want to bring to your attention a matter that directly affects my consumer rights. Your choice of using the word agreement, especially when communicating with me about debt collection, is a direct violation of my rights and is highly deceptive. Deceptive Terminology : Its essential to understand that using the term agreement can be misleading and deceptive, particularly when it comes to financial matters like debt collection. This is not merely an issue of semantics ; it goes to the heart of transparency and fairness in consumer dealings. Validation of Debt and Cease and Desist : Ive also previously requested validation of debt and issued a cease and desist notice. Its crucial to reiterate that upon receiving this document, all collection activities, including reporting to consumer agencies, must halt. Any continuation of these activities constitute violations of consumer protection laws. Compliance is not a choice. Regarding Admission of Liability : I want to underscore a critical point concerning the admission of liability. As per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( c ), the failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt should not, under any circumstances, be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Illegality of Default Judgments : Its imperative to understand that any attempt to obtain a default judgment under these circumstances is not only against the law but also in direct violation of my consumer rights. A default judgment in debt collection cases should not occur when a consumer has requested debt validation or issued a cease and desist notice. These legal safeguards are in place precisely to protect consumers from such practices. Compliance is Mandatory : I insist on full compliance with this aspect of consumer protection law. Failure to adhere to this principle constitutes a violation of the law and my rights. Immediate Action Required : Any attempt to obtain a default judgment in contravention of the law will be met with appropriate legal action to safeguard my rights. 15 U.S. Code 1692i - Legal actions by debt collectors ( a ) Venue Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall 1. In the case of an action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumers obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such real property is located ; or 2. In the case of an action not described in paragraph ( 1 ), bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal entity ( A ) In which such consumer signed the contract sued upon ; or ( B ) In which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.\n\n( If debt collectors choose to bring legal action, by law, they would have to bring it to my jurisdiction. ) ( b ) Authorization of actions Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors. Discover, its crucial to emphasize that, as per 15 U.S. Code 1692i, legal actions on debts should be brought in specific jurisdictions. Debt collectors should not be initiating legal actions themselves. Congress has explicitly warned against the creation of documents that might mislead consumers into believing that a party other than the creditor is involved in debt collection. Its vital to ensure that such deceptive practices are avoided.\n\nI want to remind you of the violations identified in 15 U.S. Code 1692j : ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. ( b ) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this subchapter. Please ensure that your correspondence aligns with these legal requirements. Deceptive forms can have serious consequences, and its in both parties interest to maintain transparency. \nBring your attention to the legal framework surrounding civil liability as specified in 15 U.S. Code 1692k. Its essential to understand the potential consequences of failing to comply with the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). This code outlines the following aspects of civil liability : Amount of Damages ( 1692k ( a ) ) : Any debt collector who fails to comply with the FDCPA may be liable to the affected person for : 1.Actual damages incurred due to the failure. 2.Additional damages as determined by the court, not exceeding {$1000.00} for individual actions or as applicable in class actions. 3.Costs of the legal action. 4. Reasonable attorneys fees. Factors Considered by Court ( 1692k ( b ) ) : The court considers various factors when determining the amount of liability, including the frequency and persistence of noncompliance, the nature of noncompliance, and whether it was intentional. Intent ( XXXX ( c ) ) : Debt collectors may not be held liable if they can demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error, provided they maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors. Jurisdiction ( XXXX ( d ) ) : Actions to enforce liability can be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the violation. It is essential to comply with both the FDCPA and FTC guidelines, as they not only define ethical practices but also carry significant legal consequences for violations. Addressing a matter of utmost importance regarding documentation you have provided concerning the alleged debt associated with my account. As stipulated in Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is a fundamental requirement that an original writing, recording, or photograph is necessary to prove its content unless specified otherwise by these rules or a federal statute. This rule, designed to uphold the integrity of evidence, plays a pivotal role in ensuring the accuracy and authenticity of documents used in legal matters. Regrettably, Discovers failure to provide the original document in question pertaining to the alleged debt represents a major violation of Rule 1002 and calls into question the legitimacy of the debt and the accuracy of the information being pursued. By not adhering to this critical rule, Discover has jeopardized the credibility of its collection efforts and may have placed itself in a precarious legal position. The absence of the original document raises significant doubts regarding the validity of the debt you are attempting to collect. I must insist that Discover should have taken immediate corrective action by providing the original document as required by Rule 1002. Addressing this major violation is essential not only for compliance with legal standards but also for restoring trust and transparency in your future dealings. Failure to rectify this situation promptly will result legal actions to safeguard my rights and interests. Please consider this matter seriously, as it pertains to a major violation with potential legal consequences.- **Subject : Assumption of Risk and Your Debt Collection Practices** A matter of utmost importance concerning your debt collection practices, particularly in light of the legal doctrines of \" assumption of risk. \" Assumption of risk '' is a legal concept with deep-rooted principles, indicating that individuals who knowingly and voluntarily accept the risks of certain actions or decisions can not subsequently seek recourse for any resulting consequences. This doctrine highlights personal responsibility for one 's choices. In the context of debt collection, this concept takes on a significant meaning. By purchasing and attempting to collect debts, you willingly assume the inherent risks associated with these financial transactions. It's essential to recognize that these debts may be inherently problematic or noncollectable, and your decision to engage in this business carries with it certain responsibilities. While \" assumption of risk '' was traditionally an affirmative defense available to defendants in legal matters, it has evolved, particularly in jurisdictions like California, to include scenarios where the defendant does not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. This means that, as a debt collector, you must consider the inherent risks in your chosen field of business.Express assumption of risk, often formalized through signed waivers, can limit your liability to the terms of such waivers, provided they are not against public policy. In essence, it becomes a contractual matter. Implied assumption of risk, on the other hand, prevents a party from recovering when they voluntarily accept the risks associated with a certain activity, and this is where your responsibilities come into play. Debt collection inherently carries risks, such as the possibility of dealing with uncollectible debts, challenging debtors, or navigating complex regulations. It's crucial to understand that you, as a debt collector, have knowledge and appreciation of these risks. In doing so, you assume the responsibility for the outcomes of your collection efforts. Whether debts are collectible or not, it is your obligation to act in compliance with the law and to treat debtors fairly and ethically. While the legal landscape surrounding \" assumption of risk '' may have evolved, your responsibilities as a debt collector have not changed. You must uphold ethical standards, adhere to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and act within the boundaries of the law. Failure to do so could expose you to significant legal consequences, including potential violations of the FDCPA, which carries its penalties and liabilities. Attention to a critical legal statute, 18 U.S. Code 1341, which pertains to Frauds and Swindles. This statute outlines severe penalties for individuals or entities that engage in schemes to defraud, obtain money or property through false pretenses, or employ fraudulent representations or promises. Specifically, the statute states : Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promisesplaces in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Serviceshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. The implications of this statute are profound and far-reaching, and it underscores the importance of conducting business activities with the utmost integrity and transparency. Any actions that can be construed as fraudulent or deceptive can result in severe legal consequences, including significant fines and imprisonment. In the context of your debt collection practices, it is imperative to adhere to the highest ethical and legal standards. Deceptive practices, false representations, or any actions that may be interpreted as fraudulent must be avoided at all costs.\n\nMoreover, I would like to emphasize that this statute carries even more severe penalties if the violation relates to a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency, or if it affects a financial institution. In such cases, the potential fines and imprisonment terms can be exceptionally high. The U.S. Code, specifically 18 U.S. Code 1028A, addresses the grave offense of Aggravated Identity Theft. This law aims to protect individuals from the malicious use of their personal information and identity for fraudulent purposes. It is a matter of utmost significance, as identity theft can lead to severe financial and emotional distress for the victims involved.I have reason to believe that my personal information has been mishandled, leading to many concerns about my privacy and the security of my identity. I take these matters very seriously. My primary objective is to ensure that my personal information remains secure, and Ive also noted violations of 18 U.S. Code 1028A. I believe it is essential to discuss these issues in detail to ensure a full understanding of the situation. As a responsible consumer, I have always upheld the importance of maintaining a clean and accurate credit history. However, recent events have led me to question the practices employed by Discover in managing my credit information, specifically in connection with Unwritten Permissible Purpose. The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines specific guidelines and regulations governing how consumer credit information is collected, reported, and used by creditors, including Discover. One crucial aspect of the FCRA is the requirement for creditors to have a permissible purpose to access a consumers credit report. It has come to my attention that Discover may have been engaged in a practice known as Unwritten Permissible Purpose. This practice involves accessing a consumers credit report without a clearly defined or legitimate reason, which raises significant concerns about the privacy and security of my personal information. I firmly believe that consumers have the right to protect their sensitive financial information from unwarranted intrusion. As a diligent and responsible consumer, I have taken every precaution to safeguard my credit history, and it is disconcerting to encounter practices that appear to circumvent the FCRAs safeguards. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that Discover conducted a soft pull on my credit account when I initiated the process of filing claims. This action raises additional concerns about the privacy and security of my financial information, as it was performed outside the context of permissible purposes under the FCRA. Discovers actions in this regard may potentially violate the FCRA, and it is essential to address this issue comprehensively. I have serious reservations about the unauthorized access to my credit information and the implications it may have on my financial privacy. specifically concerning tax reporting and potential violations that have come to my attention. Recent events have led me to question the practices employed by Discover in managing my credit information, particularly regarding the reporting of charged-off debts and tax-related matters. A charged-off debt typically signifies that a creditor has deemed the debt as uncollectible and, in most cases, a tax break for the loss. It is essential for consumers to be aware of the financial implications of a charged-off debt, including the obligation to report it as gross income when necessary. When a debt is charged off, consumers have the right to request a Form 1099-C, known as the Cancellation of Debt form, from the creditor. This form is vital for tax purposes, as it ensures that any canceled debt is properly reported as income to the IRS. Filing the 1099-C is not only a legal obligation but also a means for consumers to maintain accurate records of their financial transactions. The filing of the 1099-C fundamentally changes the status of the debt from a bad debt to income. It demonstrates that the consumer has fulfilled their obligation by reporting the canceled debt as income during tax filings. This critical step ensures transparency and compliance with tax regulations. It has come to my attention that Discover may not be providing consumers with the necessary Form 1099-C upon the charge-off of a debt. This practice raises serious concerns about compliance with tax reporting regulations and may potentially constitute tax fraud. As a consumer, I am deeply troubled by the failure to provide essential tax documentation. If Discover fails to provide consumers with their Form 1099-C when required, it jeopardizes not only the consumers financial records but also the creditors reporting obligations to the IRS. This situation is further exacerbated when a charged-off debt is inaccurately reported as a collection item, creating an erroneous representation of the consumers credit status. I want to emphasize the significance of this issue and the potential consequences for both consumers and creditors. When debts are reported as charged off, Discover should ensure that the associated Form 1099-C is provided promptly. Failure to do so could lead to tax-related problems for consumers and potential regulatory issues for Discover. Additionally, I urge Discover to promptly correct the inaccurate reporting of charged-off debts as collectors items, as this misrepresentation can adversely affect a consumers creditworthiness and create unnecessary challenges. I believe in the importance of transparency, accuracy, and compliance in financial matters, this matter is of significant importance to me, as it pertains to both my financial well-being and my confidence. I insist that Discover immediately removes the alleged debt from my credit report and ceases any further reporting related to this matter on my consumer report.