{"took":459,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":39,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21714567","_score":15.6974745,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a new complaint because Meta Payments , Inc. has still not provided any legally required explanation or documentation for withholding my XXXX XXXX payout. My previous CFPB complaint ( reference number : [ insert your old complaint number ] ) was closed after Meta submitted a generic response that did not address the issue, did not cite any policy or violation, and did not provide any steps for resolution. \n\nMeta stated that my payout account was disabled due to unusual activity, but they did not explain what that activity was, did not provide any evidence, and did not cite any specific policy. Under federal consumerprotection standards, companies are required to provide clear, specific, and timely explanations when restricting access to consumer funds. A vague statement of unusual activity without detail or documentation does not meet regulatory requirements for transparency or fair treatment. \n\nMeta has not identified : What activity triggered the restriction When this activity allegedly occurred What policy was violated What information they need from me How I can resolve the issue Meta also directed me to a merchant appeal process that does not apply to private Marketplace sellers and does not allow me to submit the required information. This is not a valid or accessible disputeresolution path for my account type. As a result, Meta has effectively denied me any meaningful way to appeal or resolve the withholding of my funds. \n\nInside XXXX, my payout appeal still shows no status, no acknowledgment, and no review. Meta has not posted any update in my Support Inbox. There is no documentation, no explanation, and no compliancelevel disclosure of why my funds are being held. \n\nMy funds remain withheld with : No stated reason No policy citation No evidence of a violation No timeline for release No valid appeal process This raises concerns about Meta Payments compliance with federal consumerfinance regulations, including requirements for : Clear and timely communication Accessible disputeresolution processes Transparent explanations for withheld funds Proper handling of consumer transactions I am requesting CFPB assistance to obtain : A clear explanation for the withheld payout The specific policy or violation Meta is claiming The steps required to release the funds A valid and accessible appeal path for private sellers A timeline for resolution Meta has not responded through any of their support channels, and the issue remains unresolved. I am requesting regulatory intervention to ensure Meta Payments complies with required consumerprotection standards. \n\nThank you for your assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-29T17:26:40.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"85249","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21714567","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Meta Payments Inc.","date_received":"2026-04-29T16:41:10.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My funds remain withheld with : No stated reason No policy citation No evidence of a violation No timeline for release No valid appeal process This raises concerns about Meta Payments <em>compliance</em> with <em>federal</em> <em>consumerfinance</em> regulations, <em>including</em> requirements for : <em>Clear</em> and timely communication Accessible disputeresolution processes Transparent explanations for withheld funds Proper handling of consumer transactions I am requesting CFPB assistance to obtain : A <em>clear</em> explanation for the withheld"]},"sort":[15.6974745,"21714567"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6825902","_score":14.9299755,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a complaint against Wells Fargo Auto regarding their failure to honor an accord and satisfaction agreement and their intentional mishandling of payments to my account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I reached an agreement with Wells Fargo Auto to settle my outstanding debt for my auto loan through an accord and satisfaction agreement. Despite this agreement, Wells Fargo Auto has continued to demand payment and has even threatened to repossess my vehicle. \n\nAdditionally, Wells Fargo Auto has been purposely misapplying my payments, resulting in inaccurate account balances and additional fees. This behavior is a clear violation of consumer protection laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. \n\nFurthermore, my research has revealed that Wells Fargo has a history of similar behavior. In XXXX, the CFPB fined Wells Fargo {$100.00} million for opening unauthorized accounts and charging customers for services they did not request. This is evidence of a pattern of unethical and illegal behavior by Wells Fargo, which warrants further investigation and action by the CFPB. Most recently they have been charged again for illegal practices, their executive office is unprofessional and uneducated and poses a threat to the life and liberty outlined in the Constitution of this great Nation. Accord and Satisfaction is a write of the people to discharge debt and their ignorance of the law is no excuse in law. \n\nI request that the CFPB investigate this matter and take appropriate action against Wells Fargo Auto for their failure to honor an accord and satisfaction agreement, their intentional mishandling of payments, and their violation of consumer protection laws. Thank you for your attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  settlor References : Fair Credit Reporting Act : https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/602/fair-credit-reporting-act/ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act : https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/807/fair-debt-collection-practices-act/ CFPB fines Wells Fargo {$100.00} million : https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-fines-wells-fargo-100-million-widespread-illegal-practice-secretly-opening-unauthorized-accounts/ CASES regarding accord and satisfaction : Peters v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 409 F.2d 449 ( 1969 ) XXXX In this case, the court found that an agreement to settle a debt for a lesser amount than what was owed constituted an Accord, and once the debtor fulfilled their obligation to pay, the debt was discharged through Satisfaction. \n\nFicara v. Belleau, 555 N.Y.S.2d 222 ( 1990 ) - The court held that a check marked \" payment in full '' and sent with a letter stating that the debtor would accept the check as full satisfaction of the debt constituted an Accord and Satisfaction, and therefore, discharged the debt. \n\nMortenson v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 549 P.2d 1300 ( 1976 ) - The court found that the debtor 's check, which included a restrictive endorsement indicating that the payment was in full satisfaction of the debt, constituted an Accord and Satisfaction, and therefore, the debt was discharged.\n\nHutter Northern Trust v. Door County Cherryland 's Cooperative, 636 N.W.2d 98 ( 2001 ) - The court held that the debtor 's payment of a lesser amount than what was owed, accompanied by a letter indicating that the payment was in full satisfaction of the debt, constituted an Accord and Satisfaction, and therefore, the debt was discharged.\n\nSykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, 757 F.3d 54 ( 2d Cir. 2014 ) - In this case, the court found that the debtor 's payment of a lesser amount than what was owed, accompanied by a letter stating that the payment was in full satisfaction of the debt, constituted an Accord and Satisfaction, and therefore, the debt was discharged.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-11T21:03:30.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"30102","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6825902","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-04-11T20:49:54.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Sincerely, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  settlor References : Fair Credit Reporting Act : https : //www.<em>consumerfinance</em>.gov/policy-<em>compliance</em>/rulemaking/regulations/602/fair-credit-reporting-act/ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act : https : //www.<em>consumerfinance</em>.gov/policy-<em>compliance</em>/rulemaking/regulations/807/fair-debt-collection-practices-act/ CFPB fines Wells Fargo {$100.00} million : https : //www.<em>consumerfinance</em>.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-fines-wells-fargo-100-million-widespread-illegal-practice-secretly-opening-unauthorized-accounts"]},"sort":[14.9299755,"6825902"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7908239","_score":13.920823,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"All furnishers of consumer reports must comply with all applicable regulations, including regulations promulgated after this notice was first prescribed in XXXX Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's website, consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. \nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance. \nThe text of the FCRA is set forth in full at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 's website at consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. A list of the sections of the FCRA cross-referenced to the U.S. Code is at the end of this document.\n\nSection 623 imposes the following duties : Accuracy Guidelines The banking and credit union regulators and the CFPB will promulgate guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. The regulations and guidelines issued by the CFPB will be available at consumerfinance.gov/learnmore when they are issued. Section 623 ( e ). \nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ). \nDuty to Correct and Update Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). \nDuties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified by the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs.\n\nSection 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute.\n\nSection 623 ( a ) ( 3 ). \nThe federal banking and credit union regulators and the CFPB will issue regulations that will identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Once these regulations are issued, furnishers must comply with them and complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a credit repair organization. The CFPB regulations will be available at consumerfinance.gov. Section 623 ( a ) ( 8 ). \nDuties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher that a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ). \nReport the results to the CRA that referred the dispute, and, if the investigation establishes that the information was, in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Sections 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ). \nComplete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information to the CRA ). Section 623 ( b ) ( 2 ).\n\nPromptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ). \n\nSubject : Urgent : Non-Compliance with FCRA Obligations and Unresponsiveness to Consumer Dispute Dear TransUnion Consumer Dispute Center, I am writing to express my serious concerns and frustration regarding the inaccurate and fraudulent information on my credit report, particularly related to the Private Student Loan account with the details below : - Company or Organization : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Account Number : XXXX XXXX - Date Fraud Began XXXX XXXX  - Date Discovered : XXXX XXXX Total Fraudulent Amount : {$220.00} Despite numerous attempts to address this issue, including attaching a detailed identity theft report and photos illustrating my ignored attempts to communicate with XXXX XXXX, as well as providing evidence of five different emails specifically sent to TransUnion dating back to early XXXX, I have yet to receive any response from TransUnion. \n\nIt is imperative to highlight the following points : 1. **FCRA Obligations : ** - TransUnion is obligated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to promptly investigate and respond to consumer disputes within 30 days. \n\n2. **Non-Responsiveness : ** - Despite providing clear evidence of the inaccuracies and fraudulent reporting, I have not received any response from TransUnion , which is a blatant violation of federal law. \n\n3. **Adverse Effects : ** - The continued negligence is adversely affecting me as a consumer, as well as hindering my ability to maintain accurate credit information. \n\nI am left with several unanswered questions : - Why is TransUnion not following federal laws and responding to consumer disputes within the mandated timeframe? \n- Is there a reason for the disregard of the evidence and the identity theft report attached to my dispute? \n- Is there a possible collaboration between TransUnion and XXXX XXXX to maintain inaccurate information for their benefit? \n\nI demand immediate attention to this matter and a thorough reevaluation of the disputed account. The failure to respond to my dispute and correct the inaccurate information is not only a violation of my rights as a consumer but also raises concerns about the integrity of the credit reporting system. \n\nI am prepared to take further action to ensure my rights are upheld, including filing complaints with regulatory authorities. I expect TransUnion to fulfill its obligations under the FCRA and provide a prompt and meaningful response to my dispute. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ca XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Phone number XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-27T06:22:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93722","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7908239","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-11-27T05:42:22.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All furnishers of consumer reports must comply with all applicable regulations, <em>including</em> regulations promulgated after this notice was first prescribed in XXXX Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's website, <em>consumerfinance</em>.gov/learnmore."]},"sort":[13.920823,"7908239"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6154117","_score":13.508405,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"A response from the FDIC About the presentment. \n\n\nRe : Nelnet Bank Dear XXXX XXXX : Thank you for your correspondence. We have completed our review of your concerns involving Nelnet Bank XXXX Bank ). You indicated that you were a student at XXXX XXXX where the XXXX identified evidence of widespread fraud involving the use of illegal and deceptive tactics to persuade students to borrower money. You noted that there was no contract or signature in place for the debt and, as a result, you wanted your debt discharged and it cleared from your credit report. \n\nWe reviewed your correspondence, the Bank 's response, and the applicable federal consumer protection laws enforced by the FDIC. The FDIC is the primary federal banking regulator for this bank. \n\nIn a letter to our office dated XX/XX/2022, the Bank stated that it searched its records and confirmed that you are not a Nelnet Bank customer. However, on your behalf, the Bank forwarded your complaint to its parent company, Nelnet , Inc., who will be responsible for researching and responding to your complaint. Nelnet , Inc., is federally regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). If you have additional concerns after receiving the response from Nelnet , Inc., please contact the CFPB ( XXXX ) XXXX, or online at consumerfinance.gov/complaint/. \n\nWe seek to assist you by facilitating communication, by reviewing a bank 's compliance with applicable laws and by providing you with information on your rights under federal consumer protection laws. \n\nIn order to protect potentially sensitive consumer, account, and examination-related information, we do not share specific details of our review. Complaint investigations are generally covered under Part 309 ( Disclosure of Information ) of the FDIC Rules and Regulations, which prohibits the disclosure of examination-related information outside the FDIC, including bank-provided supporting documents.\n\nPlease know reviews of correspondence such as yours are a vital component of the FDICs bank supervisory process, and we take great care into thoroughly reviewing concerns regarding the products and services offered by FDIC-supervised banks. In addition to individually reviewing complaints for regulatory compliance, this office shares correspondence with FDIC examination staff for review prior to our next regularly scheduled examination of the Bank. This helps the FDIC tailor its examinations to focus on areas of concern, as well as assists us in providing feedback to banks on practices and policies. \n\nIf you have any questions about this matter, please dont hesitate to contact the FDIC 's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), and press option 2. You can also review the FDICs Consumer News for additional information and resources about common banking questions and topics at https : //www.fdic.gov/resources/consumers/consumer-news/index.html. \n\nThank you for taking the time to share your concerns with the FDIC. If you are a registered user of the FDIC 's Information and Support Center portal, a copy of this response has also been made available to you through your portal account. \n\nSincerely, Consumer Response XXXX XXXX XXXX for Consumer and Depositor Assistance cc : Nelnet Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-01T04:26:32.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"48219","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6154117","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2022-11-01T04:21:11.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nelnet , Inc., is <em>federally</em> regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). If you have additional concerns after receiving the response from Nelnet , Inc., please contact the CFPB ( XXXX ) XXXX, or online at <em>consumerfinance</em>.gov/complaint/. \n\nWe seek to assist you by facilitating communication, by reviewing a bank 's <em>compliance</em> with applicable laws and by providing you with information on your rights under <em>federal</em> consumer protection laws."],"sub_product":["<em>Federal</em> student loan servicing"]},"sort":[13.508405,"6154117"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12304449","_score":12.420216,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"BLOCK INC. VIA CASH APP, NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE WITH LAWSUIT, FOR REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX Subject : Notice of Intent to Sue and Request for Settlement Discussions Regarding Cash Apps Repeated Violations of Federal Consumer Protection Laws While Under Current Consumer Financial Protection Consent Order for The Exact Violations of Law Inflicted On Potential Plaintiff XXXX XXXX, Please See : https : //files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_block-inc-consent-order_2025-01.pdf XXXX COMPARE WITH XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Block Inc. Administrators : I am writing to formally notify you of Cash Apps continued violations of consumer protection laws as detailed in the attached lawsuit. I was burdened, harmed and injured by this Cash App unwarranted and replicated violations of consumer protection laws, and disregard of merchant fraud, while under the below linked Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Block Inc. Consent Decree at : https : //files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_block-inc-consent-order_2025-01.pdf I seek an end to the targeting of innocent people for these unwarranted, malicious, loss of quality of life, time, and money Cash App violations of law. My intent to initiate legal action against Cash App for their malicious, persistent and willful violations of consumer protection laws, which have caused me substantial harm, is exemplified in the attached lawsuit, enclosed with this letter. You will find an extensive draft of the lawsuit that details the specific Cash App repeated violations of consumer protection laws inflicted on me, while Cash App is under Court Order. \nThe lawsuit includes the legal claims against Cash App, the nature of the unlawful conduct, and the extent of damages I have incurred as a result of Cash Apps willful non compliance with the above linked and current CFPB Order. \n\nDespite being subject to a court order issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) on XX/XX/XXXX, aimed at curtailing violations of consumer protection statutes, Cash App has egregiously continued its illegal practices. These actions not only flout the court order but also inflict considerable harm on consumers, as evidenced in the enclosed lawsuit. Among the many infractions, Cash App has repeatedly engaged in the following violations of federal consumer protection laws : 1. Failure to Investigate Unauthorized Transactions : In direct contravention of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, and as previously noted by the CFPB, Cash App has systematically neglected its duty to investigate disputes regarding unauthorized transactions promptly and adequately. This disregard for regulatory requirements has wrongfully shifted the burden of resolution onto consumers, including myself, who have been directed to pursue chargebacks through banks or card issuers or to resolve issues with merchants, a clear violation of federal law. This Cash App violation of the Electronics Fund Transfer Act in and by itself, serves to aid, abet and facilitate fraud, as has been done to me. \n\n2. Deceptive Practices in Customer Support : Cash App has misrepresented its customer support services, claiming to offer live telephone assistance for reporting unauthorized transactions. In reality, consumers assaulted by merchant organized fraud, seeking urgent help, such as myself, have been met with pre-recorded messages and inadequate online communication channels, leaving us exposed to fraud and exacerbating financial losses due to ineffective support. \n\n3. Inadequate Fraud Prevention Measures : The CFPB 's findings indicate that Cash App has failed to implement sufficient protocols to detect, prevent, and respond to fraud on its platform. This failure has allowed fraudulent activities to flourish, targeting users like myself. My experience of merchant fraud, compounded by Cash App 's refusal to provide dispute resolution, provisional credit, or my rightful refund, is testament to the platforms complicity in perpetuating such fraud. \n\nThe repercussions of Cash App 's illicit activities have been profoundly damaging to me, not only financially but also emotionally, due to the protracted and XXXX  XXXX  and distress caused by their inaction, lack of support and repeated violations of law. The detrimental effects I have endured are symptomatic of a systemic issue that affects numerous Cash App users who use the platform for secure transactions. \n\nIn light of the aforementioned, I am seeking fair compensation for the damages resulting from Cash Apps repeated legal infractions. I am open to settle this matter amicably through settlement discussions. However, please be advised that the attached lawsuit is prepared for immediate filing should we fail to reach an acceptable resolution. \n\nI respectfully request that a designated legal representative from Block Inc. or the CFPB Consent Order Administrator contact me within seven ( 7 ) days of receiving this notice to discuss a potential settlement. Should I not receive a timely response, I will proceed with filing the lawsuit to seek justice and statutory remedies for the repeated and unwarranted violations of law inflicted on me that I have suffered from. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis communication serves as a dual-purpose document : a notice of my intent to sue and an invitation for Block Inc./Cash App to remedy the replicated and preventable violations of consumer protection laws. Considering Block Inc.s legal obligations under federal statutes, including EFTA , Regulation E, CFPA, and the CFPB 's recent enforcement orders, I expect this matter will be addressed with the seriousness and urgency it demands. \n\nFor all correspondence related to this matter, please contact me via phone, email, certified mail, or fax at the following : Phone : XXXX XXXX XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Enclosure : Lawsuit Draft","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-05T06:18:51.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"10467","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12304449","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-05T06:05:17.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This disregard for regulatory requirements has wrongfully shifted the burden of resolution onto consumers, <em>including</em> myself, who have been directed to pursue chargebacks through banks or card issuers or to resolve issues with merchants, a <em>clear</em> violation of <em>federal</em> law. This Cash App violation of the Electronics Fund Transfer Act in and by itself, serves to aid, abet and facilitate fraud, as has been done to me. \n\n2."]},"sort":[12.420216,"12304449"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16615004","_score":11.057252,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"The mortgage servicer and plaintiff in a foreclosure action, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its agent Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, have engaged in misleading, harassing, and deceptive practices in violation of multiple federal and state consumer-protection laws, including the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) ( prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices UDAAP ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ). 1. TILA / RESPA Disclosure Violations XXXX and Shellpoint failed to provide accurate and timely disclosures of the loans true ownership and servicing transfers. Conflicting allonges ( one blank and one specially endorsed to XXXX ) and a late-executed assignment of mortgage were concealed from the borrowers, depriving them of clear notice of the entity legally entitled to enforce the note. 2. Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) Filing foreclosure based on contradictory documents and a year-late assignment constitutes a deceptive and unfair practice under 12 U.S.C. 5531. The companies misrepresented their legal authority to collect and enforce a debt they could not prove they owned. 3. FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692f et seq. ) XXXX and its servicing agent used unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt by : o Repeatedly trespassing and harassment on the property ; o Misrepresenting ownership and legal standing ; and o Continuing collection and foreclosure activity without a present, enforceable interest in the loan. 4. FCCPA ( Fla. Stat. 559.72, 559.553 ) Shellpoint, acting as a debt collector, attempted to collect without the license required by 559.553 and misrepresented the character and ownership of the debt in violation of 559.72 ( 7 ) and ( 9 ). 5. CFPA / UDAAP The combined conductfalse filings, harassment, and disregard of borrower communicationsconstitutes unfair, deceptive, and abusive behavior in connection with mortgage servicing, directly regulated by the CFPB. Due to the foregoing standing deficiencies, nondisclosures, and multiple statutory and federal law violations I mailed my first notice of intent to sue on XX/XX/year>. Thereafter, additional pre-suit notices and demands for remedy were sent on XX/XX/year> ; XX/XX/year> ; XX/XX/year> ; XX/XX/year> ; and XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX. Despite these multiple good-faith attempts to resolve the matter without litigation, XXXX failed to respond adequately. These actions caused emotional distress, loss of quiet enjoyment, reputational harm, and a clouded title to my home. I have brought a counterclaim in court seeking quiet title and damages, but I submit this complaint to request CFPB oversight and investigation into XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing for systemic consumer-finance violations. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, primarily a life insurance entity, has entered the mortgage business for investment purposes through its affiliate, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, XXXX foreclosure filings show procedural irregularities and defective documentation inconsistent with prudent institutional and fiduciary standards expected of a regulated financial entity. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting as plaintiff in our foreclosure, has not demonstrated lawful possession or standing to enforce the note, and the documentation relied uponincluding conflicting allonges and a late-recorded assignmentfails to establish a valid chain of title. This conduct raises significant consumer protection and transparency issues under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), which prohibit deceptive and unfair servicing and foreclosure practices. I respectfully request the CFPBs investigation into the use of insurance affiliates such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in mortgage acquisition and enforcement, particularly when such entities are not primary lenders or servicers and operate without adequate consumer disclosures or verification of legal standing. Public reviews and consumer accounts about XXXX XXXX XXXX and investment operations reveal a troubling pattern of deceptive and misleading practices, including allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to honor obligations. These complaints mirror the same lack of transparency and accountability observed in XXXX mortgage operations. This suggests broader corporate deficiencies in consumer protection compliance. I respectfully request that the CFPB evaluate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX overall adherence to federal consumer protection standards across all product lines, including its mortgage holdings and foreclosure practices. ( Attached is the counterclaim and supporting documents showing the conflicting allonges, late assignment, false affidavit, Shellpoints Legal Disclosures, and Collection notice from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX . evidencing harassment, misleading filings, and statutory and consumer law violations. )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-16T21:23:36.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"341XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16615004","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-10-16T21:04:42.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Loan sold or transferred to another company"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Public reviews and consumer accounts about XXXX XXXX XXXX and investment operations reveal a troubling pattern of deceptive and misleading practices, <em>including</em> allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to honor obligations. These complaints mirror the same lack of transparency and accountability observed in XXXX mortgage operations. This suggests broader corporate deficiencies in consumer protection <em>compliance</em>."]},"sort":[11.057252,"16615004"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12730488","_score":11.052416,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Qualified Income Trust XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX Mobile : ( XXXX ) XXXX XX/XX/year> Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington , DC XXXX https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint Subject : Complaint Against Wells Fargo for Unfair and Deceptive Practices Mishandling of Fiduciary Account, Delayed Disbursement of Funds, and Internal Control Failures Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , I am filing this formal complaint against Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . for its unfair and harmful handling of a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) account, including the premature closure of the account, delayed return of the funds, and clear evidence of systemic internal control and reconciliation failures that could result in substantial consumer harm. \n\n\n\nAccount Details Account Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : Wells Fargo, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Summary of the Issue On XX/XX/year>, Wells Fargo issued a letter stating that documentation issues related to the account could be corrected within 20 days. Despite this, the bank closed the account prematurely on XX/XX/year>, just eight days later, violating its own written grace period. \n\n\n\nThe account was closed due to errors made by Wells Fargo in processing the account-opening documentation. I, as the trustee, did not make any errors and was denied the opportunity to correct theirs. At the time of closure, the account held $ XXXX no check or transfer was made to return these funds to the trust. \n\n\n\nAfter multiple inquiries, Wells Fargo took no action. I was forced to inform them that I would file a regulatory complaint if the funds were not immediately credited. Only then, on XX/XX/year>, did the bank manually credit the funds using its branch suspense accounta nonstandard process that occurred solely due to my persistence and knowledge of banking laws. \n\n\n\nOngoing Failures and Consumer Risk The issue did not end there. On XX/XX/year>, nearly two months after the premature closure, I received an email from XXXX XXXX, a Senior Vice President at Wells Fargo, asking whether I had received the check. This clearly reveals that Wells Fargos internal systems still reflect the funds as pending disbursementdespite the manual credit already being made. \n\n\n\nThis indicates a serious internal failure : The bank has not reconciled the suspense account credit against the original closure event. \n\nTheir systems may still be reporting the funds as pending, suggesting that customer funds are either floating or potentially misreported.\n\nEven senior-level management was unaware of how the matter was resolved. \n\n\n\nWells Fargos conduct demonstrates a failure to uphold even the most basic consumer protection responsibilities : to provide timely, accurate access to ones own funds, especially in the case of a trust account established to ensure compliance with Medicaid eligibility requirements. Any delay or uncertainty in disbursement from such an account could pose serious financial harm to a vulnerable individual relying on continued access to health coverage.\n\nRegulatory and Legal Concerns This situation raises serious questions under : The Dodd-Frank Acts prohibition of unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). \n\nRegulation E, which requires prompt access to account funds and clarity in account closures. \n\nConsumer rights under federal banking laws, particularly with regard to timely and traceable disbursement of funds. \n\n\n\nRequested Action I request that the CFPB : 1. Investigate Wells Fargos conduct in this matter and assess whether it represents a systemic failure impacting other consumers. \n\n2. Evaluate whether Wells Fargo is in violation of UDAAP or other federal regulations, including delays or failure to release funds upon account closure.\n\n3. Ensure that corrective action is taken, including a review of internal reconciliation procedures, disbursement tracking, and account closure policiesparticularly where vulnerable consumers are involved.\n\nI am prepared to submit all documentation, including emails from Wells Fargo executives, branch correspondence, and original letters regarding the premature closure and subsequent handling of funds.\n\nThank you for your attention. I look forward to XXXX  XXXX review of this matter and to any action it may take to prevent further harm to other consumers in similar situations. \n\n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX, Trustee XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX XXXX XXXX : ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-30T23:14:57.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10011","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12730488","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-03-30T23:05:12.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["complaint against Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . for its unfair and harmful handling of a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) account, <em>including</em> the premature closure of the account, delayed return of the funds, and <em>clear</em> evidence of systemic internal control and reconciliation failures that could result in substantial consumer harm."]