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-02T09:57:30.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32566","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7490965","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2023-09-02T09:24:51.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 1692b ( 5 ) - Acquisition of Location Information : I have reason to believe that Discover has communicated with parties not expressly permitted <em>under</em> this section of the FDCPA. Such actions raise concerns about <em>compliance</em> with <em>federal</em> law and the safeguarding of my rights as a consumer. It is imperative that communications pertaining to debt collection strictly adhere to the statutory <em>guidelines</em> set forth in the FDCPA.\n\n15 U.S."]},"sort":[10.852719,"7490965"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16828131","_score":9.871134,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, submit this formal complaint seeking immediate investigation, enforcement, and corrective action against Equifax LLC for a severe and arbitrary XXXX decrease in my credit score that occurred between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThis drop followed the lawful opening of a new credit card account and an increase in my utilization rate yet occurred without any hard inquiry, late payment, derogatory mark, or adverse credit event. Every payment on all my accounts has been made on time. \n\nAs a XXXX consumer living below 150 % of the federal poverty level, who depends entirely on Social Security XXXX XXXX ( SSDI ) benefits totaling {$16000.00} per year, I assert that this action by Equifax is unreasonable, discriminatory, and unlawful. It has inflicted measurable financial and psychological harm, restricting my access to essential credit opportunities and impeding my economic stability. \n\nThis complaint arises under and implicates the following laws and standards : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.\n\nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.\n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.\n\nNew Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. ) New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:11-28 et seq. ) New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. ) Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ), 42 U.S.C. 12132 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection II. STATEMENT OF FACTS I am writing to formally lodge a dispute and seek immediate redress regarding a drastic and unreasonable XXXX decrease in my credit score by Equifax since XX/XX/XXXX. This reduction followed the opening of a new credit card account and a rise in credit utilization due to family medical emergency, yet occurred without any hard inquiry on my credit report making the action arbitrary, punitive, and without legitimate basis. \n\nAt all times, I have paid every credit card bill on time since the inception of each of my XXXX accounts. While my utilization ratio is currently high, this stems directly from my severe financial hardship caused by XXXX, as I live on a fixed SSDI income of only {$16000.00} per year. Additionally, I incurred necessary debt while staying in California for nearly XXXX months at my grandmothers bedside during her stay in the ICU from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, where I served as her caretaker until she passed away on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIt is unjust and discriminatory to penalize a XXXX individual living below 150 % of the poverty level for not having the financial means to qualify for higher credit limits due to inability to work due to XXXX which would allow lower utilization rates. Such a practice effectively punishes poor and XXXX consumers for circumstances beyond their control and perpetuates systemic bias in access to credit. \n\nFurthermore, the {$73.00} XXXX collection account listed on my credit report is erroneous and should never have been sent to collections, as I was never notified of any balance due nor given an opportunity to dispute or pay before collection action was taken.\n\nAs a direct consequence of Equifaxs actions, I am now unable to secure housing despite fleeing domestic XXXX and related criminal conduct, have been denied new credit cards and a debt consolidation loan, and have lost access to lower insurance premiums. This has left me a XXXX person with sixteen documented XXXX and a fixed income at risk of homelessness and unable to maintain safe or stable living conditions. \n\nI believe that this drastic reduction and its cascading effects violate my rights under the Consumer Fraud Act, Consumer Protection Laws, Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), as well as federal anti-discrimination statutes. These actions are exploitative, biased, unlawful, and fundamentally incompatible with the principles of fairness and equal access to financial services guaranteed by state and federal law.\n\nIII. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND VIOLATIONS 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i The FCRA mandates that consumer reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Equifaxs decision to reduce my score by XXXX points without a valid adverse event violates the accuracy, fairness, and reasonableness standards of the Act.\n\nFurther, 1681i ( a ) requires a reinvestigation of disputed information. Equifaxs failure to explain the scoring basis or review the disputed XXXX entry constitutes non-compliance. \n\nThis unreasonable scoring practice, untethered to my actual risk profile, meets the standard of negligence or willful noncompliance under FCRA 616-617, as interpreted in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). \n\nXXXX. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. ; 12 C.F.R. 1002.6 ( b ) ( 2 ) ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction, including through policies that cause disparate impact on protected groups. Penalizing a XXXX, low-income SSDI recipient with a XXXX drop for lawful credit activity disproportionately affects vulnerable consumers and thus constitutes a disparate impact violation under Texas XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe algorithm appears to punish consumers who can not raise credit limits due to XXXX or fixed incomea structurally biased outcome inconsistent with XXXX and the principles of fair lending and equal opportunity enforced by the CFPB and DOJ. \n3. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), 1692e ( 8 ) The unverified XXXX collection entry reflects false and misleading credit reporting. Reporting such a debt without verification constitutes deceptive representation under 1692e. The FTCs Staff Commentary on the FDCPA clarifies that the transmission of inaccurate collection data to a credit bureau qualifies as a misleading act under the statute. \n4. New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 ) The CFA prohibits unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretense, and misrepresentation. Equifaxs unexplained, automated penaltyimposing severe financial damage absent any legitimate causeconstitutes an unconscionable and deceptive act under New Jersey law. The practice misleads lenders into perceiving heightened risk, damaging the consumers creditworthiness without factual justification. \n\nXXXX. New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. ) The NJLAD extends to public accommodations and financial services. Penalizing a disabled consumer for lawful financial actions, due to their inability to increase credit capacity, reflects a discriminatory effect that violates N.J.A.C. 13:13-3.2 ( a ) ( 4 ), which prohibits discriminatory treatment in credit evaluation and financial access.\n\n6. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6801 ( b ) If Equifax accessed utilization data through soft inquiries or non-disclosed data sources, such access violates GLBA data privacy and confidentiality obligations. Using private financial data algorithmically to impose penalties without notice, consent, or transparency contravenes both GLBA 501 ( b ) and FTC Safeguards Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 314.\n\n7. Due Process and Equal Protection Credit bureaus exercise quasi-regulatory authority over consumers financial reputations. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), any deprivation of property or reputation interests by an entity operating under public authorization requires procedural fairness. \n\nThe arbitrary XXXX decrease, executed without notice, rationale, or opportunity to contest, violates fundamental principles of due process and fairness embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.\n\nIV. ALGORITHMIC BIAS AND SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION Equifaxs reliance on opaque, unregulated algorithmic scoring models presents a systemic risk of discriminatory outcomes. Such algorithms, operating without human review, frequently penalize consumers with limited credit histories, low incomes, or disabilitiesconditions protected under federal law. \n\nThe XXXX Advisory Opinion on Algorithmic Credit Scoring ( XXXX ) explicitly warns that automated systems can not shield credit entities from liability under XXXX or FCRA. When algorithmic models produce disparate outcomes, entities remain legally responsible for ensuring fairness and explainability. \n\nThis case demonstrates how a flawed algorithm likely produced a disparate and disproportionate result, treating lawful, responsible financial behavior as a high-risk event. This not only violates federal standards but erodes public trust in the integrity of the credit reporting system. \n\nV. CONSUMER HARM AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS The unwarranted XXXX reduction has caused tangible harm : Economic harm, by restricting access to affordable credit, loans, and housing. \nReputational harm, by misrepresenting my financial responsibility to lenders. \nPsychological harm, as a XXXX individual now viewed as financially untrustworthy without cause. \n\nPublic policy strongly disfavors punitive scoring behavior detached from actual financial risk. The Federal Reserves Credit Scoring Guidelines and the FTCs Policy Statement on Unfairness ( XXXX ) require that financial scoring practices be proportionate, transparent, and consistent with objective data. \n\nEquifaxs conduct not only fails this standardit undermines the equitable purpose of the FCRA and XXXX by making fair credit access impossible for XXXX and low-income Americans. \n\nVI. LEGAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING REMEDY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Inaccurate credit reporting constitutes concrete harm. \nPintos v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : CRAs must ensure accuracy and fairness in reporting. \nXXXX v. Equifax XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX : Establishes liability for misleading and harmful score reductions. \nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Confirms transparency in consumer credit processes. \nXXXX v. Equifax XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Failure to contextualize consumer data is actionable under FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Disparate treatment in credit evaluation violates XXXX. \n\nXXXX. REQUESTED ACTIONS AND RELIEF I respectfully request that your offices : XXXX. Initiate a coordinated multi-agency investigation into Equifaxs credit scoring algorithms and reporting procedures for violations of federal and state law.\n\n2. Compel Equifax to provide a detailed disclosure explaining the precise data and factors used to justify this XXXX reduction. \nXXXX. XXXX the immediate restoration of my credit score to its XXXX XXXX level and remove the unverified XXXX collection from my record. \nXXXX. Recommend enforcement action or civil penalties to ensure compliance with FCRA, ECOA, and NJCFA standards. 5. Implement algorithmic oversight require\nments ensuring transparency and fairness in credit score calculations for disabled and low-income consumers.\n\n6. Refer this matter to the DOJ Civil Rights Division for investigation into systemic discriminatory scoring practices. \n\nEquifaxs unexplained and disproportionate XXXX credit score reduction is arbitrary, deceptive, discriminatory, and unlawful. It reflects a systemic failure of algorithmic accountability and violates both federal and state consumer protection and anti-discrimination statutes. \n\nThe law requires that credit reporting be accurate, fair, transparent, and nondiscriminatory. My case demonstrates the oppositea punitive and baseless algorithmic decision that punished lawful behavior, exacerbated my financial hardship, and violated my rights under FCRA, ECOA, FDCPA, NJLAD, and constitutional due process.\n\nI therefore request immediate corrective and enforcement action to restore fairness, transparency, and accountability within Equifaxs credit reporting practices. \nRespectfully submitted,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-26T10:08:40.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"08831","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16828131","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-26T10:02:33.