},"sort":[11.052416,"12730488"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14936164","_score":11.001749,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, IA XXXX RE : Formal Complaint Against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  FCRA Violations and Inaccurate Credit Reporting COMPLAINT SUMMARY Complaint Type : Credit Reporting Sub-issue : Incorrect information on credit report Collection Agency : Fair Collections & Outsourci Original Creditor : XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$3500.00} Date Issue Began : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  DETAILED COMPLAINT Background of Issue I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  for reporting inaccurate and misleading information on my credit reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). This collection account stems from a dispute with XXXX at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  where they wrongfully refused to accept my legitimate rent payment of {$3500.00} for my final two months of tenancy. \n\nSpecific Violations 1. FCRA Section 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Violation : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX is furnishing information they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. The debt was created solely through the original creditor 's bad faith refusal to accept valid payment, not through any legitimate default on my part. \n\n2. Misleading Credit Reporting : The collection account misrepresents the circumstances by showing it as a legitimate debt when in reality : - I attempted to pay rent in full and on time - XXXX at XXXX refused payment without legal justification- This refusal forced me to vacate the premises- The landlord then claimed unpaid rent despite refusing my payment Impact on Consumer This inaccurate reporting has caused significant harm : - Damaged my credit score ( currently XXXX ) - Limited my ability to obtain credit - Caused emotional distress and financial hardship - Created barriers to housing opportunities ACTIONS TAKEN I have taken the following steps to resolve this matter : - Filed disputes with all three major credit bureaus ( Experian, XXXX, XXXX ) - Documented the circumstances surrounding the payment refusal - Attempted to communicate with the collection agency - Researched my rights under the FCRA REQUESTED RESOLUTION I respectfully request that the CFPB : 1. Investigate XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX for FCRA violations 2. Require immediate removal of this inaccurate collection from all credit reports 3. Ensure compliance with federal credit reporting laws 4. Take enforcement action against the collection agency if violations are confirmed 5. Require notification to all parties who received my credit report of the deletion SUPPORTING INFORMATION I am prepared to provide additional documentation including : - Copy of lease agreement - Evidence of attempted payment - Communications with apartment complex - Current credit reports showing the collection - Copies of dispute letters sent to credit bureaus XXXX XXXX Collection Agency : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MD XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX CONSUMER RIGHTS ASSERTION Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other federal consumer protection laws, I assert my right to : - Accurate credit reporting - Prompt investigation of disputes - Deletion of inaccurate information - Protection from unfair debt collection practices CONCLUSION This complaint represents a clear case of inaccurate credit reporting that has caused significant harm to my creditworthiness and financial well-being. The collection agency 's continued reporting of this artificially created debt constitutes a violation of federal law and consumer protection standards. \n\nI request prompt investigation and resolution of this matter to protect my consumer rights and ensure compliance with federal credit reporting laws. \n\nRespectfully submittedXXXX XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX ENCLOSURES : - Copy of ID - Copy of current credit reports- Proof of address - Copies of dispute letters to credit bureaus SUBMISSION METHODS : - Online : consumerfinance.gov/XXXX  - Mail : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, IA XXXX - Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-28T05:49:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"786XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14936164","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-28T05:38:27.000Z","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":["Ensure <em>compliance</em> with <em>federal</em> credit reporting laws 4. Take enforcement action against the collection agency if violations are confirmed 5."]},"sort":[11.001749,"14936164"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15670445","_score":10.73168,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to urgently lodge a formal complaint against Experian regarding its ongoing failure to remove fraudulent accounts and inaccurate information from my credit report. I have been disputing multiple unauthorized credit entries with Experian since XXXX, yet the false information remains. Most recently, I filed a complaint with the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX ( Case # XXXX ), but Experian has still not corrected or deleted the clearly fraudulent data on my credit file. This letter details the situation, supported by evidence ( including an official police report ), and outlines how Experians inaction violates federal consumer protection laws, notably the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nBackground and Identity Theft Details I am a victim of identity theft, as documented in the attached XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX report XXXX XXXXXXXX ( filed XX/XX/XXXX ). Upon reviewing my credit reports in XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered numerous accounts and entries on my Experian report that I did not recognize. These include multiple unauthorized accounts, incorrect personal information, and hard inquiries that I never initiated or consented to. Below is a summary of the fraudulent items still being reported by Experian, despite my repeated disputes : Unauthorized Credit Accounts : Several accounts appear on my Experian report that I never opened or authorized, including accounts with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, and a collection account by XXXXXXXX XXXX These accounts carry large balances or charge-offs and were opened without my knowledge. For example, the XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts and XXXX  accounts are marked as derogatory potentially negative items, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( opened XX/XX/XXXX ) was even reported as a joint account with an unknown individual, yet I had no involvement in it. I have never applied for or benefited from any of these accounts, which clearly stem from identity theft or a mixed file error. \n\nInaccurate Personal Information ( Addresses and Name ) : Experians report shows addresses and personal identifiers that are not mine. Specifically, my credit file lists addresses at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  where I have never resided or used on any application. My legal and only residence is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MD ( as confirmed by my drivers license and other records ). Additionally, some accounts on the report are under the name XXXX XXXX ( omitting XXXX ), which is not my full legal name. This incomplete name suggests that Experian may be mixing my file with another individuals, potentially my fathers or someone with a similar name a known FCRA violation when Jr/Sr distinctions are ignored incharge.org. In sum, Experian is reporting personal data that is inaccurate and not actually mine, contributing to the confusion and harm.\n\nUnauthorized Credit Inquiries : My Experian report also shows hard credit inquiries that I never authorized or initiated. Notably, there are inquiries from XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX that are entirely fraudulent. These inquiries indicate attempts to obtain credit in my name without my permission. They not only reflect the ongoing identity theft issues but also negatively impact my credit score. I have never sought credit from those companies in the timeframes indicated, confirming that these inquiries are illegitimate.\n\nAll of the above fraudulent accounts, addresses, and inquiries have severely damaged my credit, undermined my financial stability, and caused me significant distress. I have diligently never applied for or authorized any of these entries, and I have provided clear evidence of identity theft to Experian ( including the police report ). Despite this, Experian has allowed these false entries to persist on my file for an unacceptably long time. \n\nExperians Failure to Act on Disputes ( Since XXXX to Present ) I have made repeated attempts since XXXX to resolve these issues through Experians dispute process, as well as through formal complaints, yet Experians responses have been grossly inadequate. I initially contacted Experian to dispute the fraudulent accounts and incorrect personal data as soon as I became aware of them. Over the past several years, I have submitted multiple disputes both in writing and online, providing supporting documentation each time. Rather than fully removing the bogus accounts and data, Experian either verified the items without proper investigation or made superficial updates that did not solve the problem. \n\nFor example, after my most recent disputes in XXXX ( around the time of my XXXX CFPB complaint ), Experian sent me a dispute results report dated XX/XX/XXXX. In that report, one of the fraudulent accounts a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX loan that I never opened was simply marked as updated rather than deleted. The accounts status was changed to Paid, Closed/Never late and noted to remain on my credit file until XX/XX/XXXX, despite my clear assertion that the account is fraudulent. In other words, Experian chose to retain a known fraudulent tradeline on my report for another five years, merely adjusting its status, which is utterly unacceptable. Other disputed accounts ( such as the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts ) were similarly left on the report, designated as potentially negative items, or verified by the furnishers, without removal. In one case, Experian responded that a furnisher certified the information as accurate and thus this item was not changed as a result of our processing of your dispute, demonstrating a disturbing lack of meaningful investigation into my fraud claims. \n\nEven after involving the CFPB via my XX/XX/XXXX complaint, Experians remediation has fallen short. As of today, multiple unauthorized accounts, incorrect addresses, and inquiries remain on my Experian credit file, continuing to XXXX my credit profile. It appears Experian has either ignored some of my disputes or failed to properly investigate and resolve them. I have provided every piece of evidence asked of me including the identity theft police report and proof of my true identity and address yet Experian has not fully cleansed my report. This prolonged failure to correct my file is not just a clerical error ; it is a systemic refusal to comply with Experians obligations under federal law.\n\nViolations of Law Experians Actions Breach the FCRA and Consumer Rights Experians conduct in this matter violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), as well as provisions of other consumer protection laws. I wish to highlight the key legal points and how Experian has breached them : Failure to Investigate and Correct Inaccurate Information : The FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to ensure accuracy in reports and to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information consumerfinance.gov. When a consumer identifies information as fraudulent or incorrect, the credit bureau must promptly investigate and remove or correct the information if it can not be verified as accurate. In my case, Experian has plainly failed to meet this standard. Despite my numerous disputes and evidence, Experian did not properly investigate or it conducted only perfunctory sham investigations and left blatantly false information on my report. In fact, the CFPB itself recently sued Experian for unlawfully failing to properly investigate consumer disputes, noting that Experian often conducts sham investigations that result in incorrect data staying on credit reports in violation of federal law consumerfinance.gov consumerfinance.gov. My experience tragically exemplifies this pattern of non-compliance. By uncritically deferring to furnishers dubious verifications or by making only cosmetic changes, Experian has ignored its duty to correct or delete information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable incharge.org. This is a direct violation of FCRA Section 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) and related provisions which mandate good-faith reinvestigation of disputes and correction of erroneous data.\n\nFailure to Block Information Resulting from Identity Theft : Under FCRA Section 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ), a credit bureau must block ( i.e. remove or suppress ) information that resulted from identity theft within 4 business days of receiving proof of the identity theft. Specifically, if the consumer submits an identity theft report to the CRA, identifies the fraudulent information, and states that its not theirs, the CRA is required to prevent that information from continuing to appear on the credit report. I have done exactly that : I provided Experian with a formal Identity Theft Report ( the police report attached ) and a written statement that the accounts/inquiries in question are not mine. Despite having all necessary documentation for months, Experian has not fulfilled its obligation to block the fraudulent accounts and inquiries. Each day those identity-theft-related accounts remain on my file, Experian is flouting FCRA 605B. There has been ample time ( far beyond 4 business days ) since Experian received my identity theft report, yet the harmful items persist. This failure to act is not only unlawful but also demonstrates a willful disregard for my rights as an identity theft victim. \n\nReporting Inaccurate Personal Identifiers/ Mixed File Issues : The FCRA also implicitly requires credit reporting agencies to maintain accurate personal identifying information for consumers, to avoid mixed files. Reporting addresses that I never lived at and failing to distinguish my suffix XXXX ( thereby potentially commingling my file with another persons data ) reflect extremely poor practices by Experian. As noted in consumer protection literature, one common FCRA violation is when bureaus mix one persons information with anothers due to similar names or SSNs for example, failing to differentiate a XXXX from a XXXX. \n\n. It appears likely that some of the erroneous entries on my report ( such as the auto loan jointly attributed to someone named XXXX XXXX XXXX ) stem from such a mixed file error, compounding the damage from the identity theft. Experians duty to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) includes preventing this kind of file mix-up. By allowing my credit file to be polluted with someone elses addresses and accounts, Experian has breached this duty and reported information that it should know is inaccurate. \n\nIn summary, Experians persistent failure to remove the fraudulent accounts and data from my report constitutes clear violations of the FCRA. These include failing to investigate and correct inaccuracies, failing to block identity-theft-related information, and failing to maintain accurate personal data. Such conduct may also violate the general prohibition on unfair practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, since Experian is effectively continuing to harm me by reporting false credit information long after being notified. I want to emphasize that my rights under federal law are being trampled the FCRA grants me the right to dispute inaccurate information and have it corrected or deleted, and it grants me special protections as an identity theft victim. Experians non-compliance with these requirements is not only wrongful but has real, damaging consequences for my life.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-02T19:10:57.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"217XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15670445","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-02T19:02:00.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In fact, the CFPB itself recently sued Experian for unlawfully failing to properly investigate consumer disputes, noting that Experian often conducts sham investigations that result in incorrect data staying on credit reports in violation of <em>federal</em> law <em>consumerfinance</em>.gov <em>consumerfinance</em>.gov. My experience tragically exemplifies this pattern of non-<em>compliance</em>."]},"sort":[10.73168,"15670445"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17021643","_score":10.614181,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'Subject: Formal Complaint Submission  Systematic FCRA Violations by Transunion, Equifax, Experian & XXXX XXXX (Parts 1 & 2 with Exhibits)\\n\\nTO:\\n\\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau\\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\nWebsite: consumerfinance.gov/complaint/\\n\\nDear Regulatory Authorities and Corporate Officers,\\n\\nI am submitting this formal complaint for your review and enforcement consideration regarding ongoing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and related consumer protection laws by Transunion, Equifax, Experian and XXXX XXXXl.\\n\\nOver the past two years, I have made repeated certified-mail submissions and provided notarized affidavits to both entities in an effort to correct false, incomplete, and unverified credit information. Despite clear documentation and statutory notices, Transunion, Equifax, Experian and XXXX XXXX  have failed to conduct lawful reinvestigations, provide proper debt validation, or disclose a method of verification as required under federal and state lawincluding statutes in Utah, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.\\n\\nThis submission includes two parts: (Experian and Transunion attached to this complaint, working on Equifax supporting exhibits.)\\n\\nPart 1: A 15-page formal complaint outlining the full chronology of disputes, statutory violations, and supporting evidence (XXXX XXXX).\\n\\nPart 2: Supplemental documentation (XXXX XXXX) including credit reports, certified-mail receipts, and correspondence that further demonstrate the systemic noncompliance and reporting inconsistencies.\\n\\nThe core violations include:\\n\\nFailure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation  15 U.S.C.  1681i(a)(1)\\nFailure to provide a Method of Verification   1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii)\\nFailure to delete unverifiable information   1681i(a)(5)\\nFailure to maintain maximum possible accuracy   1681e(b)\\nFurnishing inaccurate data and failing to investigate disputes   1681s-2(a),(b)\\nSystemic re-aging and contradictory Metro 2 status coding\\n\\nDespite my documented overpayment of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXresulting in an XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report a XXXX balance. I respectfully demand its deletion or correction to paid as agreed status, along with removal of any derogatory notations.\\n\\nTo resolve this matter, I request the following:\\n\\n1. Full validation of the alleged debt, including:\\n2. Monthly statements from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n3. A copy of the original terms of agreement\\n    permissible purpose\\n4. Disclosure of the method of verification used by Transunion\\n\\nThis method of Verification should include: \\n\\n 1. Detailed Description of Verification Procedure  Identify the individual, \\ndepartment, or contractor who verified the disputed tradeline; What information \\nand evidence did the Data furnisher provide other than their promise or words that \\nthe alleged debt exists? \\n2. Documentary Evidence  Copies of all records relied upon, including contracts, \\nstatements, agreements, disclosure forms, and payment records; \\n3. Reinvestigation File Summary  Notes, internal communications, and data \\nexchanges with XXXX XXXX \\n4. Chain-of-Custody Records  Showing the transfer, receipt, and handling of data \\nbetween TransUnion and XXXX XXXX \\n5. Permissible Purpose Documentation  Proof of authority under 1681b to report \\nor access this tradeline. \\n6. All Data Disclosure forms along with original agreement.  \\n7. Validation of Debt from XXXX overpayment in XXXX XXXX  to a charge off of XXXX  and \\nany fees such as interest, late payments, and other charges incurred with this \\nCharge off.  \\n8. What method and evidence Transunion used to allow a Charge off and a \\ncollection to report simultaneously on the consumer report? \\n\\nFailure to comply will constitute willful noncompliance under 1681n and negligent \\nnoncompliance under 1681o, subjecting TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian to statutory and actual damages.\\n                                                        \\nI respectfully submit this complaint as a final effort to resolve the matter outside of court. In the interest of judicial efficiency, I have exhausted all administrative remedies and dispute channels. Your agencys review and enforcement action may prevent unnecessary litigation and demonstrate that I pursued every lawful avenue in good faith. I trust that your office will take appropriate steps to ensure compliance, promote regulatory accountability and protect consumer rights.\\n\\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I trust your office will take appropriate steps to ensure compliance and protect consumer rights.\\n\\nFinal Note Regarding Equifax:\\n\\nPlease be advised that I have attached formal complaints and supporting Exhibits against Experian and TransUnion. However, Equifax has engaged in the same pattern of misconduct. Their reporting is equally inaccurate, unverifiable, and in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), including failure to provide a lawful method of verification.\\n\\nI am in the process of completing the Equifax-specific documentation and expect to submit it within the next few days. The volume of evidence is overwhelming and further confirms that all three major consumer reporting agenciesExperian, TransUnion, and Equifaxhave systematically failed to uphold their statutory obligations. This note serves to preserve the record and ensure that Equifaxs violations are considered in parallel with the others.\\n\\nSincerely,XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-04T17:38:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"08817","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17021643","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-04T17:37:47.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite <em>clear</em> documentation and statutory notices, Transunion, Equifax, Experian and XXXX XXXX  have failed to conduct lawful reinvestigations, provide proper debt validation, or disclose a method of verification as required under <em>federal</em> and state lawincluding statutes in Utah, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.\\n\\nThis submission includes two parts: (Experian and Transunion attached to this complaint, working on Equifax supporting exhibits.)"]},"sort":[10.614181,"17021643"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17020174","_score":10.614181,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'Subject: Formal Complaint Submission  Systematic FCRA Violations by Transunion, Equifax, Experian & XXXX XXXX (Parts 1 & 2 with Exhibits)\\n\\nTO:\\n\\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau\\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\nWebsite: consumerfinance.gov/complaint/\\n\\nDear Regulatory Authorities and Corporate Officers,\\n\\nI am submitting this formal complaint for your review and enforcement consideration regarding ongoing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and related consumer protection laws by Transunion, Equifax, Experian and XXXX XXXXl.\\n\\nOver the past two years, I have made repeated certified-mail submissions and provided notarized affidavits to both entities in an effort to correct false, incomplete, and unverified credit information. Despite clear documentation and statutory notices, Transunion, Equifax, Experian and XXXX XXXX  have failed to conduct lawful reinvestigations, provide proper debt validation, or disclose a method of verification as required under federal and state lawincluding statutes in Utah, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.\\n\\nThis submission includes two parts: (Experian and Transunion attached to this complaint, working on Equifax supporting exhibits.)\\n\\nPart 1: A 15-page formal complaint outlining the full chronology of disputes, statutory violations, and supporting evidence (XXXX XXXX).\\n\\nPart 2: Supplemental documentation (XXXX XXXX) including credit reports, certified-mail receipts, and correspondence that further demonstrate the systemic noncompliance and reporting inconsistencies.\\n\\nThe core violations include:\\n\\nFailure to conduct reasonable reinvestigation  15 U.S.C.  1681i(a)(1)\\nFailure to provide a Method of Verification   1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii)\\nFailure to delete unverifiable information   1681i(a)(5)\\nFailure to maintain maximum possible accuracy   1681e(b)\\nFurnishing inaccurate data and failing to investigate disputes   1681s-2(a),(b)\\nSystemic re-aging and contradictory Metro 2 status coding\\n\\nDespite my documented overpayment of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXresulting in an XXXX XXXX XXXX  continues to report a XXXX balance. I respectfully demand its deletion or correction to paid as agreed status, along with removal of any derogatory notations.\\n\\nTo resolve this matter, I request the following:\\n\\n1. Full validation of the alleged debt, including:\\n2. Monthly statements from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n3. A copy of the original terms of agreement\\n    permissible purpose\\n4. Disclosure of the method of verification used by Transunion\\n\\nThis method of Verification should include: \\n\\n 1. Detailed Description of Verification Procedure  Identify the individual, \\ndepartment, or contractor who verified the disputed tradeline; What information \\nand evidence did the Data furnisher provide other than their promise or words that \\nthe alleged debt exists? \\n2. Documentary Evidence  Copies of all records relied upon, including contracts, \\nstatements, agreements, disclosure forms, and payment records; \\n3. Reinvestigation File Summary  Notes, internal communications, and data \\nexchanges with XXXX XXXX \\n4. Chain-of-Custody Records  Showing the transfer, receipt, and handling of data \\nbetween TransUnion and XXXX XXXX \\n5. Permissible Purpose Documentation  Proof of authority under 1681b to report \\nor access this tradeline. \\n6. All Data Disclosure forms along with original agreement.  \\n7. Validation of Debt from XXXX overpayment in XXXX XXXX  to a charge off of XXXX  and \\nany fees such as interest, late payments, and other charges incurred with this \\nCharge off.  \\n8. What method and evidence Transunion used to allow a Charge off and a \\ncollection to report simultaneously on the consumer report? \\n\\nFailure to comply will constitute willful noncompliance under 1681n and negligent \\nnoncompliance under 1681o, subjecting TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian to statutory and actual damages.\\n                                                        \\nI respectfully submit this complaint as a final effort to resolve the matter outside of court. In the interest of judicial efficiency, I have exhausted all administrative remedies and dispute channels. Your agencys review and enforcement action may prevent unnecessary litigation and demonstrate that I pursued every lawful avenue in good faith. I trust that your office will take appropriate steps to ensure compliance, promote regulatory accountability and protect consumer rights.\\n\\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I trust your office will take appropriate steps to ensure compliance and protect consumer rights.\\n\\nFinal Note Regarding Equifax:\\n\\nPlease be advised that I have attached formal complaints and supporting Exhibits against Experian and TransUnion. However, Equifax has engaged in the same pattern of misconduct. Their reporting is equally inaccurate, unverifiable, and in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), including failure to provide a lawful method of verification.\\n\\nI am in the process of completing the Equifax-specific documentation and expect to submit it within the next few days. The volume of evidence is overwhelming and further confirms that all three major consumer reporting agenciesExperian, TransUnion, and Equifaxhave systematically failed to uphold their statutory obligations. This note serves to preserve the record and ensure that Equifaxs violations are considered in parallel with the others.\\n\\nSincerely,XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-04T17:38:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"08817","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17020174","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-04T16:44:45.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite <em>clear</em> documentation and statutory notices, Transunion, Equifax, Experian and XXXX XXXX  have failed to conduct lawful reinvestigations, provide proper debt validation, or disclose a method of verification as required under <em>federal</em> and state lawincluding statutes in Utah, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.\\n\\nThis submission includes two parts: (Experian and Transunion attached to this complaint, working on Equifax supporting exhibits.)"]},"sort":[10.614181,"17020174"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11063387","_score":9.835905,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I HAVE A BANKRUPTCY THAT DO NOT BELONG TO ME REPORTING ON MY CREDIT, I HAVE NEVER FILED BANKRUPTCY OR ATTEMPTED TO FILE BANKRUPTCY, THERE ARE NO ACCOUNTS ON MY CREDIT CONNECTED TO A BANKRUPTCY, I REACHED OUT TO THE COURT HOUSE WHERE IT CAME FROM AND THEY COULD NOT VERIFY THE ACCOUNT SO HOW ARE YOU VERIFYING THIS ACCOUNT THAT DO NOT BELONG ME?! ALSO THIS IS FILED IN A STATE THAT I DONT LIVE IN!!!! \n\nI ASKED FOR WHAT WAS USED TO VERIFY THE ACCOUNT I NEVER RECEIVED THE INFORMATION, XXXX AND XXXX HAS ALREADY REMOVED THIS FRAUDULENT ACCOUNT I ASK THAT YOU DO THE SAME Please be advised that this is my 3 rd WRITTEN REQUEST AND FINAL WARNING that I fully intend to pursue litigation in accordance with the FCRA to enforce my right and seek relief and recover all monetary damages that I may be entitled to under Section 616 and Section 617 regarding your continued willful and negligent noncompliance.\n\nDespite my previous 2 written requests, the unverified items listed below still remain on my credit report in violation of Federal Law. You stated in your responses to my 2 dispute letters that you have verified that the items listed below are accurate, but you failed to send me copies of the documents that you used to verify these accounts as per my request. The fact that you have ignored my request to send me copies of that of the documents that you used to verify the disputed accounts like you said you did. Your failure to delete the disputed accounts that you can not verify after 2 written requests is also evidence of your Willful disregard of Federal Law.\n\nWhen we go through the discovery process you will be required to produce these documents along with an affidavit swearing under oath that these are the true and correct documents that you used to verify the disputed accounts. The fact that you do not have any of the said documents in your files is proof that you did not properly verify the accounts within 30 days as required by law and Court will order you to delete them.\n\nYou say that you have reinvestigated these accounts but you have admitted that all you have done is parroted information given to you by other sources and shifted the burden back to me to contact the original creditor to verify these accounts which is clearly in violation in violation of 1681 { a } { 4 }.\n\nI also asked you to give me the name of the person in your company who verified the accuracy of these accounts but you ignored this request as well which is another violation of Federal Law and evidence of your willful disregard of the law.\n\nPlease be advised that under Section 611 { 5 } { A } of the FCRA-you are required to .PROMPTLY DELETE ALL INFORMATION WHICH CAN NOT BE VERIFIED. I request that you do this immediately.\n\nThe law is very clear as to the Civil liability and remedy available to me { Section 616 & amp ; 617 } if you fail to comply with Federal Law. I am a litigious consumer and fully intend on fully intend on pursuing litigation in this matter to enforce my rights under the FCRA.\n\nI DEMAND THAT YOU DELETE ALL OF THE ACCOUNTS LISTED BELOW IMMEDIATELY. PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH A COPY OF AN UPDATED AND CORRECTED CREDIT REPORT SHOWING THAT THESE HAVE BEEN DELETED.\n\nUS BANKRUPTCY Record details Record type Chapter XXXX bankruptcy dismissed Date filed XX/XX/XXXX Date resolved XX/XX/XXXX Responsibility Individual Reference number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IL XXXX Phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX All furnishers of consumer reports must comply with all applicable regulations, including regulations promulgated after this notice was first prescribed in XXXX. Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's website, consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. \nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance.\n\nThe text of the FCRA is set forth in full at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 's website at consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. A list of the sections of the FCRA cross-referenced to the U.S. Code is at the end of this document.\n\nSection 623 imposes the following duties : Accuracy Guidelines The banking and credit union regulators and the CFPB will promulgate guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. The regulations and guidelines issued by the CFPB will be available at consumerfinance.gov/learnmore when they are issued. Section 623 ( e ).\n\nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ).\n\nDuty to Correct and Update Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ).\n\nDuties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified by the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs.\n\nSection 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute.\n\nSection 623 ( a ) ( 3 ).\n\nThe federal banking and credit union regulators and the CFPB will issue regulations that will identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Once these regulations are issued, furnishers must comply with them and complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a credit repair organization. The CFPB regulations will be available at consumerfinance.gov. Section 623 ( a ) ( 8 ).\n\nDuties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher that a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nReport the results to the CRA that referred the dispute, and, if the investigation establishes that the information was, in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Sections 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ).\n\nComplete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information to the CRA ). Section 623 ( b ) ( 2 ).\n\nPromptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ).\n\nDuty to Report Voluntary Closing of Credit Accounts If a consumer voluntarily closes a credit account, any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs must report this fact when it provides information to CRAs for the time period in which the account was closed. Section 623 ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nDuty to Report Dates of Delinquencies If a furnisher reports information concerning a delinquent account placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, the furnisher must, within 90 days after reporting the information, provide the CRA with the month and the year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action, so that the agency will know how long to keep the information in the consumer 's file. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nAny person, such as a debt collector, that has acquired or is responsible for collecting delinquent accounts and that reports information to CRAs may comply with the requirements of Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( until there is a consumer dispute ) by reporting the same delinquency date previously reported by the creditor. If the creditor did not report this date, they may comply with the FCRA by establishing reasonable procedures to obtain and report delinquency dates, or, if a delinquency date can not be reasonably obtained, by following reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date when the account was placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nDuties of Financial Institutions When Reporting Negative Information Financial institutions that furnish information to nationwide consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603 ( p ), must notify consumers in writing if they may furnish or have furnished negative information to a CRA. Section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has prescribed model disclosures, 12 CFR Part 1022, App. B.\n\nDuties When Furnishing Medical Information A furnisher whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices ( and such furnisher 's agents or assignees ) is a medical information furnisher for the purposes of the FCRA and must notify all CRAs to which it reports of this fact. Section 623 ( a ) ( 9 ). This notice will enable CRAs to comply with their duties under Section 604 ( g ) when reporting medical information.\n\nDuties when ID Theft Occurs All furnishers must have in place reasonable procedures to respond to notifications from CRAs that information furnished is the result of identity theft, and to prevent refurnishing the information in the future. A furnisher may not furnish information that a consumer has identified as resulting from identity theft unless the furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer that the information is correct. Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). If a furnisher learns that it has furnished inaccurate information due to identity theft, it must notify each consumer reporting agency of the correct information and must thereafter report only complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). When any furnisher of information is notified pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 605B that a debt has resulted from identity theft, the furnisher may not sell, transfer, or place for collection the debt except in certain limited circumstances. Section 615 ( f ).","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-06T16:46:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"46375","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11063387","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-12-06T16:26:20.000Z","state":"IN","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":["All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in <em>compliance</em>.\n\nThe text of the FCRA is set forth in full at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 's website at <em>consumerfinance</em>.gov/learnmore. A list of the sections of the FCRA cross-referenced to the U.S. Code is at the end of this document."]},"sort":[9.835905,"11063387"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8252726","_score":7.655114,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX My Only Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX The last 4of my SSN # XXXX My Only XXXXMy Only XX/XX/XXXX I have reached out to XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX via sign, certified letters and the debt collectors. I have also sent over a certified notarized affidavit of truth upon sending my letters, I spoke with representatives at XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX about the fraudulent accounts and information that is consistently been on my consumer report, their investigation fixed nothing these are the accounts of the violations via FCRA and California consumer privacy act. I have reached out to the XXXX, the FTC, the California and STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND California consumer protection and innovation 15 USC 1681| ( A ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( a ) REINVESTIGATIONS OF DISPUTED INFORMATION ( 1 ) REINVESTIGATION REQUIRED ( A ) In general Subject to subsection ( f ) and except as provided in subsection ( g ), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer 's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from thefile in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. According to 15 USC 1681e ( b ) it states this ( 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. \" So I then asked them to provide me a description of the investigation according to 15 USC 16811 ( 7 ) : ( 7 ) Description of reinvestigation procedure A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. But they did not do that as well either. I allege that XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX are in blatant violation of the following U.S. codes and legislation for the reasons specified : 15 USC 1692c ( b ) : Unauthorized communication with third parties about my debt. 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 : Failure to correct and update inaccurate information in my consumer reports.15 U.S. Code 1681a ( 2 ) ( 1 ) : Misuse or misrepresentation of definitions and rules related to consumer reporting. 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( 3 ) ( e ) : Further misuse or misrepresentation of definitions and rules related to consumer reporting. 15 U.S. Code 1681i : Inadequate procedures for disputing the accuracy of my consumer reports. 15 U.S. Code 1681b : Unauthorized access or use of my consumer reports for impermissible purposes. H.R. 3046 Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2007 : Unauthorized use or disclosure of my Social Security numbers. Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act : Failure to verify my identification by financial institutions. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Section 501 : Failure to ensure the security and confidentiality of my personal and financial information. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Section 502 : Unauthorized sharing of my non-public personal information with non-affiliated third parties. Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, Section 504 : Non- compliance with federal regulations designed to enforce the act, thereby putting my personal and financial information at risk. Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX15USC 1681ad ) ( 2 ( A/i ) clearly states that transactions between the consumer and the Person/Corporation making the report is NOT included on the consumer reports. Yet XXXX is reporting this information.. The reporting of excluded information pursuant to 15USC 1681 a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) on a consumer report is a clear violation of XXXX compliance. Provide me with the XXXX compliance disclosure on reporting transactions to a consumer reporting agency. I need the transactions reporting as late, collection/charge-off status and any other derogatory information deleted from my consumer reports effective immediately. Before you think to reply that this account has been \" validated '', let 's be clear that I am not asking you to validate or verify anything. So please do not respond by telling me that as a tactic to waste my valuable time. Some of the negative accounts have been placed in Collection/Charge-Off Status WITHOUTmailing me a copy of IRS form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt. XXXX and the creditors reporting collections/Charge-Offs, late payments/other derogatory information in my consumer reports are in violation of 26 USC ss 6050P Returns Relating to the Cancellation of Indebtedness By Certain Entities. If this derogatory account information is not deleted from my consumer reports within 30 days, I will be forced to officially file IRS form 3949A : Information Referral AND IRS form 211 : Application For Award For Original Information Overview with the Internal RevenueService against ALL entities involved.TITLE 1.81.5. 2018 [ 1798.100 - 1798.199.100 ] ( Title 1.81.5 added by Stats. 2018, Ch. 55, Sec. 3. ) -1798.106. Consumers Right to Correct Inaccurate Personal Information ( a ) A consumer shall have the right to request a business that maintains inaccurate personal information about the consumer to correct that inaccurate personal information, taking into account the nature of the personal information and the purposes of the processing of the personal information. ( b ) A business that collects personal information about consumers shall disclose, pursuant to Section 1798.130, the consumers right to request correction of inaccurate personal information. ( c ) A business that receives a verifiable consumer request to correct inaccurate personal information shall use commercially reasonable efforts to correct the inaccurate personal information as directed by the consumer, pursuant to Section 1798.130 and regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph ( 8 ) of subdivision ( a ) of Section 1798.185. ( Added XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX by initiative Proposition 24, Sec. 6. Effective XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, pursuant to Sec. 31 of Proposition 24. ) 1798.120. Consumers Right to Opt Out of Sale or Sharing of Personal Information ( a ) A consumer shall have the right, at any time, to direct a business that sells or shares personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell or share the consumers personal information. This right may be referred to as the right to opt- out of sale or sharing. ( b ) A business that sells consumers personal information to, or shares it with, third parties shall provide notice to consumers, pursuant to subdivision ( a ) of Section 1798.135, that this information may be sold or shared and that consumers have the right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information** 1 See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 12 ) ( F ), 5512 ( b ), 5514 ( c ), 5515 ( c ), and also Sub title E ( 12 U.S.C.5561 5567 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( b ) ( 1 ) ( H ), ( e ). Authority over 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( e ) and 1681w are limited to the Federal banking agencies, the NCUA, the FTC, the CFTC, and SEC. 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681s. States can directly bring actions under FCRA. See 12 U.S.C. 1681s ( c ) .States can al so bring actions under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) against covered persons and service providers based upon violations of federal consumer financial laws, including the FCRA . See Authority of States to Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 87 FR 31940 ( May 26, 2022 ). 2. 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o. 3. See, e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Supervisory Highlights ( Spring 2014 ), at 10, https : //files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201405_cfpb_supervisory- highlights-spring- 2014.pdf. 4. See, e.g., Complaint at 15, CFPB v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Inc., D. Md. No. 19-Civ-2817 ( Filed Sep. 25, 2019 ). 5. With respect to furnisherThis is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data According to the fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are requiredby federal law to verify through the physical verification of the original signed consumer contract- any all accounts you post on a credit report. Otherwise, anyone paying for your reporting service could fax, mail or email in a fraudulent account. I demand to see Verifiable proof ( an Original Consumer Contract with my Signature on it ) vou have on file of the account listed below. Your failure to positively verify these accounts hurt my ability to obtain credit. Under the FCRA, Unverified accounts must be removed and if you are unable to provide me with a copy of verifiable proof, you must remove the accounts listed Data Removal : Immediate removal of all my existing personal and financial information from your website, databases, and any affiliated entities. This request pertains to all data currently held by your organization. 2. Data Security for Future Interactions : Implement robust security measures to prevent unauthorized access to any new information that may be collected. This request applies to any future interactions I may have with your organization and is not in conflict with my request for the removal of existing data. 3. Transparency : Full disclosure of any third parties with whom my information has been shared, along with immediate cessation of such sharing. 4. Notification : Prompt notification to me of all actions taken to secure my information and prevent further violations. 5. Legal Compliance : Immediate review and adherence to all relevant U.S. codes and legislation cited in this affidavit to ensure full compliance. Non-Consent and Settlement : Final Warning and Unambiguous Clarification 1as you can see here again, they blatantly violate the ( FCRA15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - ) Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies U.S. Code Notes prev | next ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. ( B ) Reporting information after notice andconfirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate ; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX CONTINUE TO REPORT FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTS THIS makes you guilty and in violation of the False Claims Act ( FCA ) 31 U.S.C 3729- 3733. ( Debt Collector name is also in violation of 18 U.S.C 894 for using my consumer report with extortionate means as a way to coerce and swindle me into making payments on alleged debt not owed. I DID NOT AND DO NOT CONSENT these companies XXXX TRANSUNION/XXXX /furnishing this information to my consumer report. I did not give you authorization or permission to have my personal identifying information, which you have obtained by aggravated identity theft in accordance with 18 U.S.C 1028A. This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data According to the fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are requiredby federal law to verify through the physical verification of the original signed consumer contract-Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX See, e.g., 12 U.S.C . 5481 ( 12 ) ( F ), 5512 ( b ), 5514 ( c ), 5515 ( c ), and also Sub title E ( 12 U.S.C.5561 5567 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( b ) ( 1 ) ( H ), ( e ). Authority over 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( e ) and 1681w are limited to the Federal banking agencies, the NCUA, the FTC, the CFTC, and SEC. 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681s. States can directly bring actions under FCRA. See 12 U.S.C. 1681s ( c ) .States can al so bring actions under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) against covered persons and service providers based upon violations of federal consumer financial laws, including the FCRA XXXX See Authority of States to Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 87 FR 31940 ( May 26, 2022 ). 2. 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o. 3. See, e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Supervisory Highlights ( Spring 2014 ), at 10, https : //files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201405_cfpb_supervisory-highlights-spring- 2014.pdf. 4. See, e.g., Complaint at 15, CFPB v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX., D. Md. No. 19-Civ-2817 ( Filed Sep. 25, 2019 ). 5. With respect to furnisher direct disputes, see 74 FR 31,484, 31,500 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( Some industry commenters also suggested that the Agencies issue a model direct dispute complaint form, with some advocating that consumers be required to use the model complaint form. The Agencies decline to adopt these suggestions because such requirements would cause otherwise valid disputes to b e rejected as frivolous or irrelevant due solely to the consumer 's failure to meet a technical requirement that probably would be unknown to the consumer. ) 6. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( identifying which disputes the consumer reporting agency can determine to be frivolous or irrelevant ) ; 12 CFR 1022.43 ( f ) ( 1 ) ( identifying which disputes the furnisher can determine to be frivolous or irrelevant ). 7. 15 U.S.C.1681i ( a ) ( 3 ) ( Consumer reporting agency frivolous or irrelevant determination ) ; 12 CFR 1022.43 ( f ) ( furnisher direct dispute frivolous or irrelevant determination ).\n\n8. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). See Brief for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission as XXXX XXXX Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ( No. 21- 2430 ). 9. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ). 10. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Bulletin 2013-09 ( Sep. 4, 2013 ), at 1, https : //files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_bulletin_furnishers.pdf ( alerting furnishers to the fact that consumer reporting agencies have begun forwarding images of relevant documentation to furnishers as part of the reasonable investigation of disputes ). 11. For example, a copy of a bill supporting the consumers dispute conveys information regarding the persuasiveness of a consumers dispute that data about the bill would not. 12. Federal Trade Commission, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act : An FTC Staff Report with Summary of Interpretations ( Jul. 2011 ), at 77, https : //www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/40-years-experience- fair-credit-reporting-act-ftc-staff-report-summary- XXXX ( XXXX does not comply with this provision if it merely indicates the nature of the dispute, without communicating to the furnisher the specific relevant information received from the consumer. For example, if the consumer claimed never late and submitted documentation ( such as cancelled checks ) to support his/her dispute, a CRA does not comply with the requirement that is provide all relevant information if it simply notifies the furnisher that the consumer disputes the payment history without communicating the evidence received. ). 13. 2115 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B )","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-30T17:38:36.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"27610","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8252726","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-01-30T17:22:31.000Z","state":"NC","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":["Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, Section 504 : Non- <em>compliance</em> with <em>federal</em> regulations designed to enforce the act, thereby putting my personal and financial information at risk."]},"sort":[7.655114,"8252726"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13970993","_score":7.473297,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Original Creditor : XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Social Security number XXXXXXXX  DOB : XXXXXXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Disputed credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit reports. This account ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was opened around XX/XX/XXXX, with a current reported balance of {$2000.00}. It is being reported as a collection on my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  reports as of XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute the legitimacy and accuracy of this account and believe XXXX reporting violates federal law. First, the balance being reported ( {$2000.00} ) is grossly inflated and inaccurate. My records indicate the original credit limit on the XXXX card was {$1400.00}, yet XXXX is reporting a much higher balance, likely due to added interest or fees. This inflated amount has never been validated with any documentation. Reporting a balance that exceeds the original debt without proof is misleading and constitutes a false representation of the debts character and amount ftc.gov. XXXX has failed to provide any breakdown or verification to justify this amount, despite my disputes. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), information on a credit report must be accurate and verifiable, and any information that can not be verified must be deleted consumerfinance.gov files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX continued reporting of this unverified, inflated balance shows a blatant disregard for the FCRAs accuracy requirements. Second, I have never received proper validation of this debt from XXXX. I requested debt validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) in writing ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), yet XXXX did not cease collection or provide the required verification. Instead, they persisted in reporting this account each month, which is illegal. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits a debt collector from continuing collection activities without first validating the debt upon request ftc.gov. XXXX failure to produce any evidence that I owe this debt, while continuing to report it as a derogatory item, is a direct violation of FDCPA and my consumer rights. This account is unverifiable in its current state XXXX has not proven that I am the legitimate debtor or that the amount is correct. Third, I want to note that I disputed this account with the credit bureaus, and it is marked as disputed on at least one bureau. However, XXXX failed to properly investigate and correct the errors. The account remains, with the same inflated balance and no indication of any proof. By verifying the account without actual documentation, XXXX and the bureaus have violated FCRA Section 611, which requires a reasonable investigation and removal of information that can not be verified. The FCRA also holds data furnishers like XXXX responsible under Section 623 to report only accurate information and to correct or delete information if it is found to be inaccurate or incomplete. XXXX  lack of response to my dispute and its continued reporting of suspect information demonstrate a willful neglect of these obligations. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection account that is inaccurate, unverified, and legally unenforceable. This harms me every day it remains on my credit file. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to investigate and enforce the law in this matter. XXXX should be compelled to provide proof of the debts validity and amount or, failing that, delete this account permanently from all consumer credit bureaus. Their current conduct reporting an unverified, inflated debt violates the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy and the FDCPAs prohibitions on false and unfair collection practices. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX XXXX to delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  credit reports immediately * * due to the aforementioned FCRA and FDCPA violations. Additionally, I request a formal investigation into XXXX collection and reporting activities, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to prevent this kind of consumer harm. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Disputed debt and FCRA/FDCPA violations To Whom It May Concern : I am filing an official complaint regarding another collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX This account was originally opened around XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and is tied to a XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( account number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The current reported balance is {$600.00}, and it appears on my XXXX, Experian, and XXXX  credit reports as a collection account. I dispute this account in its entirety and assert that XXXX reporting and collection of this debt are rife with legal violations. First, this debt is unverified and of questionable ownership. I have no recollection of ever incurring a {$600.00} debt with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX has provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate that I am responsible for this account. I demanded validation from XXXX XXXX XXXX via written correspondence in early XXXX, as is my right under the FDCPA. To date, XXXX has failed to produce any validation no signed contract, no account statements, not even basic account records linking me to this debt. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), if a consumer disputes a debt or requests validation, the collector must cease collection and verify the debt before taking further action ftc.gov. XXXX ignored this requirement. They continued reporting the account to credit bureaus and attempting collection without ever mailing me the requested verification. This is an improper collection activity without debt validation, a clear violation of my FDCPA rights. Second, XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information is not verifiable or accurate. The FCRA requires that any information on a credit report be complete, accurate, and capable of being verified. If the information can not be verified, it must be removed consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX can not verify the debt they have no proof of my liability yet they continue to report it as a valid collection. This account is effectively unverifiable, and by law it should not be on my credit report at all. I also believe the account details are incomplete. For instance, the credit reports do not clearly show the date of first delinquency or any itemization of the {$600.00} balance. Such omissions make it impossible to determine if the debt is within the allowable reporting period or if the amount includes unauthorized fees. In short, XXXX has not met its burden under FCRA to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The presence of an unverified collection account is causing significant damage to my creditworthiness and is fundamentally unfair. Third, I previously disputed this collection with the credit bureaus ( Experian and XXXX  ) in an effort to have it investigated. XXXX responded to the bureaus investigations by allegedly verifying the debt, yet they provided me with no documentation or evidence during that process. It appears XXXX simply affirmed the debt as valid without conducting a reasonable investigation. This perfunctory verification violates FCRA Section 611, which obligates furnishers to investigate disputes thoroughly and delete information that can not be verified. Moreover, XXXX did not mark the account as disputed by consumer on all my credit reports, which it is required to do once I notified them of my dispute. Under FDCPA Section 807 ( 8 ), its a deceptive practice for a debt collector to report credit information that is known to be false, including failing to communicate that a debt is disputed ftc.gov. XXXX  omission of the dispute notation further demonstrates their negligent and deceptive approach to credit reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect and report a debt that I do not recognize and which they have not validated. This is both unprofessional and unlawful. The account information is unverified, incomplete, and thus in violation of FCRAs accuracy standards and FDCPAs validation requirements. I respectfully request the CFPBs intervention to correct this situation. Requested Relief : I ask that the CFPB direct XXXX to immediately and permanently delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all credit bureaus * * since they have not demonstrated any legitimate basis for reporting it. Furthermore, I request that CFPB investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX for their collection practices in this case, including their failure to validate the debt and their improper credit reporting. No consumer should be subjected to a collection entry that the collector can not even prove is real. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Original Creditor : XXXX  XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Dispute of inaccurate debt reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding a collection account handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), appearing on my credit reports. The account number is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( partial ), opened on or about XX/XX/XXXX, with a current balance of {$460.00}. The original creditor is listed as XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This account is reported on my XXXX  and Experian credit files as a collection account. I firmly dispute the accuracy and legitimacy of this debt and believe XXXX  reporting and collection actions are violating my consumer rights. First, the information XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The tradeline does not contain sufficient detail to verify the debt. For example, the balance of {$460.00} is not explained or itemized I have not been provided any statement showing how this amount was calculated or if it includes any interest or fees post-charge-off. I am concerned that the status or balance may be incorrect, yet XXXX has not corrected it. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, the XXXX account information falls into those categories. I have never seen a single piece of evidence ( such as a signed agreement or billing statements from XXXX XXXX ) that definitively proves this {$460.00} debt is mine and reported correctly. Without such verification, the continued presence of this collection on my credit report is unjustified. It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per federal law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a clear validation notice by mail. To resolve my doubts, I mailed a debt validation request to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, asking for proof that I owe this debt ( e.g. the original account agreement and an account statement ). XXXX did not respond with any validation documents. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), a debt collector must provide verification of the debt upon a consumers request and must cease collection efforts until that verification is provided ftc.gov. XXXX  silence and continued reporting indicate a disregard for this law. They continued to report the collection account to the credit bureaus without ever substantiating the debt when asked an improper collection practice. Furthermore, since I disputed the debt, any continued reporting should have been marked as disputed. XXXX failed to mark the account as disputed on my credit report, which is a deceptive practice under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) ftc.gov. This omission makes it look as if I accept the debt, which is false and damaging. Third, I want to highlight that the timeline and handling of this account raise concerns under the CFPBs own debt collection rules. The collection was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, but I only noticed it on my credit reports later. If XXXX reported this debt to the bureaus before properly contacting me, that would violate the CFPBs Regulation F. Debt collectors must notify a consumer about a debt and wait a reasonable period ( usually 14 days ) before reporting to credit bureaus consumerfinance.gov. In my case, I have no record of XXXX speaking with me or sending a letter that I actually received prior to seeing the item on my reports. If they sent a notice, I did not get it, and they apparently did not confirm receipt before reporting. Reporting a collection without ensuring I was notified is an unfair practice and contravenes the spirit of the CFPBs guidelines and the FDCPAs requirements for fair notification. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that lacks verification and contains possible inaccuracies. XXXX has not validated the debt nor ensured the information is correct or fairly presented. This situation has caused significant distress, as my credit score is being impacted by an entry that I can not even confirm as legitimate. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to put an end to this. Requested Action : I urge the CFPB to compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to remove the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all of my credit reports * * due to their failure to verify its accuracy and their failure to adhere to federal collection laws. At minimum, XXXX should be required to provide full validation of the debt ( original contract, account statements, proof of ownership of the debt, etc. ) if they wish to continue reporting it. If they can not promptly provide irrefutable proof, the only lawful and fair outcome is to delete this collection account entirely. I also ask that CFPB review XXXX conduct in this case for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA, and take appropriate enforcement action if violations are found. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX credit card ( Acct # XXXX ) Charged-off account reporting dispute To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a complaint against XXXX XXXX  regarding the reporting of a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ( account number ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX ) on my credit reports. This account was opened in or around XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and was charged off around late XXXX  with an original charge-off balance of approximately {$2000.00}. Currently, the credit bureaus list the account as Closed Charged Off with a {$0.00} balance ( reflecting that the debt was sold or transferred ). It appears on my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  reports as a negative item. I believe XXXX continued reporting of this account is incomplete, misleading, and in violation of the FCRA, and I am requesting that it be removed. First, the information XXXX XXXX  is reporting about this account is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, thereby violating my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. After the charge-off, XXXX sold or transferred the debt to a collection agency ( XXXX XXXX XXXX , as evidenced by a XXXX collection entry for this same account ). However, XXXX tradeline on my credit report does not clearly indicate the transfer or the fact that I no longer owe any balance to XXXX. The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully inform creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively results in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation. While technically original creditors and collectors can both report, the combination of these entries is painting an excessively negative picture that is not wholly accurate. XXXX entry still shows the debt as a serious derogatory mark even though XXXX has no remaining interest in it. I contend that this is not maximum possible accuracy as required by the FCRA. Second, the account information is not verifiable or up-to-date, which means it should be deleted. I have disputed this account directly with XXXX XXXX  ( in XX/XX/XXXX ) and through the credit bureaus, on the grounds that XXXX no longer possesses the account ( having sold it ) and thus can not verify its details. In response, XXXX did not provide any substantive verification. They have not produced any original account documents or clarifications ; the credit bureaus simply left the charge-off in place. The FCRA states that if information is disputed and the furnisher can not verify its accuracy, that information must be corrected or removed from the credit report files.consumerfinance.gov. Given that XXXX XXXX  no longer owns the debt, it is doubtful they retained the full documentation or incentive to investigate thoroughly. The lack of response to my dispute indicates that the accuracy of this tradeline can not be confirmed. Additionally, certain details on the account may be outdated. The Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, yet Ive noticed some reports list a later major delinquency reported date ( possibly due to the charge-off in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ). I want to ensure XXXX reported the true original delinquency date to the bureaus. If they failed to do so, that is an FCRA violation as well. ( Any re-aging of the delinquency date to keep the account on reports longer would be illegal ). In summary, XXXX charge-off entry is unverified and outdated information that should no longer be on my reports. Third, it is fundamentally unfair and against the intent of the FCRAs obsolescence rules for this charged-off account to linger on my credit file given the circumstances. The FCRA generally limits negative information to a 7-year reporting period files.consumerfinance.gov. While this account is about 4 years old since the delinquency ( so still within the timeframe ), I want to emphasize that I am suffering ongoing harm from an account that has been resolved in the sense that XXXX closed it and sold it off. XXXX XXXX  washed its hands of this debt when it sold it, yet I continue to be punished by the mark on my credit. The spirit of the law is to allow consumers to move on after a reasonable period. In this case, removal of the XXXX tradeline would not cause XXXX any loss ( they no longer have stake in the debt ) but would greatly help my credit rebuild. I respectfully assert that leaving this mark through XXXX does not serve a fair purpose it is simply punitive. Moreover, as mentioned, the existence of the XXXX XXXX  for the same account means the debts impact is duplicative. It is neither accurate nor fair for both to remain if one can be removed. For these reasons, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to address XXXX XXXX  reporting of the XXXX account. XXXX  has not provided verification of the debts accuracy and has left an incomplete, duplicative derogatory item on my reports. This does not comply with FCRA requirements for accuracy and verifiability. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB instruct XXXX XXXX  to * permanently delete the XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all consumer credit reporting agencies. This deletion is warranted due to the lack of verification and the fact that the debt has been transferred. I also request that CFPB ensure XXXX  updates any of its reporting practices so that when debts are sold, the trade lines are either not reported as negatives or are clearly notated and removed once the transferee is reporting. At a minimum, if outright deletion is not immediately ordered, XXXX should mark the account as disputed and investigate my claims thoroughly. However, given the circumstances, I firmly believe deletion is the proper and just outcome. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Acct # XXXX ) Dispute of charged-off account reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint regarding a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  issued by XXXX XXXX  ( account number ending in XXXX XXXX ) that is being reported on my credit reports. This account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX and charged off in XXXX. The charge-off amount was {$600.00}, and the account is currently listed on my Experian, XXXX, and XXXX  reports as a closed, charged-off account with a {$0.00} balance ( indicating the debt was sold or assigned to a collection agency ). I assert that XXXX  reporting of this account is inaccurate and unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and I am seeking the CFPBs assistance to have this matter corrected through deletion of the tradeline. First, the reported information on this account is not being kept accurate or up-to-date by XXXX XXXX, especially given that the debt has been transferred to a third-party collector. Once XXXX  charged off the account and sold the debt ( likely to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is now reporting a collection for this same {$600.00} ), XXXX  should have updated the tradeline to reflect that transfer and then ceased updating it with derogatory information. The credit reports do show a XXXX balance, but they continue to list the account as a charge-off each month up until it was last reported. The presence of this account as a negative mark is duplicative, since the debt now also appears as a collection account under XXXX. It is unfair and misleading for both the original and collection accounts to coexist on my report for the same debt. Creditors viewing my report see two major derogatories ( a charge-off and a collection ) for what is essentially one financial obligation. This double whammy exaggerates the impact on my credit score and creditworthiness. I believe this runs counter to the FCRAs goal of fair and relevant credit reporting. Second, XXXX XXXX  has failed to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of this accounts information, as required by law. I disputed the XXXX XXXX account with XXXX  via a direct written dispute ( sent in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and also through Experian. In my dispute, I pointed out that I do not believe XXXX has retained proper documentation for the account, such as original charge slips or a signed credit agreement, especially since the debt was sold. I also noted a discrepancy : the cards credit limit was only {$300.00}, yet XXXX allowed the balance to grow to {$600.00} by the time of charge-off ( implying significant fees or interest were added ). I asked XXXX to verify the accuracy of the balance and provide documentation of how that balance was derived. XXXX did not provide any substantive response or proof. They simply let the tradeline remain. Under the FCRA, if a consumer disputes an item, the furnisher ( XXXX  ) must conduct a reasonable investigation and remove any information it can not verify as accurate files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX  lack of response indicates that they did not verify the debts accuracy because they likely can not. The continued reporting of an unverified charge-off account is a violation of FCRA Section 623. It is unacceptable that this account remains, damaging my credit, when XXXX has not proven that the information ( amount owed, dates, etc. ) is correct and complete. Third, given that this account was charged off nearly four years ago, it is approaching the point where it would become obsolete negative information under the FCRAs 7-year rule. While it is not yet past the 7-year mark, I want to highlight that this accounts negative impact is diminishing any value in keeping it on record. The accounts Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, so it is scheduled to continue on record until XXXX. However, because the debt was sold and is being handled by another company, the XXXX entry is essentially static, historical data that serves little purpose except to punish me. XXXX  has no ongoing relationship with me. Removing this tradeline now, as part of a goodwill gesture or due to the verification issues noted, would cause no harm to XXXX but would significantly help my credit profile reflect my current obligations more accurately ( since Im now dealing with the collection agency ). I believe the CFPB should consider that leaving duplicate negative entries is not in line with the spirit of fair credit reporting, which aims to report only what is necessary and correct. In summary, XXXX XXXX  reporting of the charged-off XXXX XXXX account is neither accurate nor fair. They have not verified the debt, yet keep it on my file ; they have effectively double-reported the debt alongside a collection agency ; and the continued presence of this outdated negative item is doing undue harm. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to resolve these issues. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB have XXXX XXXX  * permanently delete the XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all credit bureaus. This deletion is justified on the grounds that the information is unverified/inaccurate and that its duplicative of the collection account. If XXXX believes the information is correct, I invite them to produce complete documentation ( original signed application, full payment history, accounting of the balance, etc. ) and prove it otherwise, the law says it should be removed. I also request that the CFPB ensure XXXX improves its processes for handling sold accounts to prevent consumer credit reports from being unnecessarily tarnished by redundant negative entries. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that the CFPBs intervention can help correct this issue and protect my rights under the FCRA. \n\nFinally, experian has provided the wrong last 4 of my SS. Are all these items mine if they have the last 4 wrong of my social security","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T02:14:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13970993","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-10T01:45:37.000Z","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":["It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per <em>federal</em> law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a <em>clear</em> validation notice by mail."]},"sort":[7.473297,"13970993"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13971583","_score":7.468292,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Social Security number XXXX DOB : XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputed credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit reports. This account ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) was opened around XX/XX/XXXX, with a current reported balance of {$2000.00}. It is being reported as a collection on my XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX  reports as of XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute the legitimacy and accuracy of this account and believe XXXX reporting violates federal law. First, the balance being reported ( {$2000.00} ) is grossly inflated and inaccurate. My records indicate the original credit limit on the XXXX card was {$1400.00}, yet XXXX is reporting a much higher balance, likely due to added interest or fees. This inflated amount has never been validated with any documentation. Reporting a balance that exceeds the original debt without proof is misleading and constitutes a false representation of the debts character and amount ftc.gov. XXXX has failed to provide any breakdown or verification to justify this amount, despite my disputes. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), information on a credit report must be accurate and verifiable, and any information that can not be verified must be deleted consumerfinance.gov files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX continued reporting of this unverified, inflated balance shows a blatant disregard for the FCRAs accuracy requirements. Second, I have never received proper validation of this debt from XXXX. I requested debt validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) in writing ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), yet XXXX did not cease collection or provide the required verification. Instead, they persisted in reporting this account each month, which is illegal. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits a debt collector from continuing collection activities without first validating the debt upon request ftc.gov. XXXX failure to produce any evidence that I owe this debt, while continuing to report it as a derogatory item, is a direct violation of FDCPA and my consumer rights. This account is unverifiable in its current state XXXX has not proven that I am the legitimate debtor or that the amount is correct. Third, I want to note that I disputed this account with the credit bureaus, and it is marked as disputed on at least one bureau. However, XXXX failed to properly investigate and correct the errors. The account remains, with the same inflated balance and no indication of any proof. By verifying the account without actual documentation, XXXX and the bureaus have violated FCRA Section 611, which requires a reasonable investigation and removal of information that can not be verified. The FCRA also holds data furnishers like XXXX responsible under Section 623 to report only accurate information and to correct or delete information if it is found to be inaccurate or incomplete. XXXX  lack of response to my dispute and its continued reporting of suspect information demonstrate a willful neglect of these obligations. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection account that is inaccurate, unverified, and legally unenforceable. This harms me every day it remains on my credit file. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to investigate and enforce the law in this matter. XXXX should be compelled to provide proof of the debts validity and amount or, failing that, delete this account permanently from all consumer credit bureaus. Their current conduct reporting an unverified, inflated debt violates the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy and the FDCPAs prohibitions on false and unfair collection practices. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX XXXX to delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from my XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX credit reports immediately XXXX XXXX XXXXue to the aforementioned FCRA and FDCPA violations. Additionally, I request a formal investigation into XXXX collection and reporting activities, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to prevent this kind of consumer harm. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputed debt and FCRA/FDCPA violations To Whom It XXXX Concern : I am filing an official complaint regarding another collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX This account was originally opened around XX/XX/XXXX and is tied to a XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The current reported balance is {$600.00}, and it appears on my Equifax, XXXX XXXX XXXX  credit reports as a collection account. I dispute this account in its entirety and assert that XXXX reporting and collection of this debt are rife with legal violations. First, this debt is unverified and of questionable ownership. I have no recollection of ever incurring a {$600.00} debt with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX has provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate that I am responsible for this account. I demanded validation from XXXX XXXX XXXX via written correspondence in early XXXX, as is my right under the FDCPA. To date, XXXX has failed to produce any validation no signed contract, no account statements, not even basic account records linking me to this debt. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), if a consumer disputes a debt or requests validation, the collector must cease collection and verify the debt before taking further action ftc.gov. XXXX ignored this requirement. They continued reporting the account to credit bureaus and attempting collection without ever mailing me the requested verification. This is an improper collection activity without debt validation, a clear violation of my FDCPA rights. Second, XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information is not verifiable or accurate. The FCRA requires that any information on a credit report be complete, accurate, and capable of being verified. If the information can not be verified, it must be removed consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX can not verify the debt they have no proof of my liability yet they continue to report it as a valid collection. This account is effectively unverifiable, and by law it should not be on my credit report at all. I also believe the account details are incomplete. For instance, the credit reports do not clearly show the date of first delinquency or any itemization of the {$600.00} balance. Such omissions make it impossible to determine if the debt is within the allowable reporting period or if the amount includes unauthorized fees. In short, XXXX has not met its burden under FCRA to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The presence of an unverified collection account is causing significant damage to my creditworthiness and is fundamentally unfair. Third, I previously disputed this collection with the credit bureaus ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) in an effort to have it investigated. XXXX responded to the bureaus investigations by allegedly verifying the debt, yet they provided me with no documentation or evidence during that process. It appears XXXX simply affirmed the debt as valid without conducting a reasonable investigation. This perfunctory verification violates FCRA Section 611, which obligates furnishers to investigate disputes thoroughly and delete information that can not be verified. Moreover, XXXX did not mark the account as disputed by consumer on all my credit reports, which it is required to do once I notified them of my dispute. Under FDCPA Section 807 ( 8 ), its a deceptive practice for a debt collector to report credit information that is known to be false, including failing to communicate that a debt is disputed ftc.gov. XXXX omission of the dispute notation further demonstrates their negligent and deceptive approach to credit reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect and report a debt that I do not recognize and which they have not validated. This is both unprofessional and unlawful. The account information is unverified, incomplete, and thus in violation of FCRAs accuracy standards and FDCPAs validation requirements. I respectfully request the CFPBs intervention to correct this situation. Requested Relief : I ask that the CFPB direct XXXX to immediately and permanently delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all credit bureaus XXXX XXXX since they have not demonstrated any legitimate basis for reporting it. Furthermore, I request that CFPB investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX for their collection practices in this case, including their failure to validate the debt and their improper credit reporting. No consumer should be subjected to a collection entry that the collector can not even prove is real. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct # XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Dispute of inaccurate debt reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding a collection account handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), appearing on my credit reports. The account number is XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( partial ), opened on or about XX/XX/XXXX, with a current balance of {$460.00}. The original creditor is listed as XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This account is reported on my XXXX XXXX XXXX credit files as a collection account. I firmly dispute the accuracy and legitimacy of this debt and believe XXXX reporting and collection actions are violating my consumer rights. First, the information XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The tradeline does not contain sufficient detail to verify the debt. For example, the balance of {$460.00} is not explained or itemized I have not been provided any statement showing how this amount was calculated or if it includes any interest or fees post-charge-off. I am concerned that the status or balance may be incorrect, yet XXXX has not corrected it. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, the XXXX account information falls into those categories. I have never seen a single piece of evidence ( such as a signed agreement or billing statements from XXXX XXXX ) that definitively proves this {$460.00} debt is mine and reported correctly. Without such verification, the continued presence of this collection on my credit report is unjustified. It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per federal law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a clear validation notice by mail. To resolve my doubts, I mailed a debt validation request to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, asking for proof that I owe this debt ( e.g. the original account agreement and an account statement ). XXXX did not respond with any validation documents. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), a debt collector must provide verification of the debt upon a consumers request and must cease collection efforts until that verification is provided ftc.gov. XXXX silence and continued reporting indicate a disregard for this law. They continued to report the collection account to the credit bureaus without ever substantiating the debt when asked an improper collection practice. Furthermore, since I disputed the debt, any continued reporting should have been marked as disputed. XXXX failed to mark the account as disputed on my credit report, which is a deceptive practice under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) ftc.gov. This omission makes it look as if I accept the debt, which is false and damaging. Third, I want to highlight that the timeline and handling of this account raise concerns under the CFPBs own debt collection rules. The collection was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, but I only noticed it on my credit reports later. If XXXX reported this debt to the bureaus before properly contacting me, that would violate the CFPBs Regulation F. Debt collectors must notify a consumer about a debt and wait a reasonable period ( usually 14 days ) before reporting to credit bureaus consumerfinance.gov. In my case, I have no record of XXXX speaking with me or sending a letter that I actually received prior to seeing the item on my reports. If they sent a notice, I did not get it, and they apparently did not confirm receipt before reporting. Reporting a collection without ensuring I was notified is an unfair practice and contravenes the spirit of the CFPBs guidelines and the FDCPAs requirements for fair notification. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that lacks verification and contains possible inaccuracies. XXXX has not validated the debt nor ensured the information is correct or fairly presented. This situation has caused significant distress, as my credit score is being impacted by an entry that I can not even confirm as legitimate. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to put an end to this. Requested Action : I urge the CFPB to compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to remove the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all of my credit reports XXXX XXXX due to their failure to verify its accuracy and their failure to adhere to federal collection laws. At minimum, XXXX should be required to provide full validation of the debt ( original contract, account statements, proof of ownership of the debt, etc. ) if they wish to continue reporting it. If they can not promptly provide irrefutable proof, the only lawful and fair outcome is to delete this collection account entirely. I also ask that CFPB review XXXX conduct in this case for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA, and take appropriate enforcement action if violations are found. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Acct # XXXX ) Charged-off account reporting dispute To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a complaint against XXXXXXXX XXXX regarding the reporting of a charged-off XXXX store credit card account ( account number ending in * XXXX ) on my credit reports. This account was opened in or around XX/XX/XXXX and was charged off around late XXXX with an original charge-off balance of approximately {$2000.00}. Currently, the credit bureaus list the account as Closed Charged Off with a {$0.00} balance ( reflecting that the debt was sold or transferred ). It appears on my XXXX Equifax, and XXXX  reports as a negative item. I believe XXXX continued reporting of this account is incomplete, misleading, and in violation of the FCRA, and I am requesting that it be removed. First, the information XXXXXXXX XXXX is reporting about this account is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, thereby violating my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. After the charge-off, XXXX sold or transferred the debt to a collection agency ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as evidenced by a XXXX collection entry for this same account ). However, XXXX tradeline on my credit report does not clearly indicate the transfer or the fact that I no longer owe any balance to XXXX. The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully inform creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively results in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX  ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation. While technically original creditors and collectors can both report, the combination of these entries is painting an excessively negative picture that is not wholly accurate. XXXX entry still shows the debt as a serious derogatory mark even though XXXX has no remaining interest in it. I contend that this is not maximum possible accuracy as required by the FCRA. Second, the account information is not verifiable or up-to-date, which means it should be deleted. I have disputed this account directly with XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) and through the credit bureaus, on the grounds that XXXX no longer possesses the account ( having sold it ) and thus can not verify its details. In response, XXXX did not provide any substantive verification. They have not produced any original account documents or clarifications ; the credit bureaus simply left the charge-off in place. The FCRA states that if information is disputed and the furnisher can not verify its accuracy, that information must be corrected or removed from the credit report files.consumerfinance.gov. Given that XXXX XXXX no longer owns the debt, it is doubtful they retained the full documentation or incentive to investigate thoroughly. The lack of response to my dispute indicates that the accuracy of this tradeline can not be confirmed. Additionally, certain details on the account may be outdated. The Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, yet Ive noticed some reports list a later major delinquency reported date ( possibly due to the charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX ). I want to ensure XXXX reported the true original delinquency date to the bureaus. If they failed to do so, that is an FCRA violation as well. ( Any re-aging of the delinquency date to keep the account on reports longer would be illegal ). In summary, XXXX charge-off entry is unverified and outdated information that should no longer be on my reports. Third, it is fundamentally unfair and against the intent of the FCRAs obsolescence rules for this charged-off account to linger on my credit file given the circumstances. The FCRA generally limits negative information to a 7-year reporting period files.consumerfinance.gov. While this account is about 4 years old since the delinquency ( so still within the timeframe ), I want to emphasize that I am suffering ongoing harm from an account that has been resolved in the sense that XXXX closed it and sold it off. XXXX XXXX washed its hands of this debt when it sold it, yet I continue to be punished by the mark on my credit. The spirit of the law is to allow consumers to move on after a reasonable period. In this case, removal of the XXXX tradeline would not cause XXXX any loss ( they no longer have stake in the debt ) but would greatly help my credit rebuild. I respectfully assert that leaving this mark through XXXX does not serve a fair purpose it is simply punitive. Moreover, as mentioned, the existence of the XXXX collection for the same account means the debts impact is duplicative. It is neither accurate nor fair for both to remain if one can be removed. For these reasons, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to address XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting of the XXXX account. XXXX  has not provided verification of the debts accuracy and has left an incomplete, duplicative derogatory item on my reports. This does not comply with FCRA requirements for accuracy and verifiability. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB instruct XXXXXXXX XXXX to XXXX  permanently delete the XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all consumer credit reporting agencies. This deletion is warranted due to the lack of verification and the fact that the debt has been transferred. I also request that CFPB ensure XXXX updates any of its reporting practices so that when debts are sold, the trade lines are either not reported as negatives or are clearly notated and removed once the transferee is reporting. At a minimum, if outright deletion is not immediately ordered, XXXX should mark the account as disputed and investigate my claims thoroughly. However, given the circumstances, I firmly believe deletion is the proper and just outcome. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Dispute of charged-off account reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint regarding a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX card issued by XXXX XXXX ( account number ending in XXXX XXXX ) that is being reported on my credit reports. This account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX and charged off in XXXX. The charge-off amount was {$600.00}, and the account is currently listed on my XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX reports as a closed, charged-off account with a {$0.00} balance ( indicating the debt was sold or assigned to a collection agency ). I assert that XXXX  reporting of this account is inaccurate and unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and I am seeking the CFPBs assistance to have this matter corrected through deletion of the tradeline. First, the reported information on this account is not being kept accurate or up-to-date by XXXXXXXX XXXX, especially given that the debt has been transferred to a third-party collector. Once XXXX  charged off the account and sold the debt ( likely to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is now reporting a collection for this same {$600.00} )XXXX XXXX should have updated the tradeline to reflect that transfer and then ceased updating it with derogatory information. The credit reports do show a XXXX balance, but they continue to list the account as a charge-off each month up until it was last reported. The presence of this account as a negative mark is duplicative, since the debt now also appears as a collection account under XXXX. It is unfair and misleading for both the original and collection accounts to coexist on my report for the same debt. Creditors viewing my report see two major derogatories ( a charge-off and a collection ) for what is essentially one financial obligation. This double whammy exaggerates the impact on my credit score and creditworthiness. I believe this runs counter to the FCRAs goal of fair and relevant credit reporting. Second, XXXXXXXX XXXX has failed to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of this accounts information, as required by law. I disputed the XXXX XXXX account with XXXX via a direct written dispute ( sent in XX/XX/XXXX ) and also through XXXX In my dispute, I pointed out that I do not believe XXXX has retained proper documentation for the account, such as original charge slips or a signed credit agreement, especially since the debt was sold. I also noted a discrepancy : the cards credit limit was only {$300.00}, yet XXXX allowed the balance to grow to {$600.00} by the time of charge-off ( implying significant fees or interest were added ). I asked XXXX to verify the accuracy of the balance and provide documentation of how that balance was derived. XXXX did not provide any substantive response or proof. They simply let the tradeline remain. Under the FCRA, if a consumer disputes an item, the furnisher ( XXXX  ) must conduct a reasonable investigation and remove any information it can not verify as accurate files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX lack of response indicates that they did not verify the debts accuracy because they likely can not. The continued reporting of an unverified charge-off account is a violation of FCRA Section 623. It is unacceptable that this account remains, damaging my credit, when XXXX has not proven that the information ( amount owed, dates, etc. ) is correct and complete. Third, given that this account was charged off nearly four years ago, it is approaching the point where it would become obsolete negative information under the FCRAs 7-year rule. While it is not yet past the 7-year mark, I want to highlight that this accounts negative impact is diminishing any value in keeping it on record. The accounts Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, so it is scheduled to continue on record until XXXX. However, because the debt was sold and is being handled by another company, the XXXX entry is essentially static, historical data that serves little purpose except to punish me. XXXX has no ongoing relationship with me. Removing this tradeline now, as part of a goodwill gesture or due to the verification issues noted, would cause no harm to XXXX but would significantly help my credit profile reflect my current obligations more accurately ( since Im now dealing with the collection agency ). I believe the CFPB should consider that leaving duplicate negative entries is not in line with the spirit of fair credit reporting, which aims to report only what is necessary and correct. In summary, XXXXXXXX XXXX reporting of the charged-off XXXX XXXX account is neither accurate nor fair. They have not verified the debt, yet keep it on my file ; they have effectively double-reported the debt alongside a collection agency ; and the continued presence of this outdated negative item is doing undue harm. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to resolve these issues. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB have XXXXXXXX XXXX  * permanently delete the XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all credit bureaus. This deletion is justified on the grounds that the information is unverified/inaccurate and that its duplicative of the collection account. If XXXX believes the information is correct, I invite them to produce complete documentation ( original signed application, full payment history, accounting of the balance, etc. ) and prove it otherwise, the law says it should be removed. I also request that the CFPB ensure XXXX improves its processes for handling sold accounts to prevent consumer credit reports from being unnecessarily tarnished by redundant negative entries. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that the CFPBs intervention can help correct this issue and protect my rights under the FCRA","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T02:21:30.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13971583","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-10T02:14:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per <em>federal</em> law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a <em>clear</em> validation notice by mail."]},"sort":[7.468292,"13971583"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13970881","_score":7.4290495,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Social Security number XXXX DOB : XXXXXXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Disputed credit reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit reports. This account ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was opened around XX/XX/XXXX, with a current reported balance of {$2000.00}. It is being reported as a collection on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion reports as of XX/XX/XXXX. I dispute the legitimacy and accuracy of this account and believe XXXX  reporting violates federal law. First, the balance being reported ( {$2000.00} ) is grossly inflated and inaccurate. My records indicate the original credit limit on the XXXX card was {$1400.00}, yet XXXX is reporting a much higher balance, likely due to added interest or fees. This inflated amount has never been validated with any documentation. Reporting a balance that exceeds the original debt without proof is misleading and constitutes a false representation of the debts character and amount ftc.gov. XXXX has failed to provide any breakdown or verification to justify this amount, despite my disputes. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), information on a credit report must be accurate and verifiable, and any information that can not be verified must be deleted consumerfinance.gov files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX continued reporting of this unverified, inflated balance shows a blatant disregard for the FCRAs accuracy requirements. Second, I have never received proper validation of this debt from XXXX. I requested debt validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) in writing ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), yet XXXX did not cease collection or provide the required verification. Instead, they persisted in reporting this account each month, which is illegal. The FDCPA explicitly prohibits a debt collector from continuing collection activities without first validating the debt upon request ftc.gov. XXXX failure to produce any evidence that I owe this debt, while continuing to report it as a derogatory item, is a direct violation of FDCPA and my consumer rights. This account is unverifiable in its current state XXXX has not proven that I am the legitimate debtor or that the amount is correct. Third, I want to note that I disputed this account with the credit bureaus, and it is marked as disputed on at least one bureau. However, XXXX failed to properly investigate and correct the errors. The account remains, with the same inflated balance and no indication of any proof. By verifying the account without actual documentation, XXXX and the bureaus have violated FCRA Section 611, which requires a reasonable investigation and removal of information that can not be verified. The FCRA also holds data furnishers like XXXX responsible under Section 623 to report only accurate information and to correct or delete information if it is found to be inaccurate or incomplete. XXXX  lack of response to my dispute and its continued reporting of suspect information demonstrate a willful neglect of these obligations. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection account that is inaccurate, unverified, and legally unenforceable. This harms me every day it remains on my credit file. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to investigate and enforce the law in this matter. XXXX should be compelled to provide proof of the debts validity and amount or, failing that, delete this account permanently from all consumer credit bureaus. Their current conduct reporting an unverified, inflated debt violates the FCRAs mandate for maximum possible accuracy and the FDCPAs prohibitions on false and unfair collection practices. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX XXXX to delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion credit reports immediately * * due to the aforementioned FCRA and FDCPA violations. Additionally, I request a formal investigation into XXXX collection and reporting activities, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to prevent this kind of consumer harm. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX  Disputed debt and FCRA/FDCPA violations To Whom It May Concern : I am filing an official complaint regarding another collection account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX This account was originally opened around XX/XX/XXXX and is tied to a XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). The current reported balance is {$600.00}, and it appears on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion credit reports as a collection account. I dispute this account in its entirety and assert that XXXX reporting and collection of this debt are rife with legal violations. First, this debt is unverified and of questionable ownership. I have no recollection of ever incurring a {$600.00} debt with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX has provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate that I am responsible for this account. I demanded validation from XXXX XXXX XXXX via written correspondence in early XXXX, as is my right under the FDCPA. To date, XXXX has failed to produce any validation no signed contract, no account statements, not even basic account records linking me to this debt. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), if a consumer disputes a debt or requests validation, the collector must cease collection and verify the debt before taking further action ftc.gov. XXXX ignored this requirement. They continued reporting the account to credit bureaus and attempting collection without ever mailing me the requested verification. This is an improper collection activity without debt validation, a clear violation of my FDCPA rights. Second, XXXX reporting of this account violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the information is not verifiable or accurate. The FCRA requires that any information on a credit report be complete, accurate, and capable of being verified. If the information can not be verified, it must be removed consumerfinance.gov. In this case, XXXX can not verify the debt they have no proof of my liability yet they continue to report it as a valid collection. This account is effectively unverifiable, and by law it should not be on my credit report at all. I also believe the account details are incomplete. For instance, the credit reports do not clearly show the date of first delinquency or any itemization of the {$600.00} balance. Such omissions make it impossible to determine if the debt is within the allowable reporting period or if the amount includes unauthorized fees. In short, XXXX has not met its burden under FCRA to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The presence of an unverified collection account is causing significant damage to my creditworthiness and is fundamentally unfair. Third, I previously disputed this collection with the credit bureaus ( XXXX  and TransUnion ) in an effort to have it investigated. XXXX responded to the bureaus investigations by allegedly verifying the debt, yet they provided me with no documentation or evidence during that process. It appears XXXX simply affirmed the debt as valid without conducting a reasonable investigation. This perfunctory verification violates FCRA Section 611, which obligates furnishers to investigate disputes thoroughly and delete information that can not be verified. Moreover, XXXX did not mark the account as disputed by consumer on all my credit reports, which it is required to do once I notified them of my dispute. Under FDCPA Section 807 ( 8 ), its a deceptive practice for a debt collector to report credit information that is known to be false, including failing to communicate that a debt is disputed ftc.gov. XXXX omission of the dispute notation further demonstrates their negligent and deceptive approach to credit reporting. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect and report a debt that I do not recognize and which they have not validated. This is both unprofessional and unlawful. The account information is unverified, incomplete, and thus in violation of FCRAs accuracy standards and FDCPAs validation requirements. I respectfully request the CFPBs intervention to correct this situation. Requested Relief : I ask that the CFPB direct XXXX to immediately and permanently delete the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all credit bureaus * * since they have not demonstrated any legitimate basis for reporting it. Furthermore, I request that CFPB investigate XXXX XXXX XXXX for their collection practices in this case, including their failure to validate the debt and their improper credit reporting. No consumer should be subjected to a collection entry that the collector can not even prove is real. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX  XXXX ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX collection ( Acct # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Dispute of inaccurate debt reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am submitting a complaint regarding a collection account handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), appearing on my credit reports. The account number is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( partial ), opened on or about XX/XX/XXXX, with a current balance of {$460.00}. The original creditor is listed as XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This account is reported on my TransUnion and XXXX  credit files as a collection account. I firmly dispute the accuracy and legitimacy of this debt and believe XXXX  reporting and collection actions are violating my consumer rights. First, the information XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The tradeline does not contain sufficient detail to verify the debt. For example, the balance of {$460.00} is not explained or itemized I have not been provided any statement showing how this amount was calculated or if it includes any interest or fees post-charge-off. I am concerned that the status or balance may be incorrect, yet XXXX has not corrected it. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must correct or delete information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable files.consumerfinance.gov. In this case, the XXXX account information falls into those categories. I have never seen a single piece of evidence ( such as a signed agreement or billing statements from XXXX XXXX ) that definitively proves this {$460.00} debt is mine and reported correctly. Without such verification, the continued presence of this collection on my credit report is unjustified. It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per federal law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a clear validation notice by mail. To resolve my doubts, I mailed a debt validation request to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, asking for proof that I owe this debt ( e.g. the original account agreement and an account statement ). XXXX did not respond with any validation documents. According to the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ), a debt collector must provide verification of the debt upon a consumers request and must cease collection efforts until that verification is provided ftc.gov. PRAs silence and continued reporting indicate a disregard for this law. They continued to report the collection account to the credit bureaus without ever substantiating the debt when asked an improper collection practice. Furthermore, since I disputed the debt, any continued reporting should have been marked as disputed. XXXX failed to mark the account as disputed on my credit report, which is a deceptive practice under FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) ftc.gov. This omission makes it look as if I accept the debt, which is false and damaging. Third, I want to highlight that the timeline and handling of this account raise concerns under the CFPBs own debt collection rules. The collection was opened in XX/XX/XXXX, but I only noticed it on my credit reports later. If XXXX reported this debt to the bureaus before properly contacting me, that would violate the CFPBs Regulation F. Debt collectors must notify a consumer about a debt and wait a reasonable period ( usually 14 days ) before reporting to credit bureaus consumerfinance.gov. In my case, I have no record of XXXX speaking with me or sending a letter that I actually received prior to seeing the item on my reports. If they sent a notice, I did not get it, and they apparently did not confirm receipt before reporting. Reporting a collection without ensuring I was notified is an unfair practice and contravenes the spirit of the CFPBs guidelines and the FDCPAs requirements for fair notification. In summary, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a collection that lacks verification and contains possible inaccuracies. XXXX has not validated the debt nor ensured the information is correct or fairly presented. This situation has caused significant distress, as my credit score is being impacted by an entry that I can not even confirm as legitimate. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to put an end to this. Requested Action : I urge the CFPB to compel XXXX XXXX XXXX to remove the Account # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX from all of my credit reports * * due to their failure to verify its accuracy and their failure to adhere to federal collection laws. At minimum, XXXX should be required to provide full validation of the debt ( original contract, account statements, proof of ownership of the debt, etc. ) if they wish to continue reporting it. If they can not promptly provide irrefutable proof, the only lawful and fair outcome is to delete this collection account entirely. I also ask that CFPB review XXXX conduct in this case for compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA, and take appropriate enforcement action if violations are found. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXXXXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct # XXXX ) Charged-off account reporting dispute To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a complaint against XXXX XXXX  regarding the reporting of a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ( account number ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX ) on my credit reports. This account was opened in or around XX/XX/XXXX and was charged off around late XXXX   with an original charge-off balance of approximately {$2000.00}. Currently, the credit bureaus list the account as Closed Charged Off with a {$0.00} balance ( reflecting that the debt was sold or transferred ). It appears on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion reports as a negative item. I believe XXXX continued reporting of this account is incomplete, misleading, and in violation of the FCRA, and I am requesting that it be removed. First, the information XXXX XXXX  is reporting about this account is incomplete and potentially inaccurate, thereby violating my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. After the charge-off, XXXX sold or transferred the debt to a collection agency ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as evidenced by a XXXX collection entry for this same account ). However, XXXX tradeline on my credit report does not clearly indicate the transfer or the fact that I no longer owe any balance to XXXX. The only indication is a {$0.00} balance and a status of Charge Off, which is not enough to fully inform creditors that the debt was sold. This lack of clarity is misleading. It effectively results in double reporting of the same debt once by XXXX ( as a charge-off ) and again by XXXX ( as a collection ) which unfairly penalizes me twice for one obligation. While technically original creditors and collectors can both report, the combination of these entries is painting an excessively negative picture that is not wholly accurate. XXXX entry still shows the debt as a serious derogatory mark even though XXXX has no remaining interest in it. I contend that this is not maximum possible accuracy as required by the FCRA. Second, the account information is not verifiable or up-to-date, which means it should be deleted. I have disputed this account directly with XXXX XXXX  ( in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and through the credit bureaus, on the grounds that XXXX no longer possesses the account ( having sold it ) and thus can not verify its details. In response, XXXX did not provide any substantive verification. They have not produced any original account documents or clarifications ; the credit bureaus simply left the charge-off in place. The FCRA states that if information is disputed and the furnisher can not verify its accuracy, that information must be corrected or removed from the credit report files.consumerfinance.gov. Given that XXXX XXXX  no longer owns the debt, it is doubtful they retained the full documentation or incentive to investigate thoroughly. The lack of response to my dispute indicates that the accuracy of this tradeline can not be confirmed. Additionally, certain details on the account may be outdated. The Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, yet Ive noticed some reports list a later major delinquency reported date ( possibly due to the charge-off in XX/XX/XXXX ). I want to ensure XXXX reported the true original delinquency date to the bureaus. If they failed to do so, that is an FCRA violation as well. ( Any re-aging of the delinquency date to keep the account on reports longer would be illegal ). In summary, XXXX charge-off entry is unverified and outdated information that should no longer be on my reports. Third, it is fundamentally unfair and against the intent of the FCRAs obsolescence rules for this charged-off account to linger on my credit file given the circumstances. The FCRA generally limits negative information to a 7-year reporting period files.consumerfinance.gov. While this account is about 4 years old since the delinquency ( so still within the timeframe ), I want to emphasize that I am suffering ongoing harm from an account that has been resolved in the sense that XXXX  closed it and sold it off. XXXX XXXX  washed its hands of this debt when it sold it, yet I continue to be punished by the mark on my credit. The spirit of the law is to allow consumers to move on after a reasonable period. In this case, removal of the XXXX tradeline would not cause XXXX any loss ( they no longer have stake in the debt ) but would greatly help my credit rebuild. I respectfully assert that leaving this mark through XXXX does not serve a fair purpose it is simply punitive. Moreover, as mentioned, the existence of the XXXX XXXX  for the same account means the debts impact is duplicative. It is neither accurate nor fair for both to remain if one can be removed. For these reasons, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to address XXXX XXXX  reporting of the XXXX account. XXXX has not provided verification of the debts accuracy and has left an incomplete, duplicative derogatory item on my reports. This does not comply with FCRA requirements for accuracy and verifiability. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB instruct XXXX XXXX  to * permanently delete the XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all consumer credit reporting agencies. This deletion is warranted due to the lack of verification and the fact that the debt has been transferred. I also request that CFPB ensure XXXX  updates any of its reporting practices so that when debts are sold, the trade lines are either not reported as negatives or are clearly notated and removed once the transferee is reporting. At a minimum, if outright deletion is not immediately ordered, XXXX should mark the account as disputed and investigate my claims thoroughly. However, given the circumstances, I firmly believe deletion is the proper and just outcome. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX, Store Credit Card ) Re : * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX credit card ( Acct # XXXX ) Dispute of charged-off account reporting To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint regarding a charged-off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX issued by XXXX XXXX  ( account number ending in XXXX XXXX ) that is being reported on my credit reports. This account was opened in XX/XX/XXXX and charged off in XXXX. The charge-off amount was {$600.00}, and the account is currently listed on my XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion reports as a closed, charged-off account with a {$0.00} balance ( indicating the debt was sold or assigned to a collection agency ). I assert that XXXX  reporting of this account is inaccurate and unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and I am seeking the CFPBs assistance to have this matter corrected through deletion of the tradeline. First, the reported information on this account is not being kept accurate or up-to-date by XXXX XXXX, especially given that the debt has been transferred to a third-party collector. Once XXXX  charged off the account and sold the debt ( likely to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is now reporting a collection for this same {$600.00} ), XXXX  should have updated the tradeline to reflect that transfer and then ceased updating it with derogatory information. The credit reports do show a XXXX balance, but they continue to list the account as a charge-off each month up until it was last reported. The presence of this account as a negative mark is duplicative, since the debt now also appears as a collection account under XXXX. It is unfair and misleading for both the original and collection accounts to coexist on my report for the same debt. Creditors viewing my report see two major derogatories ( a charge-off and a collection ) for what is essentially one financial obligation. This double whammy exaggerates the impact on my credit score and creditworthiness. I believe this runs counter to the FCRAs goal of fair and relevant credit reporting. Second, XXXX XXXX  has failed to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of this accounts information, as required by law. I disputed the XXXX XXXX account with XXXX  via a direct written dispute ( sent in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) and also through XXXX. In my dispute, I pointed out that I do not believe XXXX has retained proper documentation for the account, such as original charge slips or a signed credit agreement, especially since the debt was sold. I also noted a discrepancy : the cards credit limit was only {$300.00}, yet XXXX allowed the balance to grow to {$600.00} by the time of charge-off ( implying significant fees or interest were added ). I asked XXXX to verify the accuracy of the balance and provide documentation of how that balance was derived. XXXX did not provide any substantive response or proof. They simply let the tradeline remain. Under the FCRA, if a consumer disputes an item, the furnisher ( XXXX  ) must conduct a reasonable investigation and remove any information it can not verify as accurate files.consumerfinance.gov. XXXX  lack of response indicates that they did not verify the debts accuracy because they likely can not. The continued reporting of an unverified charge-off account is a violation of FCRA Section 623. It is unacceptable that this account remains, damaging my credit, when XXXX has not proven that the information ( amount owed, dates, etc. ) is correct and complete. Third, given that this account was charged off nearly four years ago, it is approaching the point where it would become obsolete negative information under the FCRAs 7-year rule. While it is not yet past the 7-year mark, I want to highlight that this accounts negative impact is diminishing any value in keeping it on record. The accounts Date of First Delinquency was XX/XX/XXXX, so it is scheduled to continue on record until XXXX. However, because the debt was sold and is being handled by another company, the XXXX entry is essentially static, historical data that serves little purpose except to punish me. XXXX  has no ongoing relationship with me. Removing this tradeline now, as part of a goodwill gesture or due to the verification issues noted, would cause no harm to XXXX but would significantly help my credit profile reflect my current obligations more accurately ( since Im now dealing with the collection agency ). I believe the CFPB should consider that leaving duplicate negative entries is not in line with the spirit of fair credit reporting, which aims to report only what is necessary and correct. In summary, XXXX XXXX  reporting of the charged-off XXXX XXXX account is neither accurate nor fair. They have not verified the debt, yet keep it on my file ; they have effectively double-reported the debt alongside a collection agency ; and the continued presence of this outdated negative item is doing undue harm. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to resolve these issues. Requested Resolution : I ask that the CFPB have XXXX XXXX  * permanently delete the XXXX XXXX account ( Acct # XXXX ) from all credit bureaus. This deletion is justified on the grounds that the information is unverified/inaccurate and that its duplicative of the collection account. If XXXX believes the information is correct, I invite them to produce complete documentation ( original signed application, full payment history, accounting of the balance, etc. ) and prove it otherwise, the law says it should be removed. I also request that the CFPB ensure XXXX improves its processes for handling sold accounts to prevent consumer credit reports from being unnecessarily tarnished by redundant negative entries. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that the CFPBs intervention can help correct this issue and protect my rights under the FCRA","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-10T02:28:14.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"780XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13970881","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-10T02:21:34.000Z","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":["It is unverifiable and thus should be removed per <em>federal</em> law. Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX has not provided proper debt validation or documentation to me, despite this debt being under collection. I became aware of the XXXX collection on my credit report, but I do not recall receiving a <em>clear</em> validation notice by mail."]},"sort":[7.4290495,"13970881"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7604181","_score":7.1896534,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Full Name : XXXX XXXX Social Security # XXXX Date of Birth : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Current Address : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX GA XXXX RE : NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT This credit dispute is being submitted as a new evidence dispute. The accounts that are being disputed, does not belong to me. The below is my sworn statement concerning these credit issues. \n\nThe reporting of such inaccurate information has caused severe damage to my character, my reputation, my general mode of living and my ability to obtain credit for personal and house purposes. You and your inaccurate reporting have damaged my livelihood. \nIt is my sworn statement that, I declare under penalty of perjury ( under the laws of the United States, '' if executed outside of the United States '' that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Further, I certify that I am qualified and authorized to file this dispute. I also understand that knowing and a willful misstatement of omissions of material facts constitutes a federal criminal violation punishable under 18 U.S. C. 1001. \nAdditionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S. C. 1621. 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies 15 U.S. C1001 . Additionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S. C. 1621.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1666B 15 U.S. Code 1666 15 U.S. Code 1681 B ( a ) DUTY OF FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION 1 ) PROHIBITION ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\nDuty : a moral or legal obligation ; a responsibility Acc\nurate : correct in all details ; exact. \nPROHIBITION : a law or regulation forbidding something As Defined by The IRS 15 U.S. Code 1666B 15 U.S. Code 1666 15 U.S. Code 1681B The trade lines listed below are items currently within my credit file, and none of these are related to any transaction that was made by me. It is my official statement that someone and/or several people have opened these accounts and made transactions on these account without my knowledge or authorization, my personal information has been used to obtain goods, services, or money : and the person ( s ) responsible for creating these accounts. \n\nI have filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission, which I have enclosed within this dispute package. I have reached out to all of these creditors and have made them aware that these accounts were fraudulently opened, and they have known this for several months, but have yet to remove these accounts from my credit reports. Some of the creditors have been cooperative and have removed the accounts, but others have refused to remove the fraudulent accounts. Therefore, I have come to you, the credit reporting agencies to resolve these issues. The law says that you must block these accounts while being investigated, and I expect that you will do so. \n*SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS : I made an attempt to file a police report, but I was informed by my county that it did not constitute as an emergency, and that they would not file the report because I didn't have any information on the person who used my information, nor did I know how my information was obtained by this person. \n\nTherefore, these below disputed accounts must be deleted.. \n. Remove Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX See attached documents Likewise, these XXXX XXXX Late Payments, Charge offs are also not mine. None of these belong to me. This means that I was not the person, which had an account with the original creditor, which has sold these accounts to these collection agencies that are now reporting the debts. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCOUNT NUMBER : XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Transunion closed Late payment dates- XXXX XXXX ( Past 7 years also ) Incorrect balanced owed, high balance, joint acct, collection/charge off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCOUNT NUMBER : XXXX Policy states, According to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '' 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), Procedure In Case of Disputed Accuracy... \n( a ) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required ( a ) In general. Subject to Subsection ( t, if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer 's file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 6 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. \nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means that you, this credit reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts. \nFinally, you are reporting the INQUIRIES that are the result of the same type fraudulent activities. \nI must be noted that I did not apply for credit accounts with the below listed companies and creditors, some of these are the result of attempts to open accounts, but the companies did not approve these accounts. Therefore, these inquiries must be deleted from within my credit file. You can not delete the fraudulently opened accounts without also deleting the fraudulent inquiries Inquiries that are made by someone else without my authorization is not a factual record of access to my credit file, it is a factual record of fraudulent activity, and it must be addressed as such. The reason that these inquiries are being disputed is because they were not made by me, and when I report this to you, it is your responsibility to investigate my claims, and when you can not prove that these inquiries were made by me, they must be removed from my credit file. It is not my responsibility to go directly to each creditor, the obligation lies at your feet because you are reporting inaccurate information within my credit report, and this violates the FCRA. \nIt should be noted that an inquiry that was not made by me is not a factual record, just as a fraudulently opened account is not a factual record and not referred to the creditor to be disputed directly with them. The credit reporting agencies have attempted to address an inquiry as a factual record of file access, but if it was done through fraudulent means, it is not a factual record. As a consumer I should not be required to dispute each fraudulent inquiry directly with each company. \nThese inquiries are the result of fraudulent activity and therefore inaccurate information in which the credit reporting agencies or the creditors can not verify, meaning that these inquiries are unverifiable information and must be deleted from out of my credit file. \n\nCREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXXXXXX XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXXXXXX XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY XXXX XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXXXXXX XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX  CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY XXXX XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX XXXX XXXX ATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY XXXX  CREDITOR INQUIRIES XXXX XXXX  DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX  CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX XXXX XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX CREDITOR INQUIRIES : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DATE OF INQUIRY : XXXX I am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit-reporting agency, report accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these accounts and/or items do not belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be BLOCKED and DELETED! \n\nPolicy states... \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '', Section 1681c ( 2 ) Block of information resulting from identity theft.\n\nBlock, Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information thet resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than four ( 1 ) business days after the date of receipt by such agency of. \n1. Appropriate proof of identity of the consumer ; 2. A copy of an identity theft report 3. The identification of such information by the consumer ; and 4. A statement by the consumer that the information relating to transaction by the Consumer. \nAll furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies must comply with all applicable regulations. Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. \nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA. \n\nThe federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance. The text of the FCRA is available at the website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : www.consumerfinance. gov/learnmore. A list of tile sections of tile FCRA cross-referenced to the .U.S Code is at the end of this document. \nSection 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy Guidelines The FCRA requires furnishers to comply with federal guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. Federal regulations and guidelines are available at www.consumerfinance. gov/learnmore.\n\nSection 623 ( e ). \nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. \n\nSections 628 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ). Duty to Correct and Update Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnicher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified for the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). \nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute. Section 628 ( a ) ( 3 ). \nFurnishers must comply with federal regulations that identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Under these regulations, furnishers must complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a \" credit repair organization. '' Section623 ( a ) ( 8 ). Federal regulations available www.consumerfnance.gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( a ) ( 8 ) At Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher that a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 6236 ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( b ) ( B ). \nReport the results to the CRA that referred the dispute and, if the investigation establishes that the information was in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Section\n\n623 ( 6 ) ( 1 ) ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ). Complete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information to the CRA ). Section 623 ( 6 ) ( 2 ). Promptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section 623 ( 6 ) ( 1 ) ( E ), Duty to Report Voluntary Closing of Credit Accounts If a consumer voluntarily closes a credit account, any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnished information to one or more CRAs must report this fact when it provides information to CRAs for the time perio\nd in which the account was closed.\n\nSection 623 ( a ) ( 4 ). \nDuty to Report Dates of Delinquencies If a furnisher reports information concerning a delinquent account placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, the furnisher must, within 90 days after reporting the information, provide the CRA with the month and the year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action, so that the agency will know how long to keep the information in the consumer 's file. \nSection 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). \nAny person, such as a debt collector, that has acquired or is responsible for collecting delinquent accounts and that reports information to CRAs may comply with the requirements of Section 623 ( ) ( 6 ) ( until there is a consumer dispute ) by reporting the slime delinquency date previously reported by the creditor. If the creditor did not report this date, they may comply with the FCRA by establishing reasonable procedures to obtain and report delinquency dates, or, if a delinquency date can not be reasonably obtained, by following reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date when the account was placed for collection charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ). Duties of Financial Institutions When Reporting Negative Information Financial institutions that furnish information to \" nationwide '' consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603 ( p ), must notify consumers in writing if they may furnish or have furnished negative information to a CRA. \nSection 623 ( a ) ( 7 ). The CFPB has prescribed model disclosures, 12 CFR Part 1022, App. B. \nDuties When Furnishing Medical Information A furnisher whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices ( and such furnisher 's agents or assignees ) is a medical information furnisher for the purposes of the FCRA and must notify all CRAs to which it reports of this fact. \nSection 623 ( a ) ( 9 ). This notice will enable CRAs to comply with their duties under Section 604 ( g ) when reporting medical information. Duties When ID Theft Occurs All furnishers must have in place reasonable procedures to respond to notifications from CRAs that information furnished is the result of identity theft, and to prevent refurnishing the information in the future. A furnisher may not furnish information that a consumer has identified as resulting from identity theft unless the furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer that the information is correct. \nSection 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). If a furnisher learns that it has furnished inaccurate information due to identity theft, it must notify each CRA of the correct information and must thereafter report only complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). When any furnisher of information is notified pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 605B that a debt has resulted from identity theft, the furnisher many not sell, transfer, or place for collection the debt except in certain limited circumstances.\n\nSection 615. \nThe CFPB 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore, has more information about the FCRA, including publications for business and the full text of the FCRA. Citations for FCRA sections in the U.S. Code, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : In conclusion I have shown you and you have been put on notice that you are reporting inaccurate information. The information is, in fact, inaccurate. \nThe continued reporting of this inaccurate information is a clear violation of the Law 15 USC 1681 s-2 of your responsibilities as a furnisher of information. \nYou have caused me and my family severe harm due to your negligence and inaccurate reporting. This is a final opportunity to Cure and DELETE This Erroneous, inaccurate account from my Consumer report.\n\nYOU HAVE 4 Calendar days to DELETE THESE ACCTS FROM MY CONSUMER REPORTS! \nI have provided all of the above listed items within this package. Therefore, I expect these listed accounts to be deleted and blocked within four ( 4 ) business days. This is clearly an identity theft issue. I am also entitled to receive a free copy of my credit report, so I am requesting a free credit report and that all of these accounts, public records items, and inquiries be permanently blocked and deleted. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Enclosures : Identity Theft Report Proof of Identity Copy of Account Statement showing Fraudulent Items FTC Notice to Furnishers Credit Reports Drivers License Social Security Card [ EXHIBIT ] proof of my Personal Identification","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-25T16:48:11.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7604181","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-09-25T16:36:35.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Section 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy Guidelines The FCRA requires furnishers to comply with <em>federal</em> guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. <em>Federal</em> regulations and guidelines are available at www.<em>consumerfinance</em>. gov/learnmore.\n\nSection 623 ( e )."]},"sort":[7.1896534,"7604181"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7368273","_score":7.1896534,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Full Name : XXXX XXXX Social Security # XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX Current Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , Ga XXXX RE : NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT This credit dispute is being submitted as a new evidence dispute. The accounts that are being disputed, does not belong to me. The below is my sworn statement concerning these credit issues. The reporting of such inaccurate information has caused severe damage to my character, my reputation, my general mode of living and my ability to obtain credit for personal and house purposes. You and your inaccurate reporting have damaged my livelihood. It is my sworn statement that, I declare under penalty of perjury ( under the laws of the United States, '' if executed outside of the United States '' that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Further, I certify that I am qualified and authorized to file this dispute. I also understand that knowing and a willful misstatement of omissions of material facts constitutes a federal criminal violation punishable under 18 U.S. C. 1001. \nAdditionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S. C. 1621. 