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information is incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Equifaxs <em>failure</em> to explain the scoring basis or review the disputed XXXX entry constitutes non-<em>compliance</em>. \n\nThis unreasonable scoring practice, untethered to my actual risk profile, meets the standard of negligence or willful noncompliance <em>under</em> FCRA 616-617, as interpreted in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[9.871134,"16828131"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16827541","_score":9.864465,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, submit this formal complaint seeking immediate investigation, enforcement, and corrective action against TransUnion LLC for a severe and arbitrary XXXX decrease in my credit score that occurred between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThis drop followed the lawful opening of a new credit card account and an increase in my utilization rate yet occurred without any hard inquiry, late payment, derogatory mark, or adverse credit event. Every payment on all my accounts has been made on time. \n\nAs a XXXX consumer living below 150 % of the federal poverty level, who depends entirely on Social Security XXXX XXXX ( SSDI ) benefits totaling {$16000.00} per year, I assert that this action by TransUnion is unreasonable, discriminatory, and unlawful. It has inflicted measurable financial and psychological harm, restricting my access to essential credit opportunities and impeding my economic stability. \n\nThis complaint arises under and implicates the following laws and standards : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. \nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.\n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.\n\nNew Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. ) New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:11-28 et seq. ) New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. ) Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ), 42 U.S.C. 12132 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection II. STATEMENT OF FACTS I am writing to formally lodge a dispute and seek immediate redress regarding a drastic and unreasonable XXXX decrease in my XXXX XXXX by TransUnion since XX/XX/XXXX. This reduction followed the opening of a new credit card account and a rise in credit utilization due to family medical emergency, yet occurred without any hard inquiry on my credit report making the action arbitrary, punitive, and without legitimate basis. \n\nAt all times, I have paid every credit card bill on time since the inception of each of my XXXX accounts. While my utilization ratio is currently high, this stems directly from my severe financial hardship caused by XXXX, as I live on a fixed SSDI income of only {$16000.00} per year. Additionally, I incurred necessary debt while staying in California for nearly XXXX months at my grandmothers bedside during her stay in the ICU from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, where I served as her caretaker until she passed away on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIt is unjust and discriminatory to penalize a XXXX individual living below 150 % of the poverty level for not having the financial means to qualify for higher credit limits due to inability to work due to XXXX which would allow lower utilization rates. Such a practice effectively punishes poor and XXXX consumers for circumstances beyond their control and perpetuates systemic bias in access to credit. \n\nFurthermore, the {$73.00} XXXX collection account listed on my credit report is erroneous and should never have been sent to collections, as I was never notified of any balance due nor given an opportunity to dispute or pay before collection action was taken.\n\nAs a direct consequence of TransUnions actions, I am now unable to secure housing despite fleeing XXXX XXXX  and related criminal conduct, have been denied new credit cards and a debt consolidation loan, and have lost access to lower insurance premiums. This has left me a XXXX person with sixteen documented XXXX and a fixed incomeat risk of homelessness and unable to maintain safe or stable living conditions. \n\nI believe that this drastic reduction and its cascading effects violate my rights under the Consumer Fraud Act, Consumer Protection Laws, Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), as well as federal anti-discrimination statutes. These actions are exploitative, biased, unlawful, and fundamentally incompatible with the principles of fairness and equal access to financial services guaranteed by state and federal law.\n\nIII. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND VIOLATIONS 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i The FCRA mandates that consumer reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. TransUnions decision to reduce my score by XXXX points without a valid adverse event violates the accuracy, fairness, and reasonableness standards of the XXXX. \n\nFurther, XXXX ( a ) requires a reinvestigation of disputed information. TransUnions failure to explain the scoring basis or review the disputed XXXX entry constitutes non-compliance. \nThis unreasonable scoring practice, untethered to my actual risk profile, meets the standard of negligence or willful noncompliance under FCRA 616-617, as interpreted in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). \n\n2. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. ; 12 C.F.R. 1002.6 ( b ) ( 2 ) ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction, including through policies that cause disparate impact on protected groups. Penalizing a XXXX, low-income SSDI recipient with a XXXX drop for lawful credit activity disproportionately affects vulnerable consumers and thus constitutes a disparate impact violation under XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe algorithm appears to punish consumers who can not raise credit limits due to XXXX or fixed incomea structurally biased outcome inconsistent with XXXX and the principles of fair lending and equal opportunity enforced by the CFPB and DOJ.\n\n3. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), 1692e ( 8 ) The unverified XXXX collection entry reflects false and misleading credit reporting. Reporting such a debt without verification constitutes deceptive representation under 1692e. The FTCs Staff Commentary on the FDCPA clarifies that the transmission of inaccurate collection data to a credit bureau qualifies as a misleading act under the statute.\n\n4. New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 ) The CFA prohibits unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretense, and misrepresentation. TransUnions unexplained, automated penaltyimposing severe financial damage absent any legitimate causeconstitutes an unconscionable and deceptive act under New Jersey law. The practice misleads lenders into perceiving heightened risk, damaging the consumers creditworthiness without factual justification.\n\n5. New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. ) The NJLAD extends to public accommodations and financial services. Penalizing a disabled consumer for lawful financial actions, due to their inability to increase credit capacity, reflects a discriminatory effect that violates N.J.A.C. 13:13-3.2 ( a ) ( 4 ), which prohibits discriminatory treatment in credit evaluation and financial access.\n\n6. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6801 ( b ) If TransUnion accessed utilization data through soft inquiries or non-disclosed data sources, such access violates GLBA data privacy and confidentiality obligations. Using private financial data algorithmically to impose penalties without notice, consent, or transparency contravenes both GLBA 501 ( b ) and FTC Safeguards Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 314.\n\n7. Due Process and Equal Protection Credit bureaus exercise quasi-regulatory authority over co\nnsumers financial reputations. Under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 ( 1970 ) and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 ( 1976 ), any deprivation of property or reputation interests by an entity operating under public authorization requires procedural fairness. \n\nThe arbitrary XXXX decrease, executed without notice, rationale, or opportunity to contest, violates fundamental principles of due process and fairness embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.\n\nIV. ALGORITHMIC BIAS AND SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION TransUnions reliance on opaque, unregulated algorithmic scoring models presents a systemic risk of discriminatory outcomes. Such algorithms, operating without human review, frequently penalize consumers with limited credit histories, low incomes, or disabilitiesconditions protected under federal law.\n\nThe CFPBs Advisory Opinion on Algorithmic Credit Scoring ( XXXX  ) explicitly warns that automated systems can not shield credit entities from liability under ECOA or FCRA. When algorithmic models produce disparate outcomes, entities remain legally responsible for ensuring fairness and explainability.\n\nThis case demonstrates how a flawed algorithm likely produced a disparate and disproportionate result, treating lawful, responsible financial behavior as a high-risk event. This not only violates federal standards but erodes public trust in the integrity of the credit reporting system. \n\nV. CONSUMER HARM AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS The unwarranted XXXX reduction has caused tangible harm : Economic harm, by restricting access to affordable credit, loans, and housing. \nReputational harm, by misrepresenting my financial responsibility to lenders. \nPsychological harm, as a XXXX individual now viewed as financially untrustworthy without cause. \n\nPublic policy strongly disfavors punitive scoring behavior detached from actual financial risk. The Federal Reserves Credit Scoring Guidelines and the FTCs Policy Statement on Unfairness ( XXXX ) require that financial scoring practices be proportionate, transparent, and consistent with objective data. \n\nTransUnions conduct not only fails this standardit undermines the equitable purpose of the FCRA and XXXX by making fair credit access impossible for XXXX and low-income Americans. \n\nVI. LEGAL PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING REMEDY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Inaccurate credit reporting constitutes concrete harm. \nPintos v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : CRAs must ensure accuracy and fairness in reporting. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX. TransUnion LLC, XXXX XXXX XXXX : Establishes liability for misleading and harmful score reductions. \nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Confirms transparency in consumer credit processes. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Failure to contextualize consumer data is actionable under FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Disparate treatment in credit evaluation violates XXXX. \n\nXXXX. REQUESTED ACTIONS AND RELIEF I respectfully request that your offices : 1. Initiate a coordinated multi-agency investigation into TransUnions credit scoring algorithms and reporting procedures for violations of federal and state law. \nXXXX. XXXX TransUnion to provide a detailed disclosure explaining the precise data and factors used to justify this XXXX reduction. \nXXXX. Order the immediate restoration of my credit score to its XXXX XXXX level and remove the unverified XXXX collection from my record. \nXXXX. Recommend enforcement action or civil penalties to ensure compliance with FCRA, XXXX, and NJCFA standards. \nXXXX. Implement algorithmic oversight requirements ensuring transparency and fairness in credit score calculations for XXXX and low-income consumers. \nXXXX. Refer this matter to the DOJ XXXX XXXX XXXX for investigation into systemic discriminatory scoring practices. \n\nTransUnions unexplained and disproportionate XXXX XXXX XXXX reduction is arbitrary, deceptive, discriminatory, and unlawful. It reflects a systemic failure of algorithmic accountability and violates both federal and state consumer protection and anti-discrimination statutes. \n\nThe law requires that credit reporting be accurate, fair, transparent, and nondiscriminatory. My case demonstrates the oppositea punitive and baseless algorithmic decision that punished lawful behavior, exacerbated my financial hardship, and violated my rights under FCRA, ECOA, FDCPA, NJLAD, and constitutional due process.\n\nI therefore request immediate corrective and enforcement action to restore fairness, transparency, and accountability within TransUnions credit reporting practices.\n\nRespectfully submitted,","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-26T10:15:07.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"08831","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16827541","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-26T10:11:17.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information is incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnions <em>failure</em> to explain the scoring basis or review the disputed XXXX entry constitutes non-<em>compliance</em>. \nThis unreasonable scoring practice, untethered to my actual risk profile, meets the standard of negligence or willful noncompliance <em>under</em> FCRA 616-617, as interpreted in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). \n\n2."]},"sort":[9.864465,"16827541"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14432436","_score":9.103822,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'Complaint Regarding XXXX XXXX  Failure to Report Mortgage Payments Post-Bankruptcy\\n\\nBackground\\n\\nI am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for its ongoing refusal to report my mortgage payment history to the XXXX  XXXX  credit bureauXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  TransUnion) since my bankruptcy discharge. In XXXX  I filed for bankruptcy and obtained a discharge of personal liability on my mortgage loan. I did not sign a reaffirmation agreement for the mortgage, meaning I was relieved of personal liability for the debt as of the discharge date. Despite that, I chose to continue making every mortgage payment on time to XXXX  in order to keep my home. I have never been late on a payment post-discharge. However, XXXX  is not reporting any of this positive payment history to the credit bureaus. This failure to report is severely XXXX  my credit, as I have no active credit history reflecting these timely mortgage payments.\\n\\XXXX  has told me (in writing and/or by phone) that because the debt was discharged in bankruptcy and not reaffirmed, they are not obligated or not willing to report my payments to the credit bureaus. I find this stance to be unfair, deceptive, and harmful. I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigate this issue and require XXXX  to fulfill its responsibilities with regard to fair and accurate credit reporting. If XXXX  continues to neglect or refuse its duty to report my mortgage appropriately, I am prepared to pursue legal action to protect my rights.