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX GA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Experian Credit Reporting Agency XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, tx XXXX 15 U.S. C1001 . Additionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S. C. 1621. \nLate payments 15 U.S. Code 1666B 15 U.S. Code 1666 15 U.S. Code 1681 B ( a ) DUTY OF FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION 1 ) PROHIBITION ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \nDuty : a moral or legal obligation ; a responsibility Accurate : correct in all details ; exact. \nPROHIBITION : a law or regulation forbidding something As Defined by The IRS 15 U.S. Code 1666B 15 U.S. Code 1666 15 U.S. Code 1681B The trade lines listed below are items currently within my credit file, and none of these are related to any transaction that was made by me. It is my official statement that someone and/or several people have opened these accounts and made transactions on these account without my knowledge or authorization, my personal information has been used to obtain goods, services, or money : and the person ( s ) responsible for creating these accounts. \nI have filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission, which I have enclosed within this dispute package. I have reached out to all of these creditors and have made them aware that these accounts were fraudulently opened, and they have known this for several months, but have yet to remove these accounts from my credit reports. Some of the creditors have been cooperative and have removed the accounts, but others have refused to remove the fraudulent accounts. Therefore, I have come to you, the credit reporting agencies to resolve these issues. The law says that you must block these accounts while being investigated, and I expect that you will do so. \n*SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS : I made an attempt to file a police report, but I was informed by my county that it did not constitute as an emergency, and that they would not file the report because I didn't have any information on the person who used my information, nor did I know how my information was obtained by this person. \nTherefore, these below disputed accounts must be deleted... \nRemove Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ga XXXX Remove Address : XXXX XXXX ct XXXX XXXX, Ga XXXX See attached documents Likewise, these COLLECTION ACCOUNTS, Late Payments, Charge offs are also not mine. None of these belong to me. This means that I was not the person, which had an account with the original creditor, which has sold these accounts to these collection agencies that are now reporting the debts. \n\nCOLLECTION AGENCY : Collections : XXXX XXXX XXXX Details Account # XXXX Account Type Collection Agency/Attorney Creditor Type -- Account Rating Payment after charge off/collection XXXX  Type Collection Owner of Account Individual Original Creditor XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Amount Owed {$190.00} Past Due Amount {$0.00} Last Payment {$0.00} Last Payment Date N/A Original Balance {$0.00} Placed in Collections XXXX XXXX, XXXX Last Verified Date XX/XX/XXXX Paid off Date N/A Closed Date N/A Resolution -- Current Status Placed for collection Instant Action Action History No Actions Taken XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MA XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Bank ACCOUNT NUMBER : XXXX Experian, XXXX, XXXX closed Late payment dates- XXXX XXXX ( XXXX 7 years also ) Incorrect balanced owed, high balance, joint acct, collection/charge off COLLECTION AGENCY : XXXX XXXX ACCOUNT NUMBER : XXXX Policy states. \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '' 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), Procedure In Case of Disputed Accuracy...\n\n( a ) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required ( a ) In general. Subject to Subsection ( t, if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer 's file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 6 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.\n\nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means that you, this credit reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts.\n\nFinally, you are reporting the INQUIRIES that are the result of the same type fraudulent activities.\n\nI must be noted that I did not apply for credit accounts with the below listed companies and creditors, some of these are the result of attempts to open accounts, but the companies did not approve these accounts. Therefore, these inquiries must be deleted from within my credit file. You can not delete the fraudulently opened accounts without also deleting the fraudulent inquiries Inquiries that are made by someone else without my authorization is not a factual record of access to my credit file, it is a factual record of fraudulent activity, and it must be addressed as such. The reason that these inquiries are being disputed is because they were not made by me, and when I report this to you, it is your responsibility to investigate my claims, and when you can not prove that these inquiries were made by me, they must be removed from my credit file. It is not my responsibility to go directly to each creditor, the obligation lies at your feet because you are reporting inaccurate information within my credit report, and this violates the FCRA.\n\nIt should be noted that an inquiry that was not made by me is not a factual record, just as a fraudulently opened account is not a factual record and not referred to the creditor to be disputed directly with them. The credit reporting agencies have attempted to address an inquiry as a factual record of file access, but if it was done through fraudulent means, it is not a factual record. As a consumer I should not be required to dispute each fraudulent inquiry directly with each company.\n\nThese inquiries are the result of fraudulent activity and therefore inaccurate information in which the credit reporting agencies or the creditors can not verify, meaning that these inquiries are unverifiable information and must be deleted from out of my credit file.\n\nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit-reporting agency, report accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these accounts and/or items do not belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be BLOCKED and DELETED!\n\nPolicy states...\n\nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '', Section 1681c ( 2 ) Block of information resulting from identity theft.\n\nBlock, Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information thet resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than four ( 1 ) business days after the date of receipt by such agency of.\n\n1. Appropriate proof of identity of the consumer ; 2. A copy of an identity theft report 3. The identification of such information by the consumer ; and 4. A statement by the consumer that the information relating to transaction by the Consumer.\n\nAll furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies must comply with all applicable regulations. Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.\n\nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance. The text of the FCRA is available at the website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : www.consumerfinance. gov/learnmore. A list of tile sections of tile FCRA cross-referenced to the .U.S Code is at the end of this document.\n\nSection 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy Guidelines The FCRA requires furnishers to comply with federal guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. Federal regulations and guidelines are available at www.consumerfinance. gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( e ).\n\nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections 628 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ).\n\nDuty to Correct and Update Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnicher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified for the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute. Section 628 ( a ) ( 3 ).\n\nFurnishers must comply with federal regulations that identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Under these regulations, furnishers must complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a \" credit repair organization. '' Section 623 ( a ) ( 8 ).\n\nFederal regulations available www.consumerfnance.gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( a ) ( 8 ) at Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher that a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 6236 ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and ( b ) ( B ).\n\nReport the results to the CRA that referred the dispute and, if the investigation establishes that the information was in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Section 623 ( 6 ) ( 1 ) ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ). Complete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information to the CRA ). Section 623 ( 6 ) ( 2 ).\n\nPromptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section 623 ( 6 ) ( 1 ) ( E ), Duty to Report Voluntary Closing of Credit Accounts If a consumer voluntarily closes a credit account, any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnished information to one or more CRAs must report this fact when it provides information to CRAs for the time period in which the account was closed.\n\nSection 623 ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nDuty to Report Dates of Delinquencies If a furnisher reports information concerning a delinquent account placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, the furnisher must, within 90 days after reporting the information, provide the CRA with the month and the year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action, so that the agency will know how long to keep the information in the consumer 's file. Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\nAny person, such as a debt collector, that has acquired or is responsible for collecting delinquent accounts and that reports information to CRAs may comply with the requirements of Section 623 ( ) ( 6 ) ( until there is a consumer dispute ) by reporting the slime delinquency date previously reported by the creditor. If the creditor did not report this date, they may comply with the FCRA by establishing reasonable procedures to obtain and report delinquency dates, or, if a delinquency date can not be reasonably obtained, by following reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date when the account was placed for collection charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nDuties of Financial Institutions When Reporting Negative Information Financial institutions that furnish information to \" nationwide '' consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603 ( p ), must notify consumers in writing if they may furnish or have furnished negative information to a CRA. Section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ). The CFPB has prescribed model disclosures, 12 CFR Part 1022, App. B.\n\nDuties When Furnishing Medical Information A furnisher whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices ( and such furnisher 's agents or assignees ) is a medical information furnisher for the purposes of the FCRA and must notify all CRAs to which it reports of this fact. Section 623 ( a ) ( 9 ). This notice will enable CRAs to comply with their duties under Section 604 ( g ) when reporting medical information. Duties When ID Theft Occurs All furnishers must have in place reasonable procedures to respond to notifications from CRAs that information furnished is the result of identity theft, and to prevent refurnishing the information in the future. A furnisher may not furnish information that a consumer has identified as resulting from identity theft unless the furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer that the information is correct. Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). If a furnisher learns that it has furnished inaccurate information due to identity theft, it must notify each CRA of the correct information and must thereafter report only complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). When any furnisher of information is notified pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 605B that a debt has resulted from identity theft, the furnisher many not sell, transfer, or place for collection the debt except in certain limited circumstances. Section 615.\n\nThe CFPB 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore, has more information about the FCRA, including publications for business and the full text of the FCRA. Citations for FCRA sections in the U.S. Code, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : In conclusion I have shown you and you have been put on notice that you are reporting inaccurate information. The information is, in fact, inaccurate.\n\nThe continued reporting of this inaccurate information is a clear violation of the Law 15 USC 1681 s-2 of your responsibilities as a furnisher of information.\n\nYou have caused me and my family severe harm due to your negligence and inaccurate reporting. This is a final opportunity to Cure and DELETE This Erroneous, inaccurate account from my Consumer report.\n\nYOU HAVE 4 Calendar days to DELETE THESE ACCTS FROM MY CONSUMER REPORTS!\n\nI have provided all of the above listed items within this package. Therefore, I expect these listed accounts to be deleted and blocked within four ( 4 ) business days. This is clearly an identity theft issue. I am also entitled to receive a free copy of my credit report, so I am requesting a free credit report and that all of these accounts, public records items, and inquiries be permanently blocked and deleted. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-08T23:08:17.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"303XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7368273","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-08-08T22:49:58.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Personal information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Section 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy Guidelines The FCRA requires furnishers to comply with <em>federal</em> guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. <em>Federal</em> regulations and guidelines are available at www.<em>consumerfinance</em>. gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( e )."]},"sort":[7.1896534,"7368273"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13314719","_score":6.801223,"_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":["These practices have been condemned by courts XXXX regulators alike, <em>including</em> in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described XXXX dispute handling as sham investigations that flout <em>federal</em> law <em>consumerfinance</em>.gov."]},"sort":[6.801223,"13314719"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12192825","_score":6.6306024,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX TransUnion Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute and Demand for Compliance with Consumer Protection Laws To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally dispute the inaccurate and misleading information contained in my credit report, as well as to address TransUnions failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws. This dispute is in direct reference to the systemic issues highlighted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in its enforcement actions against credit reporting agencies, including TransUnion, for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes and maintain accurate credit reports. I want to emphasize that l am fully aware of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) lawsuits against XXXX and XXXX for conducting sham investigations and failing to properly investigate consumer disputes. I expect TransUnion to conduct a thorough, good faith investigation, as required by law, and to avoid engaging in any practices that mirror those outlined in the CFPB complaints. \nIt is unacceptable that TransUnion, as one of the largest credit reporting agencies, continues to violate the rights of consumers under federal law. I demand that you immediately investigate and correct the inaccuracies in my credit report and provide a detailed explanation of your findings. Failure to do so will result in further action, including filing a complaint with the CFPB and pursuing legal remedies. \nBelow, I cite XXXX key federal laws under **15 U.S.C . ** that TransUnion is legally obligated to comply with : 1. **15 U.S.C. 1681c Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Section 605** This section mandates that outdated and inaccurate information must not be included in consumer credit reports. XXXX failure to remove or correct such information violates this provision and harms my creditworthiness. \n2. **15 U.S.C. 1681e Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Section 607** This section requires credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information in consumer reports. XXXX failure to properly investigate disputes and maintain accurate records demonstrates a blatant disregard for this legal obligation. \n3. **15 U.S.C. 1681i Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Section 611** This section requires credit reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information within 30 days of receiving a dispute. XXXX pattern of conducting inadequate or incomplete investigations is a clear violation of this law. \nI demand that TransUnion : 1. Conduct a thorough and lawful reinvestigation of all disputed items on my credit report.\n\n2. Provide me with written confirmation of the results of the reinvestigation, including any corrections made.\n\n3. Remove any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information from my credit report.\n\n4. Cease any practices that violate federal consumer protection laws, including inadequate investigations.\n\nIf TransUnion fails to comply with these demands within 30 days of receiving this letter, I will have no choice but to escalate this matter by filing a formal complaint with the CFPB and pursuing legal action under the FCRA. I will also seek damages for any harm caused to my creditworthiness and financial well-being as a result of XXXX negligence and noncompliance. \nThis letter serves as formal notice of my dispute and a demand for immediate action. I expect TransUnion to uphold its legal obligations and protect my rights as a consumer. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Enclosed is a copy of my previous dispute of which every came back verified. XXXX complaint Closed Submitted Status Submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX Product Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports Issue Incorrect information on your report We received your complaint. Thank you. \nWe will review your complaint. Depending on what we find, we will typically : Send your complaint to the company for a response ; or Send your complaint to another state or federal agency, or help you get in touch with your state or local consumer protection office ; or Let you know if we need more information to continue our work. \nYOUR COMPLAINT To whom it may concern, Cfpb on XX/XX/XXXX I have disputed with the Credit Bureaus TransUnion, XXXX, and XXXX. Upon receiving the updated reports from the credit bureaus, I noticed that the accounts disputed came back verified. I have sent out request for verification of inaccurate information and have not gotten a response. Pursuant to 15 USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 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. This is a clear violation of my consumer protected rights, CFR 1006.34 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( i ) the credit bureaus are violating my consumer rights by using false misleading, misrepresentation and deceptive means. According to 15 USC 1681i ( 5 ) they are suppose to modify accounts that isn't reporting correctly. 15 U.S.C 1681 section 602 A. States I have the right to privacy. 15 U.S.C 1681 Section 604 A Section 2 : It also states a consumer reporting agency can not furnish a account without my written instructions 15 U.S.C 1681c. ( a ) ( 5 ) Section States : no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( A ) ( 1 ) A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. Also they aren't even in compliance with XXXX XXXX credit reporting. I have evidence to prove my case. \n\nAttachments XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Experian debt verification letter.pdf ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) Cancel Child Support XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) TransUnion debt verification letter.pdf ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Trans Union, LLC.pdf ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX debt verification letter.pdf ( XXXX KB ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) child support on credit report is illegal.pdf ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Hide full complaint What product or service is your complaint about? \nPRODUCT OR SERVICE Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports TYPE Credit reporting What type of problem are you having? \nInactive modal Issue Incorrect information on your report Have you already tried to fix this problem with the company? \nYes Did you request information from the company? \nNo Type of Issue Account information incorrect What happened? \nTo whom it may concern, Cfpb on XX/XX/XXXX I have disputed with the Credit Bureaus TransUnion, XXXX, and XXXX. Upon receiving the updated reports from the credit bureaus, I noticed that the accounts disputed came back verified. I have sent out request for verification of inaccurate information and have not gotten a response. Pursuant to 15 USC 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy ( 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. This is a clear violation of my consumer protected rights, CFR 1006.34 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( i ) the credit bureaus are violating my consumer rights by using false misleading, misrepresentation and deceptive means. According to 15 USC 1681i ( 5 ) they are suppose to modify accounts that isn't reporting correctly. 15 U.S.C 1681 section 602 A. States I have the right to privacy. 15 U.S.C 1681 Section 604 A Section 2 : It also states a consumer reporting agency can not furnish a account without my written instructions 15 U.S.C 1681c. ( a ) ( 5 ) Section States : no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( A ) ( 1 ) A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. Also they aren't even in compliance with metro 2 credit reporting. I have evidence to prove my case.\n\nI want the CFPB to publish this description on consumerfinance.gov so that others can learn from my experience.\n\nThe CFPB will take steps to remove my personal information from this description but someone may still be able to identify me. Learn how it works. I consent to publishing this description after the CFPB has taken these steps.\n\nInactive modal What would be a fair resolution to this issue? \nI demand these accounts be deleted XXXX attachments View uploaded documents by clicking on the file name. Documents that pass virus scanning are typically available within XXXX minutes of upload. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  debt verification letter.pdf ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Cancel XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) TransUnion debt verification letter.pdf ( XXXX KB ) XXXX ( XXXX KB ) XXXX XXXX Trans Union, LLC.pdf ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX debt verification letter.pdf ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX XXXX on credit report is illegal.pdf ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) What company is this complaint about? \nXXXX XXXX TransUnion Consumer Solutions Social Security number ( last XXXX digits ) Date of birth XX/XX/XXXX Name as it appears on credit report XXXX XXXX XXXX What people are involved? \n\nYour contact information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unit # XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX United States Your preferred language XXXX Sent to company Status Sent to company on XX/XX/XXXX We've sent your complaint to the company, and we will let you know when they respond. \n\nTheir response should include the steps they took, or will take, to address your complaint. \n\nCompanies generally respond in XXXX  days. In some cases, the company will let you know their response is in progress and provide a final response in 60 days. \n\nCompany still working XXXX XXXX response is in progress as of XX/XX/XXXX The company has responded that it is still working on your issue In some cases, companies need more time to respond. You should receive a final response within 60 days from the date we sent your complaint to the company. \n\nCOMPANY 'S INTERIM RESPONSE We received your complaint about the items in your credit report, and apologize for any difficulty you XXXX have experienced. We are currently reviewing your complaint along with the information you previously submitted regarding this issue. We will follow-up with you within sixty ( XXXX ) days from the date you submitted your request. \nCompany responded XXXX XXXX responded on XX/XX/XXXX Response Type Closed with non-monetary relief XXXX 's Response After careful review, we have determined the information submitted in the portal included a dispute of information appearing on your credit report. TransUnion has processed your request and forwarded a copy of the Investigation Results through XXXX mail. You should expect to receive those results in approximately XXXX business days. \nDESCRIPTION OF NON-MONETARY RELIEF In response to your request, the following actions were taken on your credit file : You disputed the following accounts and/or public records on your credit file. Below includes the results of that investigation. XXXX XXXX-VERIFIED AS REPORTED CREDIT FIRST XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX BANK-VERIFIED AS REPORTED XXXX  XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX-VERIFIED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-UPDATED ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX-VERIFIED AS REPORTED XXXX XXXX XXXX-VERIFIED AS REPORTED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-VERIFIED AS REPORTED ... .... PLEASE SEE ATTACHED FILES","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-24T16:52:29.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19144","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12192825","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-02-24T16:04:56.000Z","state":"PA","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":["XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Formal Dispute and Demand for <em>Compliance</em> with Consumer Protection Laws To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally dispute the inaccurate and misleading information contained in my credit report, as well as to address TransUnions failure to comply with <em>federal</em> consumer protection laws."]},"sort":[6.6306024,"12192825"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13693898","_score":5.9869194,"_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 Defendant TransUnion Consumer Solutions ( TransUnion ) for repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and for failure to comply with industry Metro 2 reporting standards. Plaintiff alleges that TransUnion has persistently reported inaccurate and fraudulent information on his credit report and failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputed information, in violation of federal law. Despite multiple disputes and a prior identity theft report, TransUnion has continued to report erroneous account information, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiffs credit reputation and financial well-being.\n\nSummary of Violations : TransUnions wrongful conduct includes : ( a ) reporting charged-off accounts with ongoing past-due balances, which is inconsistent with FCRA accuracy requirements and Metro 2 guidelines\n; ( b ) failing to reinvestigate and correct these inaccuracies within the time frame required by law ; ( c ) refusing to 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 to the FCRAs mandate of a genuine, reasonable investigationcaselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com. These practices have been condemned by courts and regulators alike, including in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described TransUnions dispute handling as sham investigations that flout federal lawconsumerfinance.gov.\n\nPurpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a federal civil action ), Plaintiff seeks to compel TransUnion to immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file and to ensure full compliance with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Plaintiff further puts TransUnion on notice that failure to comply within 14 days will result in legal action in federal court, where Plaintiff will seek all available relief, including statutory and punitive damages for TransUnions willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing and demand direct attention from TransUnions compliance and legal departments.\n\nJurisdiction and Venue : Jurisdiction : This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681p and 28 U.S.C. 1331, because Plaintiffs claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnions violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681e ( b ) give rise to a private right of action for which Plaintiff seeks relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367. \nXXXX  : XXXX is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because Plaintiff resides in this District and the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. TransUnion regularly conducts business in this District and maintains substantial contacts here. TransUnion, as one of the nations largest consumer reporting agencies, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and throughout the United States. Given that the harm to Plaintiffs credit report was felt in this District, venue is appropriate for the adjudication of this dispute. \n\nIntradistrict Assignment : ( If applicable under local rules. ) The events described herein occurred primarily in the county of Plaintiffs residence ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ). Accordingly, assignment to the XXXX XXXX of this XXXX would be proper. \n\nParties Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX XXXX is a natural person and consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ), in that he is an individual about whom TransUnion prepares and furnishes consumer credit reports. Plaintiff has at all relevant times been the victim of false and inaccurate credit reporting by TransUnion, which has adversely affected his credit score, credit opportunities, and peace of mind. \n\nDefendant : TransUnion Consumer Solutions/TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a publicly traded company in XXXX under the ticker symbol XXXX on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion principal place of business is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. TransUnion is a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ) : it regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties for monetary fees. TransUnion does business nationwide, including substantial business in the XXXX of XXXX. At all relevant times, TransUnion acted through its agents, employees, or representatives, who were in the scope of their employment and under TransUnions supervision and control. \n\nNon-Party Furnishers : Various creditor institutions and debt collectors furnished the information at issue to TransUnion. These furnishers include, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( collectively, the Furnishers ). While not named as defendants in this complaint, the Furnishers are mentioned to the extent that TransUnion relied on their information and responses. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), these Furnishers have duties to investigate and correct disputed information when notified by a CRA. TransUnions conduct in this case is intertwined with the Furnishers failures to correct the false data ; TransUnions actions effectively facilitated and continued those statutory violations by the Furnishers. \n\nFactual Allegations XXXX XXXX XXXX Account : TransUnion was reporting an installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX that had been charged off after alleged non-payment. Here again, TransUnion 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 Metro 2 reporting standards set by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Metro 2 guidelines require that once an account is charged off, the account should reflect a zero current balance and no ongoing past due amount ( since the debt is no longer an open receivable on a current schedule ). TransUnions reporting of the XXXX account violated this standard by showing the account as if payments were still actively delinquent post-charge-off. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion 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 and charged off ( or, potentially, was also impacted by identity theft or prior disputePlaintiff had previously contested its accuracy ). \n\nOther Accounts and Inaccuracies : In addition to the above, other accounts on Plaintiffs TransUnion report showed similar discrepancies ( charge-off notations with continuing balances, inconsistent dates or amounts, etc. ). Each of these inaccuracies represents a failure by TransUnion to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiffs credit file as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( 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 Plaintiff had lodged, which TransUnion is required to note on the report per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ). For brevity, this Complaint focuses on the primary accounts listed above, but Plaintiff alleges that any and all disputed accounts on his TransUnion report contain errors that TransUnion negligently and willfully failed to correct. \n\nImpact of Inaccurate Reporting : The inaccurate information described in Paragraph XXXX was highly damaging to Plaintiff. TransUnions report portrayed Plaintiff as significantly more delinquent and 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 Plaintiffs credit score and has led to credit denials or offers on far worse terms than Plaintiff would otherwise qualify for. Moreover, the continued presence of fraudulent accounts ( the XXXX XXXX cards opened by identity thieves ) on the report means Plaintiff is effectively being penalized for crimes committed by others, a harm the FCRA specifically intended to prevent through 1681c-2. Plaintiff has suffered credit damage, loss of credit opportunities, and considerable emotional distress ( including stress, anxiety, and frustration ) as a direct result of TransUnions reporting failures. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs Dispute to TransUnion : Promptly after reviewing the XX/XX/XXXX credit report, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a detailed dispute to TransUnion, challenging the inaccurate accounts. Plaintiff utilized the CFPBs consumer complaint portal to lodge this dispute ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX, and forwarded to TransUnion shortly thereafter ). In his dispute, Plaintiff clearly identified each erroneous account and explained why the reporting was incorrect or inconsistent with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute highlighted that TransUnion was : Reporting charge-off accounts with an active past-due balance, which is a contradiction and an FCRA violation ( failing to maintain accuracy ) as well as a Metro 2 violation. Plaintiff cited 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ( requirement for consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information ) and noted that this standard was breached by the blatant errors on his report. \n\nFailing to note previous disputes/investigations. Plaintiff referenced that he had disputed the same accounts before ( in XXXX ), and TransUnions reinvestigation obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681i had not been met, as the results remained incorrect. He emphasized that TransUnion must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item, contact the Furnishers with all relevant information, and delete or correct any information that can not be verified as accurate. \n\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 TransUnion review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone. \n\nIn this XX/XX/XXXX dispute, Plaintiff expressly requested that TransUnion : ( 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 ) and several other accounts 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 and documentation that TransUnion relied upon, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ).\n\nTransUnions Statutory Duty to Reinvestigate : Upon receiving Plaintiffs dispute, TransUnion was legally required to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of the disputed items. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a consumer reporting agency must reinvestigate disputed information on a consumers report within 30 days of receiving notice of the dispute ( with a possible 15-day extension if the consumer provides additional relevant information during the 30-day period ). By law, TransUnion was required to : notify the Furnishers of the dispute, provide them all relevant information about the dispute, review and consider all information provided by Plaintiff, and then delete or modify any information that is found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the reinvestigation resulted in no change, TransUnion was obligated to send Plaintiff a notice of the results and, upon request, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information ( the method of verification ) per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 7 ). These FCRA provisions impose a grave responsibility on TransUnion to do more than simply take a creditors word if the information could be inaccuratecaselaw.findlaw.com. \n\nTransUnions Failure to Timely Respond ( No Response in 30 Days ) : TransUnion did not provide any response or results of investigation within the 30-day 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 TransUnion ), or by XX/XX/XXXX if a XXXX extension applied due to additional information provided by XXXX. Those dates passed with no communication from TransUnion. Plaintiff received no update in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the status or outcome of his dispute. This silence itself was a violation of FCRA 1681i. TransUnions failure to reinvestigate and respond within the statutory timeframe is a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ), which mandates prompt handling of consumer disputes. Indeed, TransUnions conduct forced Plaintiff to take further action, as described below. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Delayed TransUnion Response : On XX/XX/XXXX roughly 51 days after Plaintiffs dispute TransUnion provided a belated response through the CFPB portal, which TransUnion characterized as the results of its investigation. In this response ( which Plaintiff received on that date ), TransUnion claimed to have verified the disputed accounts as accurate and made no meaningful changes to the report. TransUnion 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 Plaintiff had provided. Furthermore, TransUnion 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. \n\nNo Method of Verification Provided : Plaintiff, upon receiving TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX response, noticed that TransUnion did not include a method of verification letter or description. On XX/XX/XXXX ( the same day the response was received ), Plaintiff requested via follow-up communication that TransUnion provide a detailed description of the procedures used to verify the disputed information, as is his right under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ). TransUnion failed to comply with this request. TransUnion did not send any further explanation of how it conducted its reinvestigation. It provided no information about who at the Furnishers was contacted, what information was given to the Furnishers, or what the Furnishers replied with. This lack of transparency violated TransUnions 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, TransUnion hindered Plaintiffs ability to further challenge or correct the errors, effectively stonewalling his dispute. \n\nTransUnions XXXX on Automated Procedures : From the substance of TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX investigation results, it is evident that TransUnion relied solely on automated processes ( e.g., e-OSCAR ) and the Furnishers electronic responses in handling Plaintiffs dispute. TransUnions response to the CFPB complaint was generic and gave no indication of any human review of Plaintiffs documentation. Upon information and belief, TransUnion simply sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) form through the e-OSCAR system to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and other accounts and then blindly accepted their responses that the accounts were verified as reported. TransUnion 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, TransUnions investigation was no investigation at all it was an automated forwarding of information and regurgitation of whatever the Furnishers responded with.\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation : TransUnions handling of the dispute fell far short of a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA 1681i ( a ). A reasonable investigation would have entailed, at minimum : recognizing the obvious red flags in the data, seeking clarifications from Furnishers 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. TransUnion did none of this. It merely confirmed the information with the source and took no further steps, which courts have held to be inadequate. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX held that simply sending a form to the creditor and doing nothing more is insufficient a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers in a reinvestigationcaselaw.findlaw.com. Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trans Union Corp. held that a reinvestigation that merely parrots the creditors position can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions conduct here mirrors the discredited practices in those cases. It shifted the burden back to Plaintiff and the Furnishers, rather than actually resolving the dispute, thus violating the core purpose of 1681i. \n\nCFPB Recognition 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 XXXX, alleging that XXXX  does not take sufficient steps to ... investigate ... consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports.consumerfinance.gov The CFPBs Director XXXX XXXX stated that TransUnion was conducting sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law.consumerfinance.gov The experiences of the Plaintiff in this case exemplify the very misconduct that the CFPB identified. XXXX failure to genuinely investigate Plaintiffs dispute especially in the context of identity theft and blatant reporting errors aligns with the CFPBs allegations that XXXX systems prioritize speed and automation over accuracy and fairness. This regulatory action underscores that TransUnions violations in Plaintiffs case are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of willful non-compliance. \n\nContinued Reporting of Disputed Accounts : As of the filing of this Complaint, TransUnion continues to 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 and XXXX XXXX XXXX and other accounts, still show past-due amounts despite charge-off status. Each monthly cycle that passes, these accounts potentially update in TransUnions system as continuing derogatory marks, further prolonging the damage to Plaintiffs creditworthiness. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and effort trying to resolve these issues ( including writing complaints, gathering evidence, and researching his rights ), all due to TransUnions failure to meet its statutory obligations. \nTransUnions Violations Were Willful or, Alternatively, Negligent : TransUnions conduct described above was willful. TransUnion is fully aware of its duties under the FCRA it has been subject to prior lawsuits and regulatory actions for similar conduct, and it literally co-owns the e-OSCAR system used for disputes. TransUnion knew or had reason to know that the information it was reporting about Plaintiff was inaccurate ( the inconsistencies were facially obvious ), yet it willfully chose to ignore the red flags. TransUnion also willfully decided to use an automated dispute verification system without employing any manual review for Plaintiffs dispute, despite the complexity ( involving identity theft and multiple accounts ). In the alternative, if TransUnion claims it did not act intentionally, then at minimum its actions were negligent. Any reasonable company in TransUnions position, acting with due care, would have conducted a proper investigation and corrected the errors. TransUnions failure to do so, whether by conscious design or gross indifference, directly caused harm to Plaintiff.\n\nSummary of Harm to Plaintiff : As a direct result of TransUnions actions and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered injury including damage to his credit reputation, denial of credit opportunities, higher interest rates on credit offers, and emotional distress ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) from the ongoing inability to correct his credit report. Plaintiff has been forced to engage in a protracted struggle to have basic errors corrected, undermining his confidence in the fairness of the credit reporting system. These harms are precisely what the FCRA was designed to prevent. TransUnions repeated failure to comply with the FCRAs mandates is particularly egregious given the multiple opportunities it had to correct course ( in XXXX and again in XXXX ). Plaintiff now brings this Complaint seeking relief to finally rectify the situation and hold TransUnion accountable under the law. \n\nCase Law and Regulatory Support XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX emphasized that a credit bureaus reinvestigation of disputed information must be more than a token effort. The court held that the FCRA imposes grave responsibilities on agencies like TransUnion to ensure accuracy, and that a so-called reinvestigation that merely rubber-stamps the furnishers response is inadequatecaselaw.findlaw.com. In that case, Trans Union had verified an obviously fraudulent account by simply asking the creditor, which the court found could violate 1681i. The XXXX XXXX flatly stated that the burden of investigation is on the consumer reporting agency, not the consumer : the statute places the burden of reinvestigation squarely on the [ CRA ] a reinvestigation that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions handling of Plaintiffs disputes in the present case mirrors the disapproved conduct in XXXX. Like TransUnion in this case, TransUnion simply parroted information from its subscribers ( creditors ) without carrying out its own duty to verify accuracy. Under XXXX, such conduct violates 1681is requirement of a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX confronted a scenario involving fraudulent accounts ( opened by the plaintiffs son ) where the CRA relied solely on form requests to creditors during reinvestigation. The court held this was insufficient. It famously wrote : In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers.caselaw.findlaw.com The XXXX XXXX reasoned that if a consumer has alerted the agency that the source of information ( the creditor ) maXXXX be unreliable ( for example, due to fraud or error ), the agency is obliged to go beyond the initial source and conduct a more searching inquirylaw.justia.com. It rejected the argument that a consumer should have to resolve the fraud directly with the creditor, affirming that the onus is on the CRA to resolve it caselaw.findlaw.com. In the case at bar, Plaintiff explicitly alerted TransUnion that the accounts were products of fraud or error ( and even provided an identity theft report and other evidence ). Under XXXX, TransUnion was duty-bound to do more than just ask the creditor via e-OSCAR. TransUnions failure to take any additional steps ( such as actually examining the police report or contacting Plaintiff for more info ) runs afoul of the standard set in XXXX. The lessons of XXXX reinforce that TransUnions simplistic approach to Plaintiffs dispute was legally deficient. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX  XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the plaintiffs disputed an erroneous credit item multiple times, and XXXX  repeatedly verified it by relying on the creditors word, despite evidence the information was wrong. The court denied summary judgment for XXXX, holding that 1681i ( a ) can require a CRA to go beyond the original source of information when the circumstances indicate the source may be XXXX. The decision noted that the majority of courts have found that a CRA must verify the accuracy of its initial source in certain situations, rather than blindly trusting the XXXX. In XXXX, the plaintiffs had even provided court documents to prove the account was resolved, yet XXXX  still took the creditors outdated report at face valuelaw.justia.com. The court cited XXXX and XXXX approvingly in concluding that whether a CRAs investigation was reasonable is usually a question for the XXXX, especially when the consumer has provided information calling the creditors data into XXXX. XXXX applies squarely here : XXXX gave TransUnion ample reason to doubt the furnishers ( pointing out obvious errors and fraud ), but TransUnion persisted in relying exclusively on those furnishers. Just as in XXXX, a fact-finder could ( and likely would ) determine that TransUnion willfully failed to conduct a proper reinvestigation. The case law thus supports Plaintiffs position that TransUnions conduct was unlawful under the FCRA. \n\nRecent CFPB Enforcement CFPB XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX ) : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus lawsuit against Experian, filed in XX/XX/XXXX, serves as powerful confirmation by the nations chief consumer credit regulator that XXXX  dispute-handling practices violate the FCRA.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance Standards : While not codified in the FCRA, the Metro 2 format guidelines ( issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) are the industry standard for reporting credit information. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. .Metro 2 Compliance Standards. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. By maintaining past-due balances on charged-off accounts, TransUnion deviated from Metro 2 standards, further highlighting the unreasonableness of its procedures. Additionally, Metro 2 provides specialized codes for indicating disputed information and identity theft accounts ; TransUnion either did not use these codes or ignored them in Plaintiffs case. The result was tradelines that were blatantly non-compliant with industry norms, reinforcing that TransUnions conduct was not just a technical error but a failure of the very controls meant to ensure data integrity.\n\nWillfulness and Pattern of Non-Compliance : The above legal authorities show that TransUnion has been on notice for decades that it must do more than superficial checks when consumers dispute information, especially in cases of fraud or obvious error. XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX ) have long been part of FCRA jurisprudence, and the FCRA statute itself is clear in its language. The fact that in XXXX TransUnion is still engaging in conduct that those cases found unlawful strongly suggests willfulness. TransUnions pattern of ignoring both court guidance and regulatory warnings ( like those from the CFPB and prior state Attorneys General settlements ) constitutes reckless disregard of consumers rights, which meets the standard for willfulness under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ). Consequently, not only is TransUnion liable to Plaintiff for actual damages ( and/or statutory damages ), but an award of punitive damages is warranted to deter TransUnion from continuing its unlawful practices and to punish it for this pattern of misconduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-24T15:47:29.000Z","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":"13693898","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-24T15:20:03.000Z","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":["Plaintiff further puts TransUnion on notice that failure to comply within 14 days will result in legal action in <em>federal</em> court, where Plaintiff will seek all available relief, <em>including</em> statutory and punitive damages for TransUnions willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing and demand direct attention from TransUnions <em>compliance</em> and legal departments."]},"sort":[5.9869194,"13693898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8190790","_score":5.966386,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"My Only First & Last Name ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) My Only Address XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX The last 4of my SSN # XXXX My Only XX/XX/XXXX I have reached out to XXXX XXXX EQIUFAX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX via sign, certified letters and the debt collectors. I have also sent over a certified notarized affidavit of truth upon sending my letters, I spoke with representatives at XXXX XXXX EQIUFAX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX about the fraudulent accounts and information that is consistently been on my consumer report, their investigation fixed nothing these are the accounts of the violations via FCRA and California consumer privacy act. I have reached out to the XXXX, the FTC, the California and STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND California consumer protection and innovation 15 USC 1681| ( A ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( a ) REINVESTIGATIONS OF DISPUTED INFORMATION ( 1 ) REINVESTIGATION REQUIRED ( A ) In general Subject to subsection ( f ) and except as provided in subsection ( g ), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer 's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. According to 15 USC 1681e ( b ) it states this ( 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. \" So I then asked them to provide me a description of the investigation according to 15 USC 16811 ( 7 ) : ( 7 ) Description of reinvestigation procedure A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. \nBut they did not do that as well either. I allege that XXXX XXXX EQIUFAX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX are in blatant violation of the following U.S. codes and legislation for the reasons specified : 15 USC 1692c ( b ) : Unauthorized communication with third parties about my debt. 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 : Failure to correct and update inaccurate information in my consumer reports.15 U.S. Code 1681a ( 2 ) ( 1 ) : Misuse or misrepresentation of definitions and rules related to consumer reporting. 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( 3 ) ( e ) : Further misuse or misrepresentation of definitions and rules related to consumer reporting. 15 U.S. Code 1681i : Inadequate procedures for disputing the accuracy of my consumer reports. 15 U.S. Code 1681b : Unauthorized access or use of my consumer reports for impermissible purposes. H.R. 3046 Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of XXXX : Unauthorized use or disclosure of my Social Security numbers. Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act : Failure to verify my identification by financial institutions. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Section 501 : Failure to ensure the security and confidentiality of my personal and financial information. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Section 502 : Unauthorized sharing of my non-public personal information with non-affiliated third parties. Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, Section 504 : Non-compliance with federal regulations designed to enforce the act, thereby putting my personal and financial information at risk. Account Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEPT OF ED DEPT OF ED DEPT OF ED DEPT OFED DEPT OF ED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Open Dollar Amount {$390.00} {$500.00} {$620.00} {$370.00} {$1000.00} {$100000.00} {$3500.00} {$6000.00} {$2300.00} {$2800.00} {$2000.00} {$9.00} XXXX {$2100.00} {$310.00} {$3100.00} {$44000.00} {$5000.00} {$1900.00} {$5300.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 15USC 1681ad ) ( 2 ( A/i ) clearly states that transactions between the consumer and the Person/Corporation making the report is NOT included on the consumer reports. Yet XXXX is reporting this information.. The reporting of excluded information pursuant to 15USC 1681 a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) on a consumer report is a clear violation of Metro2 compliance. Provide me with the Metro2 compliance disclosure on reporting transactions to a consumer reporting agency. I need the transactions reporting as late, collection/charge-off status and any other derogatory information deleted from my consumer reports effective immediately. Before you think to reply that this account has been \" validated '', let 's be clear that I am not asking you to validate or verify anything. So please do not respond by telling me that as a tactic to waste my valuable time. Some of the negative accounts have been placed in Collection/Charge-Off Status WITHOUT mailing me a copy of IRS form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt. XXXX and the creditors reporting collections/Charge-Offs, late payments/other derogatory information in my consumer reports are in violation of 26 USC ss 6050P Returns Relating to the Cancellation of Indebtedness By Certain Entities. If this derogatory account information is not deleted from my consumer reports within 30 days, I will be forced to officially file IRS form 3949A : Information Referral AND IRS form 211 : Application For Award For Original Information Overview with the Internal Revenue Service against ALL entities involved.TITLE 1.81.5. California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 [ 1798.100 - 1798.199.100 ] ( Title 1.81.5 added by Stats. 2018, Ch. 55, Sec. 3. ) -1798.106. \nConsumers Right to Correct Inaccurate Personal Information ( a ) A consumer shall have the right to request a business that maintains inaccurate personal information about the consumer to correct that inaccurate personal information, taking into account the nature of the personal information and the purposes of the processing of the personal information. \n( b ) A business that collects personal information about consumers shall disclose, pursuant to Section 1798.130, the consumers right to request correction of inaccurate personal information. \n( c ) A business that receives a verifiable consumer request to correct inaccurate personal information shall use commercially reasonable efforts to correct the inaccurate personal information as directed by the consumer, pursuant to Section 1798.130 and regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph ( 8 ) of subdivision ( a ) of Section 1798.185. \n( Added XX/XX/XXXX, by initiative Proposition 24, Sec. 6. Effective XX/XX/XXXX. Operative XX/XX/XXXX, pursuant to Sec. 31 of Proposition 24. ) 1798.120. \nConsumers Right to Opt Out of Sale or Sharing of Personal Information ( a ) A consumer shall have the right, at any time, to direct a business that sells or shares personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell or share the consumers personal information. This right may be referred to as the right to opt-out of sale or sharing. \n( b ) A business that sells consumers personal information to, or shares it with, third parties shall provide notice to consumers, pursuant to subdivision ( a ) of Section 1798.135, that this information may be sold or shared and that consumers have the right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information**1See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 12 ) ( F ), 5512 ( b ), 5514 ( c ), 5515 ( c ), and also Sub title E ( 12 U.S.C.5561 5567 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( b ) ( 1 ) ( H ), ( e ). Authority over 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( e ) and 1681w are limited to the Federal banking agencies, the NCUA, the FTC, the CFTC, and SEC. \n1.15 U.S.C. 1681s. States can directly bring actions under FCRA. See 12 U.S.C. 1681s ( c ) .States can al so bring actions under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) against covered persons and service providers based upon violations of federal consumer financial laws, including the FCRA XXXX See Authority of States to Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 87 FR 31940 ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n2.15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o. \n3.See, e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Supervisory Highlights ( Spring XXXX ), at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX.consumerfinance.gov/XXXX \n4.See, e.g., Complaint at 15, CFPB v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing , Inc. , D. Md . No. 19-Civ-2817 ( Filed XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). \n5.With respect to furnisher direct disputes, see 74 FR 31,484, 31,500 ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( Some industry commenters also suggested that the Agencies issue a model direct dispute complaint form, with some advocating that consumers be required to use the model complaint form. The Agencies decline to adopt these suggestions because such requirements would cause otherwise valid disputes to b e rejected as frivolous or irrelevant due solely to the consumer 's failure to meet a technical requirement that probably would be unknown to the consumer. ) 6.15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( identifying which disputes the consumer reporting agency can determine to be frivolous or irrelevant ) ; 12 CFR 1022.43 ( f ) ( 1 ) ( identifying which disputes the furnisher can determine to be frivolous or irrelevant ). \n7.15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 3 ) ( Consumer reporting agency frivolous or irrelevant determination ) ; 12 CFR 1022.43 ( f ) ( furnisher direct dispute frivolous or irrelevant determination ). \n8.15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). See Brief for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission as XXXX XXXX Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant, Ingram v. Waypoint Resource Group , LLC, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ( No. 21-2430 ). \n9.15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ). \n10.Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Bulletin 2013-09 ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX.consumerfinance.gov/XXXX ( alerting furnishers to the fact that consumer reporting agencies have begun forwarding images of relevant documentation to furnishers as part of the reasonable investigation of disputes ). \n11.For example, a copy of a bill supporting the consumers dispute conveys information regarding the persuasiveness of a consumers dispute that data about the bill would not. \n12.Federal Trade Commission , 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act : An FTC Staff Report with Summary of Interpretations ( XXXX. XXXX ), at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXwww.ftc.gov/XXXX ( ACRA does not comply with this provision if it merely indicates the nature of the dispute, without communicating to the furnisher the specific relevant information received from the consumer. For example, if the consumer claimed never late and submitted documentation ( such as cancelled checks ) to support his/her dispute, a CRA does not comply with the requirement that is provide all relevant information if it simply notifies the furnisher that the consumer disputes the payment history without communicating the evidence received. ). \n13.2115 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) Account Name NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEPT OF ED DEPT OF ED DEPT OF ED DEPT OFED DEPT OF ED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Open Dollar Amount {$390.00} {$500.00} {$620.00} {$370.00} {$1000.00} {$100000.00} {$3500.00} {$6000.00} {$2300.00} {$2800.00} {$2000.00} {$9.00} XXXX {$2100.00} {$310.00} {$3100.00} {$44000.00} {$5000.00} {$1900.00} {$5300.00} XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX Account number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data According to the fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are requiredby federal law to verify through the physical verification of the original signed consumer contract- any all accounts you post on a credit report. Otherwise, anyone paying for your reporting service could fax, mail or email in a fraudulent account. I demand to see Verifiable proof ( an Original Consumer Contract with my Signature on it ) vou have on file of the account listed below. Your failure to positively verify these accounts hurt my ability to obtain credit. Under the FCRA, Unverified accounts must be removed and if you are unable to provide me with a copy of verifiable proof, you must remove the accounts listed Data Removal : Immediate removal of all my existing personal and financial information from your website, databases, and any affiliated entities. This request pertains to all data currently held by your organization. 2. Data Security for Future Interactions : Implement robust security measures to prevent unauthorized access to any new information that may be collected. This request applies to any future interactions I may have with your organization and is not in conflict with my request for the removal of existing data. 3. Transparency : Full disclosure of any third parties with whom my information has been shared, along with immediate cessation of such sharing. 4. Notification : Prompt notification to me of all actions taken to secure my information and prevent further violations. 5. Legal Compliance : Immediate review and adherence to all relevant U.S. codes and legislation cited in this affidavit to ensure full compliance. Non-Consent and Settlement : Final Warning and Unambiguous Clarification 1as you can see here again, they blatantly violate the ( FCRA15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - ) Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies U.S. Code Notes prev | next ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate ; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate XXXX XXXX EQUIFAX CONTINUE TO REPORT FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTS THIS makes you guilty and in violation of the False Claims Act ( FCA ) 31 U.S.C 3729- 3733. ( Debt Collector name is also in violation of 18 U.S.C 894 for using my consumer report with extortionate means as a way to coerce and swindle me into making payments on alleged debt not owed. I DID NOT AND DO NOT CONSENT these companies XXXX XXXX/EQUIFAX XXXXfurnishing this information to my consumer report. I did not give you authorization or permission to have my personal identifying information, which you have obtained by aggravated identity theft in accordance with 18 U.S.C 1028A. This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data According to the fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are requiredby federal law to verify through the physical verification of the original signed consumer contract- any all accounts you post on a credit report. Otherwise, anyone paying for your reporting service could fax, mail or email in a fraudulent account. I demand to see Verifiable proof ( an Original Consumer Contract with my Signature on it ) vou have on file of the account listed below. Your failure to positively verify these accounts hurt my ability to obtain credit. Under the FCRA, Unverified accounts must be removed and if you are unable to provide me with a copy of verifiable proof, you must remove the accounts listed You are required to do what I am asking and block these transactions from being reported to my consumer report within 4 days from the date of the receipt of this notice. I look forward to your response. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance U.S. Code Notes prev | next ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of- ( 1 ) ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00}. 15 U.S.C 1681 section 602 A. States I have the right to privacy. 15 U.S. C 1681 section 604 A. Section 2 : It also states a consumer given reporting agency can not furnish an account without my written instruction. 15 U.S.C 1692c 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 may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation. A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.Account NamXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEPT OF ED DEPT OF ED DEPT OF ED DEPT OFED DEPT OF ED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Open Dollar Amount {$390.00} {$500.00} {$620.00} {$370.00} {$1000.00} {$100000.00} {$3500.00} {$6000.00} {$2300.00} {$2800.00} {$2000.00} {$9.00} XXXX {$2100.00} {$310.00} {$3100.00} {$44000.00} {$5000.00} {$1900.00} {$5300.00} XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-20T23:37:20.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91387","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8190790","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-01-20T23:37:15.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, Section 504 : Non-<em>compliance</em> with <em>federal</em> regulations designed to enforce the act, thereby putting my personal and financial information at risk."]},"sort":[5.966386,"8190790"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8192061","_score":5.958634,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"My Only First & Last Name ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) My Only Address XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX The last XXXX XXXXy SSN # XXXX My Only XX/XX/XXXX I have reached out to XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via sign, certified letters and the debt collectors. I have also sent over a certified notarized affidavit of truth upon sending my letters, I spoke with representatives at XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX about the fraudulent accounts and information that is consistently been on my consumer report, their investigation fixed nothing these are the accounts of the violations via FCRA and California consumer privacy act. I have reached out to the XXXX, the FTC, the California and STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND California consumer protection and innovation 15 USC 1681| ( A ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( a ) REINVESTIGATIONS OF DISPUTED INFORMATION ( 1 ) REINVESTIGATION REQUIRED ( A ) In general Subject to subsection ( f ) and except as provided in subsection ( g ), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer 's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. According to 15 USC 1681e ( b ) it states this ( 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. \" So I then asked them to provide me a description of the investigation according to 15 USC 16811 ( 7 ) : ( 7 ) Description of reinvestigation procedure A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. \nBut they did not do that as well either. I allege that XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX are in blatant violation of the following U.S. codes and legislation for the reasons specified : 15 USC 1692c ( b ) : Unauthorized communication with third parties about my debt. 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 : Failure to correct and update inaccurate information in my consumer reports.15 U.S. Code 1681a ( 2 ) ( 1 ) : Misuse or misrepresentation of definitions and rules related to consumer reporting. 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( 3 ) ( e ) : Further misuse or misrepresentation of definitions and rules related to consumer reporting. 15 U.S. Code 1681i : Inadequate procedures for disputing the accuracy of my consumer reports. 15 U.S. Code 1681b : Unauthorized access or use of my consumer reports for impermissible purposes. H.R. 3046 Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2007 : Unauthorized use or disclosure of my Social Security numbers. Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act : Failure to verify my identification by financial institutions. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Section 501 : Failure to ensure the security and confidentiality of my personal and financial information. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Section 502 : Unauthorized sharing of my non-public personal information with non-affiliated third parties. Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, Section 504 : Non-compliance with federal regulations designed to enforce the act, thereby putting my personal and financial information at risk. Account Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Date Open Dollar Amount {$390.00} {$500.00} {$620.00} {$370.00} {$1000.00} {$100000.00} {$3500.00} {$6000.00} {$2300.00} {$2800.00} {$2000.00} {$9.00} XXXX {$2100.00} {$310.00} {$3100.00} {$44000.00} {$5000.00} {$1900.00} {$5300.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 15USC 1681ad ) ( 2 ( A/i ) clearly states that transactions between the consumer and the Person/Corporation making the report is NOT included on the consumer reports. Yet XXXX is reporting this information.. The reporting of excluded information pursuant to 15USC 1681 a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) on a consumer report is a clear violation of Metro2 compliance. Provide me with the Metro2 compliance disclosure on reporting transactions to a consumer reporting agency. I need the transactions reporting as late, collection/charge-off status and any other derogatory information deleted from my consumer reports effective immediately. Before you think to reply that this account has been \" validated '', let 's be clear that I am not asking you to validate or verify anything. So please do not respond by telling me that as a tactic to waste my valuable time. Some of the negative accounts have been placed in Collection/Charge-Off Status WITHOUT mailing me a copy of IRS form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt. XXXX and the creditors reporting collections/Charge-Offs, late payments/other derogatory information in my consumer reports are in violation of 26 USC ss 6050P Returns Relating to the Cancellation of Indebtedness By Certain Entities. If this derogatory account information is not deleted from my consumer reports within 30 days, I will be forced to officially file IRS form 3949A : Information Referral AND IRS form 211 : Application For Award For Original Information Overview with the Internal Revenue Service against ALL entities involved.TITLE 1.81.5. California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 [ 1798.100 - 1798.199.100 ] ( Title 1.81.5 added by Stats. 