\\n\\XXXX  Refusal to Report and Its Harmful Consequences\\n\\XXXX  refusal to report my ongoing mortgage payments has had tangible XXXX  consequences on my financial life. Because no current mortgage account is showing up on my credit reports, my credit score and overall creditworthiness remain XXXX XXXX I effectively get no credit for the fact that I have been responsibly paying a major loan for which Im still accountable (at least to keep my home) . This lack of reporting makes it appear to other lenders as if I have no active mortgage or, worse, that I walked away from my mortgage after the bankruptcy. In reality, I have been diligently paying the loan every month  but to anyone reviewing my credit, its as if this positive history doesnt exist.\\n\\nThis situation is not unique to me. In a recent legal case, a homeowner in New Hampshire faced an almost identical problem with XXXX. After a bankruptcy (in that case, a dismissed XXXX XXXX ), XXXX  failed to report the borrowers timely mortgage payments, which thwarted the borrowers attempts to refinance at better rates . One prospective lender denied a refinance application solely because the XXXX  mortgage did not appear on any of the credit bureau reports . Astonishingly, XXXX itself then refused to refinance the loan, citing the very lack of credit reporting that XXXX  caused (XXXX  stated the borrower needed to reaffirm the mortgage from the bankruptcy  even though reaffirmation was not applicable in that case) . Instead of simply reporting the payment history to the bureaus, XXXX  forced that borrower to undergo an arduous process of proving creditworthiness through alternative means . This real-world example illustrates how XXXX  failure to report timely payments can trap consumers in a vicious cycle, preventing them from rebuilding credit or obtaining new credit on fair terms.\\n\\nIn my case, the XXXX  is clear: I have essentially no active credit accounts on my credit report because my mortgage  my primary XXXX  account  is unreported. This makes it extremely difficult for me to obtain new credit, whether it be XXXX  cards, XXXX  loans, or refinancing my home loan, because lenders see a thin or empty credit file. It is well-known that on-time mortgage payments are a key positive factor in credit scoring and credit decisions. By omitting my spotless payment record, XXXX  is denying me the benefit of my good behavior, and this is directly impeding my financial recovery post-bankruptcy. I feel I am being XXXX  for exercising my legal right to a bankruptcy discharge. XXXX  stance effectively says that unless a debtor reaffirms their mortgage (i.e., gives up the fresh-start protection of the bankruptcy for that debt), the debtor will not be able to rebuild credit via their mortgage. This practice is coercive and unfair  it tries to pressure consumers into reaffirmation or else suffer a credit disadvantage  .\\n\\nMisrepresentation of Obligations and Inaccurate Information\\n\\XXXX  has indicated that it believes it has no obligation to report my mortgage since the debt was discharged in bankruptcy. While it is true that no law compels a creditor to furnish data to credit bureaus in the first place, it is also true that if a creditor does furnish information, that information must be fair, accurate, and not misleading under the law . My understanding is that XXXX  did furnish information about my mortgage around the time of the bankruptcy  presumably updating the account to indicate it was included in bankruptcy with a XXXX  balance. But the story doesnt end there. After the discharge, I continued to make payments and the mortgage remains in force (the lien exists on my home). By failing to update or report anything at all about the subsequent payments and current status, XXXX  is effectively leaving an incomplete and misleading picture on my credit report. The credit bureaus either show the mortgage as discharged/closed with no further updates, or not at all. This omission of crucial current information creates a false impression of my creditworthiness. It suggests I have no ongoing mortgage or that I have no recent payment history, which is inaccurate and materially misleading in evaluating my credit risk.\\n\\nBoth federal and state laws address the duty of furnishers to ensure accuracy and completeness of reported information:\\n\\t\\tFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2: Under the FCRA, companies that furnish information to credit reporting agencies must not report information they know (or have reasonable cause to believe) is inaccurate. They also must correct and update information so that it remains accurate and complete . Intentionally or negligently omitting relevant information can make an existing report on an account misleading. In fact, federal regulations encourage furnishers to include all information that is needed to ensure the information is not materially misleading in evaluating a consumers creditworthiness . By not reporting my ongoing payments, XXXX  is withholding information that is certainly material to my creditworthiness (the difference between a mortgage that is current versus one that appears dormant or nonexistent is enormous). Once XXXX  chose to report the account as discharged, it should have also reported any pertinent subsequent information (such as the fact that I have kept the loan current) to avoid a materially misleading impression.\\n\\t\\tCalifornia Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I am a resident of California, and this state law explicitly provides that [a] person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate. . This means a furnisher like XXXX  can be held liable for failing to provide complete and accurate information. XXXX  knows my mortgage is active and being paid (they send monthly statements and accept my payments), so they know that reporting nothing (or an old status from time of bankruptcy) is incomplete and thus misleading. The CCRAA gives consumers like me the right to sue a furnisher that willfully or negligently provides incomplete or inaccurate information . I contend that XXXX  blanket policy of refusing to report post-bankruptcy payments falls under this prohibition  it results in credit reporting that is incomplete and harmful.\\n\\nAdditionally, I believe XXXX  behavior may violate the spirit of the bankruptcy discharge injunction. Congress intended the bankruptcy discharge to give honest debtors a fresh start, not to trap them in credit purgatory. By refusing to report my account as current, XXXX  is effectively undermining my fresh start. Some industry sources claim that mortgage lenders arent allowed to report on discharged debts at all , but this is not a codified law or absolute rule  it is a conservative (and self-serving) interpretation that lenders use to shield themselves. In reality, there is no statute that outright forbids reporting a discharged debt; the FCRA and bankruptcy laws only mandate that any such reporting be accurate (e.g., showing the debt as discharged with no personal liability). If XXXX  is asserting that the bankruptcy prevents them from reporting, I challenge that position as false or at least grossly misleading. Nowhere does the Bankruptcy Code or FCRA state that a creditor may not report voluntary payments on a discharged debt. XXXX  could report my payments in a manner consistent with the discharge (for example, noting the loan was discharged in bankruptcy but voluntarily being paid). Instead, they have chosen not to report at all, which serves only their interests and XXXX  mine. Using the lack of credit reporting as a weapon to penalize debtors for not reaffirming has been acknowledged by attorneys and is unfortunately common practice   but common does not mean right or fair.\\n\\nViolation of Consumer Protection Laws (UDAAP) and Good Faith\\n\\XXXX  conduct raises serious concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Acts prohibition on Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP). An act is unfair if it causes substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by benefits. Here, the injury to me is substantial: I am being denied normal credit opportunities and score improvements despite doing everything right (paying on time). I could not have reasonably avoided this injury  short of the imprudent choice of reaffirming the mortgage during bankruptcy (which most consumer attorneys advise against), there was nothing I could do to force XXXX  to report. The XXXX  of a XXXX  credit score is also not outweighed by any countervailing benefit to consumers. In fact, all the benefit of this practice accrues to XXXX, which avoids the administrative effort of reporting and perhaps uses the policy as leverage against borrowers. The CFPB has previously taken action against XXXX  for deceptive and unfair practices, including issues related to credit reporting. In XXXX XXXX, the CFPB found that XXXX  misled certain homeowners and inaccurately reported information to credit bureaus (in that case, regarding CARES Act forbearances) . XXXX  was ordered to repair its faulty business practices and paid a hefty civil penalty . This demonstrates that XXXX  is no stranger to CFPB enforcement for credit reporting issues and that the CFPB expects it to accurately report homeowner information. I urge the CFPB to similarly scrutinize XXXX  practice in my case as an unfair practice.\\n\\nFurthermore, XXXX  refusal to report my payments could be seen as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our ongoing mortgage relationship. Even though my personal liability was discharged, as long as I continue to make payments and XXXX  accepts them, we have an ongoing lender-borrower relationship with respect to the property. XXXX  actions (or inactions) are depriving me of the benefits I should reasonably expect from our relationship  namely, that if I pay on time, I build positive credit and eventually gain the ability to refinance or otherwise improve my financial position. A federal court has noted that a servicers failure to honor obligations and fair dealing with a borrower can give rise to claims  . In the Palladino v. XXXX  case mentioned earlier, the court suggested that if XXXX  failure to report payments caused the borrower to miss a refinance opportunity, it could certainly be problematic for XXXX  from a legal standpoint . In my situation, XXXX conduct is indeed causing me tangible XXXX  and is certainly problematic and legally suspect.\\n\\nDemand for Relief\\n\\nI am requesting the CFPBs assistance in resolving this matter. Specifically, I ask that the CFPB compel XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  to begin reporting my XXXX  account and payment history to XXXX XXXX  major credit bureaus in a fair and accurate manner. This reporting should reflect that while the debt was discharged in bankruptcy (no personal liability), I have continued to pay as agreed and the loan is current. There is no legitimate reason that my perfectly timely payment record should be hidden from my credit profile. If XXXX  is concerned about legal compliance in how to report a discharged-but-paid loan, they can easily consult credit reporting guidelines or work with the credit bureaus to report it with the appropriate commentary (for example, noting the balance owing on the home but XXXX personal liability due to XXXX XXXX  discharge). What is not acceptable is the status quo of complete silence.\\n\\nI also request that CFPB ensure XXXX  ceases providing any misinformation. XXXX  representatives have essentially told me (and other borrowers, as evidenced) that we dont have to report because you didnt reaffirm. This statement is at best a half-truth and at worst a deception. While they might not be legally compelled to report, they are legally obligated to be truthful in whatever they do choose to report, and they should not mislead consumers about their rights. The CFPB should instruct XXXX  that using non-reporting as a pressure tactic or excuse is not an acceptable practice in the eyes of federal regulators.\\n\\nFinally, if XXXX  refuses to take corrective action, I want it to be on record that I will pursue all available legal remedies. This may include filing a lawsuit for violation of the FCRA and Californias CCRAA for knowingly reporting incomplete/inaccurate information , and any other applicable laws. I am also aware that consistent with 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b), if I dispute this matter with the credit bureaus and XXXX  fails to conduct a proper investigation and correct the information, I would have a private right of action under the FCRA. I truly hope it does not come to that. My goal is simple and fair: I want my good payment history to be reflected in my credit reports, so that I can rebuild my credit after bankruptcy as the law intends.\\n\\nConclusion\\n\\nIn summary, XXXX  XXXX  XXXX is wrongfully withholding my positive credit information, under the justification of my past bankruptcy. This behavior is causing me significant XXXX  by stalling my credit recovery. There are strong public policy reasons and legal provisions that support my position that this situation must be rectified. I urge the CFPB to take action to protect consumers in my situation. XXXX  should be directed to immediately begin reporting my XXXX  loan status and payment history, or else provide a valid legal justification (which I contend does not exist) for why it will not do so. If they cannot provide one, then their continued failure to report should be deemed an unfair and abusive practice that the CFPB will not tolerate.\\n\\nI appreciate the CFPBs attention to this matter. I am providing any necessary documentation (e.g. proof of payments, correspondence with XXXX, etc.) to support my complaint. I simply want whats fair: credit for the mortgage payments I have made and continue to make. By addressing this issue, the CFPB can help ensure that consumers emerging from bankruptcy are not unfairly penalized by servicers who hide positive credit behavior. Thank you for your consideration and prompt action on this complaint.\\n\\n\\nReferences: (supporting statutes, cases, and facts)\\n\\t\\tCalifornia Civil Code 1785.25(a)  prohibits furnishing information to credit agencies that is knowingly incomplete or inaccurate .\\n\\tXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Borrowers refinance was denied because XXXX  failed to report her mortgage; XXXX  improperly insisted on reaffirmation. Court noted such failure to report, causing missed opportunities, could certainly be problematic for the servicer  .\\n\\t\\tFTC Advisory Letter (XXXX XXXX XXXX)  creditors must report discharged debts accurately (as dischargedXXXX balance) and not misreport them  . This underscores that accurate reporting post-bankruptcy is required; by extension, omitting ongoing payments is misleading.\\n\\t\\tCFPB Enforcement Action (2022)  CFPB fined XXXX  XXXX XXXX for, inter alia, inaccurately reporting homeowners information to credit bureaus during XXXX  forbearances . Demonstrates CFPBs stance that XXXX  must report consumer information correctly.\\n\\t\\tConsumer accounts (forums, legal Q&A)  It is widely observed that some lenders refuse to report post-bankruptcy payments unless a debt is reaffirmed. This tactic has been described as a weapon used to coerce reaffirmation, technically legal because no law forces reporting, but only if they do report must it be truthful . Such practices are controversial and XXXX to consumers fresh start.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-02T15:16:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"913XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14432436","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-02T15:16:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\n\\n<em>Both</em> <em>federal</em> and state laws address the duty of furnishers to ensure accuracy and completeness of reported information:\\n\\t\\tFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2: <em>Under</em> the FCRA, companies that furnish information to credit reporting agencies must not report information they know (or have reasonable cause to believe) is inaccurate. They also must correct and update information so that it remains accurate and complete ."]},"sort":[9.103822,"14432436"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14423524","_score":8.524624,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'Complaint Regarding XXXX  Mortgages Failure to Report Mortgage Payments Post-Bankruptcy\\n\\nBackground\\n\\nI am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX  XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX  for its ongoing refusal to report my mortgage payment history to the XXXX  major credit bureaus XXXX Experian, XXXX XXXX since my bankruptcy discharge. In XXXX  I filed for bankruptcy and obtained a discharge of personal liability on my XXXX  loan. I did not sign a reaffirmation agreement for the XXXX, meaning I was relieved of personal liability for the debt as of the discharge date. Despite that, I chose to continue making every mortgage payment on time to XXXX  in order to keep my home. I have never been late on a payment post-discharge. However, XXXX is not reporting any of this positive payment history to the credit bureaus. This failure to report is XXXX  XXXX  my credit, as I have no active credit history reflecting these timely XXXX  payments.\\n\\XXXX  has told me (in writing and/or by phone) that because the debt was discharged in bankruptcy and not reaffirmed, they are not obligated or not willing to report my payments to the credit bureaus. I find this stance to be unfair, deceptive, and harmful. I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigate this issue and require XXXX  to fulfill its responsibilities with regard to fair and accurate credit reporting. If XXXX  continues to neglect or refuse its duty to report my mortgage appropriately, I am prepared to pursue legal action to protect my rights.\\n\\XXXX  Refusal to Report and Its XXXX  Consequences\\n\\XXXX  refusal to report my ongoing mortgage payments has had tangible negative consequences on my financial life. Because no current mortgage account is showing up on my credit reports, my credit score and overall creditworthiness remain XXXX  XXXX. I effectively get no credit for the fact that I have been responsibly paying a major loan for which Im still accountable (at least to keep my home) . This lack of reporting makes it appear to other lenders as if I have no active mortgage or, worse, that I walked away from my mortgage after the bankruptcy. In reality, I have been diligently paying the loan every month  but to anyone reviewing my credit, its as if this positive history doesnt exist.\\n\\nThis situation is not unique to me. In a recent legal case, a homeowner in New Hampshire faced an almost identical problem with XXXX. After a bankruptcy (in that case, a dismissed XXXX XXXX ), XXXX  failed to report the borrowers timely mortgage payments, which thwarted the borrowers attempts to refinance at better rates . One prospective lender denied a refinance application solely because the XXXX  XXXX  did not appear on any of the credit bureau reports . Astonishingly, XXXX  itself then refused to refinance the loan, citing the very lack of credit reporting that XXXX  caused (XXXX  stated the borrower needed to reaffirm the mortgage from the bankruptcy  even though reaffirmation was not applicable in that case) . Instead of simply reporting the payment history to the bureaus, XXXX  forced that borrower to undergo an arduous process of proving creditworthiness through alternative means . This real-world example illustrates how XXXX  failure to report timely payments can trap consumers in a vicious cycle, preventing them from rebuilding credit or obtaining new credit on fair terms.\\n\\nIn my case, the XXXX is clear: I have essentially no active credit accounts on my credit report because my mortgage  my primary XXXX  account  is unreported. This makes it extremely difficult for me to obtain new credit, whether it be XXXX  cards, XXXX  loans, or refinancing my home loan, because lenders see a thin or empty credit file. It is well-known that on-time mortgage payments are a key positive factor in credit scoring and credit decisions. By omitting my spotless payment record, XXXX  is denying me the benefit of my good behavior, and this is directly impeding my financial recovery post-bankruptcy. I feel I am being punished for exercising my legal right to a bankruptcy discharge. XXXX stance effectively says that unless a debtor reaffirms their mortgage (i.e., gives up the fresh-start protection of the bankruptcy for that debt), the debtor will not be able to rebuild credit via their mortgage. This practice is coercive and unfair  it tries to pressure consumers into reaffirmation or else suffer a credit disadvantage  .\\n\\nMisrepresentation of Obligations and Inaccurate Information\\n\\XXXX has indicated that it believes it has no obligation to report my mortgage since the debt was discharged in bankruptcy. While it is true that no law compels a creditor to furnish data to credit bureaus in the first place, it is also true that if a creditor does furnish information, that information must be fair, accurate, and not misleading under the law . My understanding is that XXXX  did furnish information about my mortgage around the time of the bankruptcy  presumably updating the account to indicate it was included in bankruptcy with a XXXXXXXX  balance. But the story doesnt end there. After the discharge, I continued to make payments and the mortgage remains in force (the lien exists on my home). By failing to update or report anything at all about the subsequent payments and current status, XXXX is effectively leaving an incomplete and misleading picture on my credit report. The credit bureaus either show the mortgage as XXXX with no further updates, or not at all. This omission of crucial current information creates a false impression of my creditworthiness. It suggests I have no ongoing mortgage or that I have no recent payment history, which is inaccurate and materially misleading in evaluating my credit risk.\\n\\nBoth federal and state laws address the duty of furnishers to ensure accuracy and completeness of reported information:\\n\\t\\tFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2: Under the FCRA, companies that furnish information to credit reporting agencies must not report information they know (or have reasonable cause to believe) is inaccurate. They also must correct and update information so that it remains accurate and complete . Intentionally or negligently omitting relevant information can make an existing report on an account misleading. In fact, federal regulations encourage furnishers to include all information that is needed to ensure the information is not materially misleading in evaluating a consumers creditworthiness . By not reporting my ongoing payments, XXXX  is withholding information that is certainly material to my creditworthiness (the difference between a mortgage that is current versus one that appears dormant or nonexistent is enormous). Once XXXX  chose to report the account as discharged, it should have also reported any pertinent subsequent information (such as the fact that I have kept the loan current) to avoid a materially misleading impression.\\n\\t\\tCalifornia Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAAXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I am a resident of XXXX, and this state law explicitly provides that [a] person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate. . This means a furnisher like XXXX  can be held liable for failing to provide complete and accurate information. XXXX  knows my mortgage is active and being paid (they send monthly statements and accept my payments), so they know that reporting nothing (or an old status from time of bankruptcy) is incomplete and thus misleading. The CCRAA gives consumers like me the right to sue a furnisher that willfully or negligently provides incomplete or inaccurate information . I contend that XXXX  blanket policy of refusing to report post-bankruptcy payments falls under this prohibition  it results in credit reporting that is incomplete and harmful.\\n\\nAdditionally, I believe XXXX  behavior may violate the spirit of the bankruptcy discharge injunction. Congress intended the bankruptcy discharge to give honest debtors a fresh start, not to trap them in credit purgatory. By refusing to report my account as current, XXXX  is effectively undermining my fresh start. Some industry sources claim that mortgage lenders arent allowed to report on discharged debts at all , but this is not a codified law or absolute rule  it is a conservative (and self-serving) interpretation that lenders use to shield themselves. In reality, there is no statute that outright forbids reporting a discharged debt; the FCRA and bankruptcy laws only mandate that any such reporting be accurate (e.g., showing the debt as discharged with no personal liability). If XXXX  is asserting that the bankruptcy prevents them from reporting, I challenge that position as false or at least XXXX misleading. Nowhere does the Bankruptcy Code or FCRA state that a creditor may not report voluntary payments on a discharged debt. XXXX  could report my payments in a manner consistent with the discharge (for example, noting the loan was discharged in bankruptcy but voluntarily being paid). Instead, they have chosen not to report at all, which serves only their interests and harms mine. Using the lack of credit reporting as a weapon to penalize debtors for not reaffirming has been acknowledged by attorneys and is unfortunately common practice   but common does not mean right or fair.\\n\\nViolation of Consumer Protection Laws (UDAAP) and Good Faith\\n\\XXXX  conduct raises serious concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Acts prohibition on Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP). An act is unfair if it causes substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by benefits. Here, the XXXX  to me is substantial: I am being denied normal credit opportunities and score improvements despite doing everything right (paying on time). I could not have reasonably avoided this XXXX   short of the imprudent choice of reaffirming the mortgage during bankruptcy (which most consumer attorneys advise against), there was nothing I could do to force XXXX  to report. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit score is also not outweighed by any countervailing benefit to consumers. In fact, all the benefit of this practice accrues to XXXX, which avoids the administrative effort of reporting and perhaps uses the policy as leverage against borrowers. The CFPB has previously taken action against XXXX  for deceptive and unfair practices, including issues related to credit reporting. In XXXX XXXX, the CFPB found that XXXX  misled certain homeowners and inaccurately reported information to credit bureaus (in that case, regarding XXXX  XXXX  forbearances) . XXXX  was ordered to repair its faulty business practices and paid a hefty civil penalty . This demonstrates that XXXX  is no stranger to CFPB enforcement for credit reporting issues and that the CFPB expects it to accurately report homeowner information. I urge the CFPB to similarly scrutinize XXXX  practice in my case as an unfair practice.\\n\\nFurthermore, XXXX  refusal to report my payments could be seen as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our ongoing mortgage relationship. Even though my personal liability was discharged, as long as I continue to make payments and XXXX  accepts them, we have an ongoing lender-borrower relationship with respect to the property. XXXX  actions (or inactions) are depriving me of the benefits I should reasonably expect from our relationship  namely, that if I pay on time, I build positive credit and eventually gain the ability to refinance or otherwise improve my financial position. A federal court has noted that a servicers failure to honor obligations and fair dealing with a borrower can give rise to claims  . In the Palladino v. XXXX  case mentioned earlier, the court suggested that if XXXX  failure to report payments caused the borrower to miss a refinance opportunity, it could certainly be problematic for XXXX  from a legal standpoint . In my situation, XXXX  conduct is indeed causing me tangible XXXX  and is certainly problematic and legally suspect.\\n\\nDemand for Relief\\n\\nI am requesting the CFPBs assistance in resolving this matter. Specifically, I ask that the CFPB compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to begin reporting my mortgage account and payment history to all three major credit bureaus in a fair and accurate manner. This reporting should reflect that while the debt was discharged in bankruptcy (no personal liability), I have continued to pay as agreed and the loan is current. There is no legitimate reason that my perfectly timely payment record should be hidden from my credit profile. If XXXX  is concerned about legal compliance in how to report a discharged-but-paid loan, they can easily consult credit reporting guidelines or work with the credit bureaus to report it with the appropriate commentary (for example, noting the balance owing on the home but XXXX personal liability due to XXXX XXXX  discharge). What is not acceptable is the status quo of complete silence.\\n\\nI also request that CFPB ensure XXXX  ceases providing any misinformation. XXXX  representatives have essentially told me (and other borrowers, as evidenced) that we dont have to report because you didnt reaffirm. This statement is at best a half-truth and at worst a deception. While they might not be legally compelled to report, they are legally obligated to be truthful in whatever they do choose to report, and they should not mislead consumers about their rights. The CFPB should instruct XXXX  that using non-reporting as a pressure tactic or excuse is not an acceptable practice in the eyes of federal regulators.\\n\\nFinally, if XXXX  refuses to take corrective action, I want it to be on record that I will pursue all available legal remedies. This may include filing a lawsuit for violation of the FCRA and Californias CCRAA for knowingly reporting incomplete/inaccurate information , and any other applicable laws. I am also aware that consistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX  if I dispute this matter with the credit bureaus and XXXX  fails to conduct a proper investigation and correct the information, I would have a private right of action under the FCRA. I truly hope it does not come to that. My goal is simple and fair: I want my good payment history to be reflected in my credit reports, so that I can rebuild my credit after bankruptcy as the law intends.\\n\\nConclusion\\n\\nIn summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is wrongfully withholding my positive credit information, under the justification of my past bankruptcy. This behavior is causing me XXXX  XXXX  by stalling my credit recovery. There are strong public policy reasons and legal provisions that support my position that this situation must be rectified. I urge the CFPB to take action to protect consumers in my situation. XXXX should be directed to immediately begin reporting my XXXX  loan status and payment history, or else provide a valid legal justification (which I contend does not exist) for why it will not do so. If they cannot provide one, then their continued failure to report should be deemed an unfair and abusive practice that the CFPB will not tolerate.\\n\\nI appreciate the CFPBs attention to this matter. I am providing any necessary documentation (e.g. proof of payments, correspondence with XXXX, etc.) to support my complaint. I simply want whats fair: credit for the mortgage payments I have made and continue to make. By addressing this issue, the CFPB can help ensure that consumers emerging from bankruptcy are not unfairly penalized by servicers who hide positive credit behavior. Thank you for your consideration and prompt action on this complaint.\\n\\n\\nReferences: (supporting statutes, cases, and facts)\\n\\t\\tCalifornia Civil Code 1785.25(a)  prohibits furnishing information to credit agencies that is knowingly incomplete or inaccurate .\\n\\t\\tPalladino v. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   Borrowers refinance was denied because XXXX  failed to report her mortgage; XXXX  improperly insisted on reaffirmation. Court noted such failure to report, causing missed opportunities, could certainly be problematic for the servicer  .\\n\\t\\tFTC Advisory Letter XXXX XXXX XXXX  creditors must report discharged debts accurately (as discharged/$0 balance) and not misreport them  . This underscores that accurate reporting post-bankruptcy is required; by extension, omitting ongoing payments is misleading.\\n\\t\\tCFPB Enforcement Action (2022)  CFPB fined XXXX XXXX XXXX for, inter alia, inaccurately reporting homeowners information to credit bureaus during XXXX  forbearances . Demonstrates CFPBs stance that XXXX  must report consumer information correctly.\\n\\t\\tConsumer accounts (forums, legal Q&A)  It is widely observed that some lenders refuse to report post-bankruptcy payments unless a debt is reaffirmed. This tactic has been described as a weapon used to coerce reaffirmation, technically legal because no law forces reporting, but only if they do report must it be truthful . Such practices are controversial and XXXX  to consumers fresh start.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-02T15:16:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"913XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14423524","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-02T15:16:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\n\\n<em>Both</em> <em>federal</em> and state laws address the duty of furnishers to ensure accuracy and completeness of reported information:\\n\\t\\tFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2: <em>Under</em> the FCRA, companies that furnish information to credit reporting agencies must not report information they know (or have reasonable cause to believe) is inaccurate. They also must correct and update information so that it remains accurate and complete ."]},"sort":[8.524624,"14423524"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12959305","_score":8.509248,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion LLC, 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 XXXX046. 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 XXXX : Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \n6. Defendant TransUnion : Defendant TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). TransUnion is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX  XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. TransUnion 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early 2025, Plaintiff discovered that her XXXX and TransUnion 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 XXXXXXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX 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 Mortgage 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 XXXX and TransUnion. 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 Services 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 Services Account ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, 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. \nXXXX XXXX  Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XXXX XXXX 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.\n\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. \n11. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, Plaintiff initiated disputes with XXXX and TransUnion to correct these egregious errors. Plaintiff prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both XXXX and TransUnion ( 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 XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 XXXX XXXX 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.\n\n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, XXXX and TransUnion 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n14. 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 PACER 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from XXXX and TransUnion directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against XXXX and TransUnion regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint NoXXXX ). 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 XXXX UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n16. Harm to Plaintiff : 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 anxiety, 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 XXXX and TransUnion 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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 XXXX and TransUnion 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 Defendants XXXX Information Solutions , Inc. and TransUnion LLC : 1. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs XXXX and TransUnion credit 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 two XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 ).\n\n3. 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:48:35.000Z","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":"12959305","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:48:07.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Federal</em> Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise <em>under</em> <em>federal</em> 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 <em>under</em> 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for <em>federal</em> court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2."]},"sort":[8.509248,"12959305"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12959229","_score":8.509248,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion LLC, 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 XXXX046. 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 XXXX : Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \n6. Defendant TransUnion : Defendant TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). TransUnion is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX  XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. TransUnion 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early 2025, Plaintiff discovered that her XXXX and TransUnion 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 XXXXXXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX 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 Mortgage 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 XXXX and TransUnion. 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 Services 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 Services Account ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, 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. \nXXXX XXXX  Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XXXX XXXX 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.\n\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. \n11. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, Plaintiff initiated disputes with XXXX and TransUnion to correct these egregious errors. Plaintiff prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both XXXX and TransUnion ( 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 XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 XXXX XXXX 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.\n\n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, XXXX and TransUnion 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n14. 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 PACER 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from XXXX and TransUnion directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against XXXX and TransUnion regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint NoXXXX ). 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 XXXX UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n16. Harm to Plaintiff : 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 anxiety, 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 XXXX and TransUnion 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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 XXXX and TransUnion 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 Defendants XXXX Information Solutions , Inc. and TransUnion LLC : 1. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs XXXX and TransUnion credit 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 two XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 ).\n\n3. 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:48:35.000Z","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":"12959229","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:48:07.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Federal</em> Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise <em>under</em> <em>federal</em> 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 <em>under</em> 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for <em>federal</em> court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2."]},"sort":[8.509248,"12959229"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12954528","_score":8.509248,"_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>Federal</em> Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise <em>under</em> <em>federal</em> 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 <em>under</em> 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for <em>federal</em> court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2."]},"sort":[8.509248,"12954528"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12959455","_score":8.486774,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion LLC, 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 XXXX046. 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 XXXX : Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \n6. Defendant TransUnion : Defendant TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). TransUnion is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX  XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. TransUnion 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early 2025, Plaintiff discovered that her XXXX and TransUnion 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 XXXXXXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX 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 Mortgage 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 XXXX and TransUnion. 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 Services 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 Services Account ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, 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. \nXXXX XXXX  Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XXXX XXXX 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.\n\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. \n11. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, Plaintiff initiated disputes with XXXX and TransUnion to correct these egregious errors. Plaintiff prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both XXXX and TransUnion ( 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 XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 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 XXXX XXXX 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.\n\n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, XXXX and TransUnion 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n14. 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 PACER 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, XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from XXXX and TransUnion directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against XXXX and TransUnion regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint NoXXXX ). 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 XXXX UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put XXXX and TransUnion 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.\n\n16. Harm to Plaintiff : 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 anxiety, 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 XXXX and TransUnion 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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 ).\n\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 XXXX and TransUnion 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 Defendants XXXX Information Solutions , Inc. and TransUnion LLC : 1. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs XXXX and TransUnion credit 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 two XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 ).\n\n3. 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:48:32.000Z","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":"12959455","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:33:58.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Federal</em> Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise <em>under</em> <em>federal</em> 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 <em>under</em> 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for <em>federal</em> court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2."]},"sort":[8.486774,"12959455"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13314719","_score":8.248478,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Introduction Nature of the Action : Plaintiff XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter Plaintiff ) brings this Complaint against XXXX Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) for repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq., XXXX for failure XXXX  comply with industry XXXX XXXX reporting standards. Plaintiff alleges that Experian has persistently reported inaccurate XXXX fraudulent information on his credit report XXXX failed XXXX conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputed information, in violation of federal law. Despite multiple disputes XXXX a prior identity theft report, Experian has continued XXXX report erroneous account information, causing ongoing harm XXXX Plaintiffs credit reputation XXXX  financial well-being. \nSummary of Violations : XXXX wrongful conduct includes : ( a ) reporting charged-off accounts with ongoing past-due balances, which is inconsistent with FCRA accuracy requirements XXXX  XXXX XXXX guidelines ; XXXX b ) failing XXXX  reinvestigate and correct these inaccuracies within the time frame required by law ; ( c ) refusing XXXX provide Plaintiff with the documentation or description of its investigation as required ; and ( d ) effectively performing only cursory, automated investigations that merely parrot furnishers responses, contrary XXXX the FCRAs mandate of a genuine, reasonable investigation caselaw.findlaw.com caselaw.findlaw.com. These practices have been condemned by courts XXXX regulators alike, including in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described XXXX dispute handling as sham investigations that flout federal law consumerfinance.gov. \nPurpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a federal civil action ), XXXX seeks XXXX compel Experian XXXX immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file XXXX XXXX ensure full compliance with the FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Plaintiff further puts Experian on notice that failure to comply within XXXX  days will result in legal action in federal court, where XXXX will seek all available relief, including statutory XXXX punitive damages for Experians willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing XXXX demand direct attention from XXXX compliance XXXX  legal departments. \nJurisdiction and XXXX  Jurisdiction : This XXXX has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, because XXXX claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. XXXX violations of XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) give rise XXXX a private right of action for which XXXX seeks relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be proper under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \nXXXX : XXXX is proper in this XXXX under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) because XXXX resides in this XXXX XXXX the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. Experian regularly conducts business in this XXXX XXXX maintains substantial contacts here. Experian, as XXXX of the nations largest consumer reporting agencies, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this XXXX XXXX throughout the XXXX XXXX. Given that the harm to Plaintiffs credit report was felt in this XXXX, venue is appropriate for the adjudication of this dispute. \nIntradistrict Assignment : ( If applicable under local rules. ) The events described herein occurred primarily in XXXX XXXX of Plaintiffs residence ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ). Accordingly, assignment XXXX  the XXXX XXXX of this XXXX would be proper. \nParties Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX XXXX is a natural person and consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, Maryland. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ), in that he is an individual about whom Experian prepares and furnishes consumer credit reports. Plaintiff has at all relevant times been the victim of false and inaccurate credit reporting by Experian, which has adversely affected his XXXX XXXX, credit opportunities, and peace of mind. \nDefendant : Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in XXXX XXXX, California. Experian is a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) as defined by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( f ) : it regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports XXXX XXXX parties for monetary fees. Experian does business nationwide, including substantial business in the XXXX of Maryland. At all relevant times, Experian acted through its agents, employees, or representatives, who were in the scope of their employment XXXX  under Experians supervision XXXX control. \nNon-Party Furnishers : Various creditor institutions and debt XXXX furnished the information at issue to Experian. These furnishers include, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( collectively, the Furnishers ). While not named as defendants in this complaint, the Furnishers are mentioned XXXX the extent that Experian relied on their information XXXX  responses. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ), these Furnishers have XXXX to investigate XXXX correct disputed information when notified by a CRA. Experians conduct in this case is intertwined with the XXXX failures XXXX correct the false data ; Experians actions effectively facilitated XXXX continued those statutory violations by the Furnishers. \nFactual Allegations XXXX XXXX XXXX  Fraudulent Accounts ( XXXX ) : In XXXX, Plaintiffs identity was stolen by an unknown imposter, who opened at least XXXX credit accounts in Plaintiffs name with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX personal credit card XXXX XXXX business credit account ). These accounts were opened without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent. The imposter accumulated debt on the accounts and then defaulted, resulting in the accounts being reported as delinquent XXXX eventually charged off by XXXX XXXX. Because these accounts were fraudulent, all information related XXXX them on Plaintiffs credit report is inherently false XXXX not attributable to XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXXt Complaint : On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff submitted a formal XXXX XXXXt report XXXX  complaint XXXX Experian ( through the CFPB complaint portal ) regarding the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts. In that complaint ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), Plaintiff invoked FCRA XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, which requires consumer reporting agencies XXXX block information resulting from XXXX XXXX within XXXX business days upon receiving proof of XXXX XXXX from the consumer. XXXX provided Experian with the necessary information, including a police report/affidavit attesting XXXX the identity theft, XXXX  requested that Experian block XXXX remove all information pertaining XXXX the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX his credit file. \nExperians Failure XXXX Block Fraudulent Accounts : Despite Plaintiffs proper identity theft notice, Experian failed XXXX block or delete the fraudulent accounts within the mandated time. Experian either did not respond at all within the XXXX-day window or responded inadequately, allowing the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX remain on Plaintiffs credit report beyond XX/XX/XXXX. By not promptly removing these known XXXX XXXX  accounts, Experian violated FCRA XXXX XXXX  allowed patently inaccurate XXXX  damaging information XXXX continue reporting on Plaintiffs credit file. This failure forced XXXX XXXX continue disputing the accounts in subsequent months. \nXX/XX/XXXX Experian Credit Report Obtained : On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff obtained a current copy of his Experian credit report. Upon review, XXXX discovered that Experian was still reporting multiple accounts with serious inaccuracies and FCRA violations, including but not limited to the following : XXXX XXXX Accounts : The fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts from XXXX were still present on the report. They were listed as XXXX accounts ( indicating the creditor wrote off the debt as uncollectible ) yet each account was also showing an active past-due balance. In other words, Experian was reporting these accounts as both charged-off and currently past-due, which is internally inconsistent. A legitimately charged-off account should not continue to carry an accruing past-due amount under standard reporting practices. Experians reporting falsely suggested that XXXX currently owed delinquent balances on these accounts, when in fact the accounts were fraudulent and should have been removed entirely. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account : Experian was reporting an installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX that had been charged off after alleged non-payment. Here again, Experian listed the XXXX account with a status of XXXX XXXX while simultaneously indicating a significant past-due balance remaining. The presence of a past-due balance on an account flagged as a charge-off is contrary to the XXXX XXXX reporting standards XXXX by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines require that once an account is charged off, the account should reflect a XXXX current balance and no ongoing past due amount ( since the debt is no longer an open receivable on a current schedule ). Experians reporting of the XXXX account violated this standard by showing the account as if payments were still actively delinquent post-charge-off. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Experian was also reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( XXXX XXXX ) account with inaccurate status. This account was listed as a charge-off with a past-due balance of several XXXX dollars. If this account was legitimately charged off by XXXX XXXX, it should not have a continuing past due amount in the manner a currently delinquent account would. The reporting created a misleading impression that XXXX had an open, delinquent balance with XXXX XXXX, when in reality the account was closed XXXX charged off ( or, potentially, was also impacted by identity theft or prior disputePlaintiff had previously contested its accuracy ). \nOther Accounts and Inaccuracies : In addition to the above, other accounts on Plaintiffs Experian report showed similar discrepancies ( charge-off notations with continuing balances, inconsistent dates or amounts, etc. ). Each of these inaccuracies represents a failure by Experian to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiffs credit file as required by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). For example, at least XXXX collection account continued to be reported even after the underlying debt was resolved, and several accounts did not reflect notices of dispute that XXXX had lodged, which Experian is required to note on the report per XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ). For brevity, this Complaint focuses on the primary accounts listed above, but XXXX alleges that any and all disputed accounts on his Experian report contain errors that Experian negligently and willfully failed to correct. \nImpact of XXXX XXXX : The inaccurate information described in Paragraph XXXX was highly damaging XXXX XXXX. XXXX report portrayed XXXX as significantly more delinquent XXXX high-risk than he actually is. The reporting of multiple active past-due balances on charged-off accounts made Plaintiffs credit profile appear as if he had multiple severe, unresolved delinquencies at the same time. This has adversely affected XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has led XXXX credit denials or offers on far worse terms than XXXX would otherwise qualify for. Moreover, the continued presence of fraudulent accounts ( the XXXX XXXX cards opened by identity thieves ) on the report means XXXX is effectively being penalized for crimes committed by others, a harm the FCRA specifically intended to prevent through XXXX. Plaintiff has suffered credit damage, loss of credit opportunities, and considerable emotional distress ( including stress, anxiety, and frustration ) as a direct result of Experians reporting failures. \nXX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs Dispute to Experian : Promptly after reviewing the XX/XX/XXXX credit report, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a detailed dispute XXXX Experian, challenging the inaccurate accounts. Plaintiff utilized the CFPBs consumer complaint portal XXXX lodge this dispute ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX forwarded XXXX  Experian shortly thereafter ). In his dispute, XXXX clearly identified each erroneous account and explained why the reporting was incorrect or inconsistent with the FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX standards. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute highlighted that Experian was : Reporting charge-off accounts with an active past-due balance, which is a contradiction XXXX an FCRA violation ( failing to maintain accuracy ) as well as a XXXX XXXX violation. XXXX cited XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( requirement for consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information ) XXXX noted that this standard was breached by the blatant errors on his report. \nPotentially reporting information that was the result of identity theft ( in reference to the XXXX XXXX accounts ) which should have been blocked under XXXX. XXXX reminded Experian of the prior identity theft notice XXXX the continued improper inclusion of those accounts. \nFailing XXXX note previous disputes/investigations. XXXX referenced that he had disputed the same accounts before ( in XXXX ), XXXX Experians reinvestigation obligations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX had not been met, as the results remained incorrect. He emphasized that Experian must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item, contact the Furnishers with all relevant information, XXXX delete or correct any information that can not be verified as accurate. \nPossibly ignoring supporting documentation. Plaintiff attached and/or referenced supporting documents in the CFPB complaint ( such as correspondence, prior dispute results, the identity theft police report, billing statements showing discrepancies, etc. ), and insisted that Experian review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone. \nIn this XX/XX/XXXX dispute, Plaintiff expressly requested that Experian : ( a ) delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; ( b ) remove or correct the past-due balance reporting on any charged-off accounts ( including XXXX and XXXX Card ) so that they are accurate or deleted if unverifiable ; and ( c ) provide Plaintiff with a copy of the updated report and an explanation of the investigation results. Plaintiff also indicated that if the accounts were verified as accurate, he wanted to be provided with the method of verification XXXX documentation that Experian relied upon, pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ). \nExperians XXXX XXXX XXXX Reinvestigate : Upon receiving Plaintiffs dispute, Experian was legally required XXXX conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of the disputed items. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), a consumer reporting agency must reinvestigate disputed information on a consumers report within XXXX  days of receiving notice of the dispute ( with a possible XXXX extension if the consumer provides additional relevant information during the XXXX period ). By law, Experian was required XXXX XXXX notify the Furnishers of the dispute, provide them all relevant information about the dispute, review XXXX consider all information provided by XXXX, XXXX  then delete or modify any information that is found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the reinvestigation resulted in no change, Experian was obligated XXXX send XXXX a notice of the results XXXX, upon request, a description of the procedure used XXXX determine the accuracy XXXX completeness of the information ( the method of verification ) per XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). These FCRA provisions impose a grave responsibility on Experian XXXX  do more than simply take a creditors word if the information could be inaccurate caselaw.findlaw.com. \nExperians Failure XXXX  Timely Respond ( No Response in XXXX Days ) : Experian did not provide any response or results of investigation within the XXXX period following Plaintiffs XX/XX/XXXX dispute. By law, the reinvestigation should have been completed by approximately XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days after the dispute was communicated to Experian ), or by XX/XX/XXXX if a XXXX extension applied due XXXX additional information provided by XXXX. Those dates passed with no communication from Experian. Plaintiff received no update in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the status or outcome of his dispute. This silence itself was a violation of FCRA XXXX. XXXX failure to reinvestigate and respond within the statutory timeframe is a clear violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), which mandates prompt handling of consumer disputes. Indeed, XXXX conduct forced XXXX to take further action, as described below. \nXX/XX/XXXX Delayed Experian Response : On XX/XX/XXXX roughly XXXX days after XXXX dispute Experian provided a belated response through the CFPB XXXX, which Experian characterized as the results of its investigation. In this response ( which XXXX received on that date ), Experian claimed XXXX have verified the disputed accounts as accurate and made no meaningful changes XXXX the report. Experian did not delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; it did not remove the past-due balance fields on the charge-off accounts ; and it did not otherwise correct the misinformation. Essentially, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response indicated that the data was verified as accurate by the source. The response was cursory and failed to specifically address the evidence XXXX had provided. Furthermore, Experian did not provide any of the underlying documents or details of the verification process. It did not, for example, supply Plaintiff with copies of any verification forms or correspondence from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. Nor did it explain how a charge-off with a past-due balance could be deemed accurate under industry standards. \nNo Method of Verification Provided : Plaintiff, upon receiving Experians XX/XX/XXXX response, noticed that Experian did not include a method of verification letter or description. On XX/XX/XXXX ( the same day the response was received ), XXXX requested via follow-up communication that Experian provide a detailed description of the procedures used XXXX verify the disputed information, as is his right under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). Experian failed to comply with this request. Experian did not send any further explanation of how it conducted its reinvestigation. It provided no information about who at the XXXX was contacted, what information was given XXXX the Furnishers, or what the XXXX replied with. This lack of transparency violated XXXX obligation to provide the method of verification upon request, an important consumer right designed to allow individuals to assess whether the credit bureaus investigation was reasonable. By withholding this information, Experian hindered Plaintiffs ability XXXX further challenge or correct the errors, effectively stonewalling his dispute. \nExperians XXXX on Automated Procedures : From the substance of Experians XX/XX/XXXX investigation results, it is evident that Experian relied solely on automated processes ( e.g., e-OSCAR ) and the XXXX electronic responses in handling Plaintiffs dispute. XXXX response to the CFPB complaint was generic and gave no indication of any human review of Plaintiffs documentation. Upon information and belief, Experian simply sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) form through the e-OSCAR system to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and then blindly accepted their responses that the accounts were verified as reported. Experian did not exercise any independent judgment or scrutiny, even though the face of the data contained glaring inconsistencies ( such as a charge-off with an ongoing balance ). In essence, Experians investigation was no investigation at all it was an automated forwarding of information and regurgitation of whatever the Furnishers responded with. \nFailure to XXXX a Reasonable Reinvestigation : XXXX handling of the dispute fell far short of a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA XXXX ( a ). A reasonable investigation would have entailed, at minimum : recognizing the obvious red flags in the data, seeking clarifications from XXXX about the charge-off status vs. balance discrepancy, and independently verifying the identity theft claims ( for example, by reviewing the police report, comparing signatures, or examining account application records for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Experian did none of this. It merely confirmed the information with the source and took no further steps, which courts have held XXXX be inadequate. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX held that simply sending a form XXXX the creditor XXXX doing nothing more is insufficient a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers in a reinvestigation caselaw.findlaw.com. Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX held that a reinvestigation that merely parrots the creditors position can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute. \ncaselaw.findlaw.com Experians conduct here mirrors the discredited practices in those cases. It shifted the burden back XXXX  XXXX XXXX the Furnishers, rather than actually resolving the dispute, thus violating the core purpose of XXXX. \nCFPB XXXX of XXXX XXXX Practices : XXXX pattern of handling disputes in this automated, perfunctory manner is not only a violation of the FCRA as interpreted by the courts, but it has also drawn regulatory scrutiny. On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB filed a public enforcement action against Experian, alleging that Experian does not take sufficient steps XXXX... investigate ... consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports. \nconsumerfinance.gov The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stated that Experian was conducting sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law. \nconsumerfinance.gov The experiences of the XXXX in this case exemplify the very misconduct that the CFPB identified. XXXX failure XXXX genuinely investigate Plaintiffs dispute especially in the context of identity theft XXXX  blatant reporting errors aligns with the XXXX allegations that XXXX systems prioritize speed and automation over accuracy and fairness. This regulatory action underscores that XXXX violations in Plaintiffs case are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of willful non-compliance. \nContinued Reporting of Disputed Accounts : As of the filing of this Complaint, Experian continues XXXX report the disputed accounts on Plaintiffs credit file without the corrections requested. The XXXX XXXX accounts remain, still marked as charge-offs with balances ; the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show past-due amounts despite charge-off status. Each monthly cycle that passes, these accounts potentially update in XXXX system as continuing derogatory marks, further prolonging the damage XXXX Plaintiffs creditworthiness. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and effort trying to resolve these issues ( including writing complaints, gathering evidence, XXXX  researching his rights ), all due XXXX XXXX failure XXXX  meet its statutory obligations. \nExperians Violations Were Willful or, Alternatively, Negligent : XXXX conduct described above was willful. Experian is fully aware of its duties under the FCRA it has been subject XXXX  prior lawsuits XXXX regulatory actions for similar conduct, and it literally co-owns the e-OSCAR system used for disputes. Experian knew or had reason XXXX  know that the information it was reporting about XXXX was inaccurate ( the inconsistencies were facially obvious ), yet it willfully chose XXXX ignore the red flags. Experian also willfully decided XXXX use an automated dispute verification system without employing any manual review for Plaintiffs dispute, despite the complexity ( involving identity theft XXXX  multiple accounts ). In the alternative, if Experian claims it did not act intentionally, then at minimum its actions were negligent. Any reasonable company in XXXX position, acting with due care, would have conducted a proper investigation XXXX corrected the errors. XXXX failure XXXX do so, whether by conscious design or gross indifference, directly caused harm XXXX  XXXX. \nSummary of XXXX XXXX XXXX : As a direct result of Experians actions XXXX  omissions, XXXX has suffered injury including damage XXXX his credit reputation, denial of credit opportunities, higher interest rates on credit offersXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from the ongoing inability XXXX correct his credit report. Plaintiff has been forced XXXX engage in a protracted struggle XXXX  have basic errors corrected, undermining his confidence in the fairness of the credit reporting system. These harms are precisely what the FCRA was designed XXXX prevent. Experians repeated failure XXXX comply with the FCRAs mandates is particularly egregious given the multiple opportunities it had XXXX correct course ( in XXXX XXXX again in XXXX ). Plaintiff now brings this Complaint seeking relief XXXX finally rectify the situation XXXX hold Experian accountable under the law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-03T15:30:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20904","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13314719","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-03T15:16:20.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Purpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a <em>federal</em> civil action ), XXXX seeks XXXX compel Experian XXXX immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file XXXX XXXX ensure full <em>compliance</em> with the FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[8.248478,"13314719"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":26,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":26}]}},"product":{"doc_count":26,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":18,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":16},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":26,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":4},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Information is incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"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":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":2},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Communication tactics","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":26,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":26}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":26,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":16},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":10}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":26,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":26}]}},"company":{"doc_count":26,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":7},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":6},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":26,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":15},{"key":"OR","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":26,"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":15}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":26,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2}]}}},"_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":{"2":[8.249128,"13314719"]}}}