2018, Ch. 55, Sec. 3. ) -1798.106. \nConsumers Right to Correct Inaccurate Personal Information ( a ) A consumer shall have the right to request a business that maintains inaccurate personal information about the consumer to correct that inaccurate personal information, taking into account the nature of the personal information and the purposes of the processing of the personal information. \n( b ) A business that collects personal information about consumers shall disclose, pursuant to Section 1798.130, the consumers right to request correction of inaccurate personal information. \n( c ) A business that receives a verifiable consumer request to correct inaccurate personal information shall use commercially reasonable efforts to correct the inaccurate personal information as directed by the consumer, pursuant to Section 1798.130 and regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph ( 8 ) of subdivision ( a ) of Section 1798.185. \n( Added XX/XX/XXXX, by initiative Proposition 24, Sec. 6. Effective XX/XX/XXXX. Operative XX/XX/XXXX, pursuant to Sec. 31 of Proposition 24. ) 1798.120.\n\nConsumers Right to Opt Out of Sale or Sharing of Personal Information ( a ) A consumer shall have the right, at any time, to direct a business that sells or shares personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell or share the consumers personal information. This right may be referred to as the right to opt-out of sale or sharing. \n( b ) A business that sells consumers personal information to, or shares it with, third parties shall provide notice to consumers, pursuant to subdivision ( a ) of Section 1798.135, that this information may be sold or shared and that consumers have the right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information**1See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 12 ) ( F ), 5512 ( b ), 5514 ( c ), 5515 ( c ), and also Sub title E ( 12 U.S.C.5561 5567 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( b ) ( 1 ) ( H ), ( e ). Authority over 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( e ) and 1681w are limited to the Federal banking agencies, the NCUA, the FTC, the CFTC, and SEC. \n1.15 U.S.C. 1681s. States can directly bring actions under FCRA. See 12 U.S.C. 1681s ( c ) .States can al so bring actions under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) against covered persons and service providers based upon violations of federal consumer financial laws, including the FCRA . See Authority of States to Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 87 FR 31940 ( XX/XX/XXXX ). \n2.15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o. \n3.See, e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Supervisory Highlights ( Spring XXXX ), at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.consumerfinance.govXXXX \n4.See, e.g., Complaint at 15, CFPB v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing , Inc. , D. Md . No. 19-Civ-2817 ( Filed XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n5.With respect to furnisher direct disputes, see 74 FR 31,484, 31,500 ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( Some industry commenters also suggested that the Agencies issue a model direct dispute complaint form, with some advocating that consumers be required to use the model complaint form. The Agencies decline to adopt these suggestions because such requirements would cause otherwise valid disputes to b e rejected as frivolous or irrelevant due solely to the consumer 's failure to meet a technical requirement that probably would be unknown to the consumer. ) 6.15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( identifying which disputes the consumer reporting agency can determine to be frivolous or irrelevant ) ; 12 CFR 1022.43 ( f ) ( 1 ) ( identifying which disputes the furnisher can determine to be frivolous or irrelevant ). \n7.15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 3 ) ( Consumer reporting agency frivolous or irrelevant determination ) ; 12 CFR 1022.43 ( f ) ( furnisher direct dispute frivolous or irrelevant determination ). \n8.15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). See Brief for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission as XXXX XXXX Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant, Ingram v. Waypoint Resource Group , LLC, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ( No. 21-2430 ).\n\n9.15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ). \n10.Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Bulletin 2013-09 ( Sep. 4, 2013 ), at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX.consumerfinance.govXXXX  ( alerting furnishers to the fact that consumer reporting agencies have begun forwarding images of relevant documentation to furnishers as part of the reasonable investigation of disputes ). \n11.For example, a copy of a bill supporting the consumers dispute conveys information regarding the persuasiveness of a consumers dispute that data about the bill would not. \n12.Federal Trade Commission , 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act : An FTC Staff Report with Summary of Interpretations ( XXXX. XXXX ), at XXXX XXXX XXXX //www.ftc.gov/sites/XXXX  ( ACRA does not comply with this provision if it merely indicates the nature of the dispute, without communicating to the furnisher the specific relevant information received from the consumer. For example, if the consumer claimed never late and submitted documentation ( such as cancelled checks ) to support his/her dispute, a CRA does not comply with the requirement that is provide all relevant information if it simply notifies the furnisher that the consumer disputes the payment history without communicating the evidence received. ). \n13.2115 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) Account Name NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date Open Dollar Amount {$390.00} {$500.00} {$620.00} {$370.00} {$1000.00} {$100000.00} {$3500.00} {$6000.00} {$2300.00} {$2800.00} {$2000.00} {$9.00} XXXX {$2100.00} {$310.00} {$3100.00} {$44000.00} {$5000.00} {$1900.00} {$5300.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data According to the fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are requiredby federal law to verify through the physical verification of the original signed consumer contract- any all accounts you post on a credit report. Otherwise, anyone paying for your reporting service could fax, mail or email in a fraudulent account. I demand to see Verifiable proof ( an Original Consumer Contract with my Signature on it ) vou have on file of the account listed below. Your failure to positively verify these accounts hurt my ability to obtain credit. Under the FCRA, Unverified accounts must be removed and if you are unable to provide me with a copy of verifiable proof, you must remove the accounts listed Data Removal : Immediate removal of all my existing personal and financial information from your website, databases, and any affiliated entities. This request pertains to all data currently held by your organization. 2. Data Security for Future Interactions : Implement robust security measures to prevent unauthorized access to any new information that may be collected. This request applies to any future interactions I may have with your organization and is not in conflict with my request for the removal of existing data. 3. Transparency : Full disclosure of any third parties with whom my information has been shared, along with immediate cessation of such sharing. 4. Notification : Prompt notification to me of all actions taken to secure my information and prevent further violations. 5. Legal Compliance : Immediate review and adherence to all relevant U.S. codes and legislation cited in this affidavit to ensure full compliance. Non-Consent and Settlement : Final Warning and Unambiguous Clarification 1as you can see here again, they blatantly violate the ( FCRA15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - ) Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies U.S. Code Notes prev | next ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate ; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate XXXX TRANSUNION XXXX CONTINUE TO REPORT FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTS THIS makes you guilty and in violation of the False Claims Act ( FCA ) 31 U.S.C 3729- 3733. ( Debt Collector name is also in violation of 18 U.S.C 894 for using my consumer report with extortionate means as a way to coerce and swindle me into making payments on alleged debt not owed. I DID NOT AND DO NOT CONSENT these companies XXXX TRANSUNION/XXXX  /furnishing this information to my consumer report. I did not give you authorization or permission to have my personal identifying information, which you have obtained by aggravated identity theft in accordance with 18 U.S.C 1028A. This is a notice to CEASE and DESIST of all illegal activities, including reporting which constitutes collection activities. This is also a NOTICE exercising my rights to prevent the processing of my personal data According to the fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), you are requiredby federal law to verify through the physical verification of the original signed consumer contract- any all accounts you post on a credit report. Otherwise, anyone paying for your reporting service could fax, mail or email in a fraudulent account. I demand to see Verifiable proof ( an Original Consumer Contract with my Signature on it ) vou have on file of the account listed below. Your failure to positively verify these accounts hurt my ability to obtain credit. Under the FCRA, Unverified accounts must be removed and if you are unable to provide me with a copy of verifiable proof, you must remove the accounts listed You are required to do what I am asking and block these transactions from being reported to my consumer report within 4 days from the date of the receipt of this notice. I look forward to your response. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance U.S. Code Notes prev | next ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of- ( 1 ) ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00}. 15 U.S.C 1681 section 602 A. States I have the right to privacy. 15 U.S. C 1681 section 604 A. Section 2 : It also states a consumer given reporting agency can not furnish an account without my written instruction. 15 U.S.C 1692c 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 may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation. A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.Account Name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-20T23:37:20.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91387","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8192061","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-01-20T23:37:15.000Z","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":["Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, Section 504 : Non-<em>compliance</em> with <em>federal</em> regulations designed to enforce the act, thereby putting my personal and financial information at risk."]},"sort":[5.958634,"8192061"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16920791","_score":5.9413624,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint PayPal , Inc . Violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Attn : Office of Consumer Response XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX DC XXXX Via : www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint Complainant : Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Respondent : Entity : PayPal , Inc . \nAddress : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, CA XXXX Issuer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( PayPal Debit XXXX Issuer ) To Whom It May Concern : This letter constitutes a formal legal complaint against PayPal , Inc. for repeated and willful violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ). PayPal failed to investigate, protect, and refund a series of clearly unauthorized electronic fund transfers totaling {$3500.00}, and subsequently engaged in retaliatory action by permanently limiting my account after I followed PayPals own procedures and fully complied with applicable law. These actions constitute unlawful practices that have caused me substantial financial, academic, and personal harm. \n\nXXXX. Summary of Events On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX, I discovered that my Paypal account balance was unexpectedly low after receiving my school tuition refund of {$4500.00} the day prior. Upon further investigation, I found that my PayPal Debit XXXX ( issued by The XXXX XXXX  ) had been used XXXX times without authorization between the evening of XX/XX/XXXX and the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$3500.00}. All of The charges were made to XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX during overnight hours, with several of the transactions occurring within the same minute, indicating automated or fraudulent activity. \nAt XXXX XXXX, less than XXXX minutes after discovery, I contacted PayPal by telephone to report the unauthorized transactions. The representative confirmed the activity appeared suspicious and instructed me to obtain documentation from the merchant confirming that no account in my name existed. \n\nOver the next XXXX weeks, I made more than XXXX attempts by phone and email to obtain such documentation from XXXX. The merchant confirmed in writing : My email address is not registered to any XXXX account. \n\nMy card number and personal information do not match any user or record. \nNo transaction history exists associated with my details. \n\nAll documentation was provided to PayPal multiple times, per PayPals instructions. \n\nXXXX. PayPals Gross Negligence, Mishandling and Breach of Statutory Obligations Despite my full compliance and timely reporting, PayPal failed to meet multiple obligations imposed by EFTA 1693f and 1693g and Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.6 and 1005.11.\n\na ) Failure to investigate within required timeframes Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ), a financial institution must investigate any reported error ( including unauthorized electronic fund transfers ) promptly and resolve the matter within 10 business days of receiving notice. If additional time is needed, provisional credit must be provided. PayPal denied XXXX of XXXX disputes within XXXX dayswell before any meaningful investigation could have occurredconstituting a prima facie violation of 1005.11 ( c ). \n\nb ) Failure to provide provisional credit Per 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), if an institution can not conclude an investigation within 10 business days, it must provisionally credit the consumers account for the disputed amount ( including interest where applicable ) and provide written notice within two business days. PayPal issued no provisional credit, thereby depriving me of critical access to funds intended for tuition and education-related expenses, in violation of EFTA 1693f ( c ). \n\nc ) Failure to provide written explanation and access to evidence When a financial institution determines no error occurred, 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) requires a written explanation of findings and a statement of the consumers right to request copies of documents relied upon. Despite multiple written and verbal requests, PayPal provided only a cursory denial ( We found these transactions were authorized ) and refused to produce any supporting documentation. This refusal constitutes a clear violation of 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nd ) Failure to limit consumer liability Under 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ), if the consumer notifies the institution within two business days of learning of unauthorized use, liability is limited to no more than {$50.00}. I reported the fraud within minutes of discovery, well within this statutory window. PayPals refusal to credit my account, combined with its denial of my dispute, unlawfully shifted full liability onto me in direct contravention of EFTA 1693g ( a ).\n\ne ) Retaliatory account limitation Following my repeated attempts to obtain compliance and lawful resolution, PayPal permanently limited my account, citing abuse of the dispute process. This constitutes a retaliatory action designed to deter the exercise of rights protected under EFTA 1693m ( civil liability ) and violates the fundamental principle of good faith in consumer protection enforcement.\n\n3. Systemic Failures and Gross Negligence PayPal ignored clear indicators of fraud, including 44 identical transactions executed in rapid succession overnight.\n\nIts adjudication was inconsistentone charge may have been reversed, while 43 others with identical patterns were denied without explanation. \n\n\nPayPal disregarded documentation from the merchant confirming no account linkage, violating 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( v ) - ( vi ), which mandates consideration of any relevant information within the institutions own records.\n\nRequests for the documents used to reach denial were ignored, violating 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nThe permanent limitation of my account following legitimate disputes constitutes retaliatory interference and demonstrates institutional negligence and bad faith. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Consequences and Harm Loss of {$3500.00} in unauthorized debits, representing tuition refund funds. \n\n\nInability to purchase required educational materials, resulting in withdrawal from my academic program. \nSevere emotional distress, reputational harm, and disruption to personal and academic progress. \n\n\nDenial of access to essential financial tools and payment services due to retaliatory account termination. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Legal Authority Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 16931693r Regulation E, 12 CFR Part 1005 1005.6 Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers 1005.10 Preauthorized transfers 1005.11 Procedures for resolving errors Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Official Interpretations of Regulation E 15 U.S.C. 1693m ( a ) Civil liability for noncompliance ( actual and statutory damages, attorneys fees, and costs ) 6. Nature of Violations Violation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) Failure to conduct prompt investigation.\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) Failure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days.\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) Failure to provide written findings and supporting documentation. \n\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ) Improper denial of consumer liability limitation ( {$50.00} cap ).\n\nRetaliatory account limitation inconsistent with good-faith compliance under EFTA 1693m .\n\n7. Timeline of Key Events XXXX XXXX XXXX : Unauthorized transactions occur ( XXXX charges totaling {$3500.00} ). \n\n\nXX/XX/year> ( XXXX PM ) : I report all transactions as unauthorized to PayPal. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, 2025 : I make over XXXX attempts to obtain written verification from XXXX, which confirms no account exists in my name. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : PayPal requests I submit evidence, which I do. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : I resubmit all documents multiple times per PayPals requests. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : PayPal denies XXXX of the XXXX disputes without explanation. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : My appeal is rejected with a generic response and no documentation. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : PayPal permanently limits my account for abuse of dispute process. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX of Events including XXXX  Below is the complete, verified timeline of events summarizing my interactions with XXXX  and the related transactions for PayPals dispute investigation. This information has been relayed to Paypal numerous times by email, phone, and the uploading of documents through the Paypal message center. \nPaypal has chosen to ignore the information and has denied the claims and refused to refund my money despite XXXX giving written confirmation XXXX separate times that my email and identity are not tied to a XXXX account. Furthermore, they gave me written confirmation multiple times, by multiple employees, they don't have any record of these transactions. These written statements from XXXX satisfies the requests made by PAYPAL, confirming that my information is not linked to an account where the charges occurred. This is what Paypal instructed me to get from XXXX, and is the proof they needed to make the determination that the charges were unauthorized and issue the appropriate refund. The written confirmation from XXXX further proves that the charges made using my PayPal debit card were completely unauthorized, not associated with me nor linked to an account associated with me.. \nXX/XX/year> I discovered that my PayPal balance was unexpectedly low after receiving a tuition refund of {$4500.00} the day before. \n\n\nUpon review, I found XXXX unauthorized transactions from XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, totaling {$3500.00}. \n\n\nI immediately contacted PayPal ( XXXX XXXX  ) and reported the transactions as unauthorized. \n\nXX/XX/year> Spoke with A PayPal Rep and was told to get something from XXXX that shows my name is not associated with an account where my debit card was used Request # : I contacted XXXX via phone to report the unauthorized use of my PayPal debit card, and asked for the information that Paypal requested Request number XXXX : I sent XXXX via email documents that i created to assist in the investigation XXXX issued Ticket # XXXX, acknowledging receipt of my request. ( Source : XXXX - We have received your request XXXX ) XX/XX/year> I sent a XXXX Request for XXXX and asked for them to take my attached information and check their system for the requested information. \nXXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) responded to my outreach and confirmed that my email address is not registered to any accounts in their system. \nXXXX wrote : Dear XXXX Thank you for contacting XXXX Pennsylvania XXXX XXXX. \n\nYour email address is not registered to any accounts in our system. \nIf you have an account with us and have access to the email address registered on it, please send us your query from it or make live contact with our support team via chat or phone. \n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX sent a follow-up request for verification documents, asking for : First XXXX and last XXXX digits of card Total amount of unauthorized transactions Supporting bank statements XX/XX/year> I responded to XXXX request ( via XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX  ), providing all requested documentation and a detailed explanation. \n\n\nI reiterated that PayPal required documentation showing the XXXX  account tied to these transactions is not in my name. \n\n\nI provided transaction details, totaling {$3500.00}, and clearly stated that these were unauthorized charges. \n\n\nAttachments included PayPal transaction records and screenshots showing each charge. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX ( XXXX ) replied, stating the matter was escalated to their operations team and asked for XXXX hours for review. \n\n\nI followed up that evening, noting no update or communication had been received. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX ( XXXX ) replied, claiming the review was still ongoing and asked for patience. \n\n\nI responded the same day, stating that my request was simple and could be completed in minutes, not weeks. \n\n\nI emphasized I was only asking XXXX  to confirm whether the account tied to these transactions was registered under my name or not, and warned I would escalate to regulators if not addressed by XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> After no further response, I followed up again (??? ). \n\n\nLater that day, XXXX ( XXXX ) responded, stating : We were not able to locate an account that matches the transactions provided with the card details previously shared. \n\n\n\nXXXX again requested the same documentation ( first XXXX / last XXXX digits, statement, and card images ) all of which had already been submitted. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> I replied, expressing frustration that XXXX kept requesting the same information, pointing out that I had already submitted all documents multiple times and that the matter was overdue. \n\n\nLater that day, another XXXX  representative ( XXXX ) repeated the same message as XXXX again stating no matching account was found and asking for the same materials again. \nWe were not able to locate an account that matches the transactions provided with the card details previously shared. \n\n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> I again provided the requested information for a third time, including : PayPal XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX Issuing bank : XXXX XXXX transactions totaling {$3500.00} Despite this, Paypal has ignored this information and chose not to review it. \n\n\nXXXX. Requested Remedies Pursuant to XXXX XXXX ( civil liability for noncompliance ), I request that PayPal and any relevant oversight bodies take the following corrective actions : Reverse all denials and refund the full {$3500.00} in unauthorized charges. \n\n\nProvide {$25000.00} in punitive and compensatory damages for financial losses, educational disruption, and emotional distress. \n\n\nIssue a formal written acknowledgment and apology for procedural and investigative failures. \n\n\nImmediately lift the permanent account limitation and restore full access. \nImplement corrective measures to ensure : Timely investigations and provisional credits per 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nWritten explanations and disclosure of evidence per 1005.11 ( d ).\n\nProhibition of retaliatory account actions against consumers asserting protected rights.\n\nProvide regulators with all internal records, including fraud-detection logs, denial rationales, investigator notes, and communications regarding this case.\n\n10. Conclusion I have acted in full good faith, complied with all PayPal instructions, and fulfilled every requirement under EFTA and Regulation E, which includes the reporting of the unauthorized transactions immediately and promptly. I have followed every instruction given by paypal in the process and provided all requested evidence multiple times. The documentation proves these transactions were unauthorized and not tied to me in any way. PayPal representatives have confirmed that these are not authorized and assured me when providing these documentations it would satisfy the unlawful demands that paypal requested. By law, paypal has no right to demand that a consumer must contact a merchant in order to file a dispute over an unauthorized transaction. \nThe evidence provided incontrovertibly establishes that these transactions were unauthorized and that PayPals handling of the matter constitutes multiple regulatory violations.\n\nPayPals unlawful conduct and actions violate my rights multiple times, including its failure to investigate, denial of provisional credit, lack of written explanation, refusal to provide documentation, failure to limit consumer liability, and retaliatory account termination. These violate both the letter and spirit of federal consumer protection law and my rights as a consumer. \nPaypal chose to not address or acknowledge this gross negligence and mishandling of this case, and instead attempted to gaslight me with their retaliatory account termination, by claiming abuse of their dispute process hoping I would just go away and not pursue this any further. This is not only unacceptable but unlawful and has caused me significant financial and personal hardship. I am seeking immediate corrective action, a refund of my stolen funds, punitive damages and accountability for the repeated failures in this case. I respectfully request that PayPal and their gross negligence, be compelled to remedy these violations immediately and that appropriate enforcement and compliance actions be undertaken by relevant regulatory authorities. \nThank you for your time and attention to this serious matter. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T18:36:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"196XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16920791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-10-30T18:19:17.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Systemic Failures and Gross Negligence PayPal ignored <em>clear</em> indicators of fraud, <em>including</em> 44 identical transactions executed in rapid succession overnight.\n\nIts adjudication was inconsistentone charge may have been reversed, while 43 others with identical patterns were denied without explanation."]},"sort":[5.9413624,"16920791"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8016083","_score":5.469377,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX violated the Privacy Act of 1974, 15 USC 6805 ( a ) Disclosure required At the time of establishing a customer relationship with a consumer and not less than annually during the continuation of such relationship, a financial institution shall provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to such consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, of such financial institutions policies and practices with respect to ( 1 ) disclosing nonpublic personal information to affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties, consistent with section 6802 of this title, including the categories of information that may be disclosed ; ( 2 ) disclosing nonpublic personal information of persons who have ceased to be customers of the financial institution; and ( 3 ) protecting the nonpublic personal information of consumers. ( b ) Regulations Disclosures required by subsection ( a ) shall be made in accordance with the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title. ( c ) Information to be included The disclosure required by subsection ( a ) shall include ( 1 ) the policies and practices of the institution with respect to disclosing nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties, other than agents of the institution, consistent with section 6802 of this title, and including ( A ) the categories of persons to whom the information is or may be disclosed, other than the persons to whom the information may be provided pursuant to section 6802 ( e ) of this title ; and ( B ) the policies and practices of the institution with respect to disclosing of nonpublic personal information of persons who have ceased to be customers of the financial institution ; ( 2 ) the categories of nonpublic personal information that are collected by the financial institution ; ( 3 ) the policies that the institution maintains to protect the confidentiality and security of nonpublic personal information in accordance with section 6801 of this title ; and ( 4 ) the disclosures required, if any, under section 1681a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii ) of this title. ( d ) Exemption for certified public accountants ( 1 ) In general The disclosure requirements of subsection ( a ) do not apply to any person, to the extent that the person is ( A ) a certified public accountant ; ( B ) certified or licensed for such purpose by a State ; and ( C ) subject to any provision of law, rule, or regulation issued by a legislative or regulatory body of the State, including rules of professional conduct or ethics, that prohibits disclosure of nonpublic personal information without the knowing and expressed consent of the consumer. ( 2 ) Limitation Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt or otherwise exclude any financial institution that is affiliated or becomes affiliated with a certified public accountant described in paragraph ( 1 ) from any provision of this section. ( 3 ) Definitions For purposes of this subsection, the term State means any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, the Trust Territory of the XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX, or the XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( e ) Model forms ( 1 ) In general The agencies referred to in section 6804 ( a ) ( 1 ) of this title shall jointly develop a model form which may be used, at the option of the financial institution, for the provision of disclosures under this section. ( 2 ) Format A model form developed under paragraph ( 1 ) shall ( A ) be comprehensible to consumers, with a clear format and design ; ( B ) provide for clear and conspicuous disclosures ; ( C ) enable consumers easily to identify the sharing practices of a financial institution and to compare privacy practices among financial institutions ; and ( D ) be succinct, and use an easily readable type font. ( 3 ) Timing A model form required to be developed by this subsection shall be issued in proposed form for public comment not later than 180 days after XX/XX/XXXX. ( 4 ) Safe harbor Any financial institution that elects to provide the model form developed by the agencies under this subsection shall be deemed to be in compliance with the disclosures required under this section. ( f ) Exception to annual notice requirement A financial institution that ( 1 ) provides nonpublic personal information only in accordance with the provisions of subsection ( b ) ( 2 ) or ( e ) of section 6802 of th is title or regulations prescribed under section 6804 ( b ) of this title, and ( 2 ) has not changed its policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that were disclosed in the most recent disclosure sent to consumers in accordance with this section, shall not be required to provide an annual disclosure under this section until such time as the financial institution fails to comply with any criteria described in paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ). ( Pub. XXXX XXXX, title XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; Pub. XXXX XXXX, XXXX VI, XXXX, title XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Stat. XXXX, XXXX ; Pub. XXXX XXXX, XXXX. G, title LXXV, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. ( a ) ( 1 ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 313.10 ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the opt out right. ( 2 ) Examples ( i ) Adequate opt out notice. You provide adequate notice that the consumer can opt out of the disclosure of nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party if you : ( A ) Identify all of the categories of nonpublic personal information that you disclose or reserve the right to disclose, and all of the categories of nonaffiliated third parties to which you disclose the information, as described in 313.6 ( a ) ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) and state that the consumer can opt out of the disclosure of that information; and ( B ) Identify the financial products or services that the consumer obtains from you, either singly or jointly, to which the opt out direction would apply. ( ii ) Reasonable opt out means. You provide a reasonable means to exercise an opt out right if you : ( A ) Designate check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms with the opt out notice ; ( B ) Include a reply form that includes the address to which the form should be mailed ; or ( C ) Provide an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be sent via electronic mail or a process at your web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information ; or ( D ) Provide a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out. ( iii ) Unreasonable opt out means. You do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if : ( A ) The only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt out right; or ( B ) The only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is to use a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice. ( iv ) Specific opt out means. You may require each consumer to opt out through a specific means, as long as that means is reasonable for that consumer. ( b ) Same form as initial notice permitted. You may provide the opt out notice together with or on the same written or electronic form as the initial notice you provide in accordance with 313.4. ( c ) Initial notice required when opt out notice delivered subsequent to initial notice. If you provide the opt out notice later than required for the initial notice in accordance with 313.4, you must also include a copy of the initial notice with the opt out notice in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. ( d ) Joint relationships. ( 1 ) If two or more consumers jointly obtain a financial product or service from you, you may provide a single opt out notice, unless one or more of those consumers requests a separate opt out notice. Your opt out notice must explain how you will treat an opt out direction by a joint consumer ( as explained in paragraph ( d ) ( 5 ) ( ii ) of this section ). ( 2 ) Any of the joint consumers may exercise the right to opt out. You may either : ( i ) Treat an opt out direction by a joint consumer as applying to all of the associated joint consumers; or ( ii ) Permit each joint consumer to opt out separately. ( 3 ) If you permit each joint consumer to opt out separately, you must permit one of the joint consumers to opt out on behalf of all of the joint consumers. ( 4 ) You may not require all joint consumers to opt out before you implement any opt out direction. ( XXXX ) XXXX. If XXXX and XXXX have a joint credit card account with you and arrange for you to send statements to XXXX 's address, you XXXX do any of the following, but you must explain in your opt out notice which opt out policy you will follow : ( i ) Send a single opt out notice to XXXX 's address, but you must accept an opt out direction from either XXXX or XXXX. ( ii ) Treat an opt out direction by either XXXX or XXXX as applying to the entire account. If you do so, and XXXX opts out, you XXXX not require XXXX to opt out as well before implementing XXXX 's opt out direction. ( iii ) XXXX XXXX and XXXX to make different opt out directions. If you do so, ( A ) You must permit XXXX and XXXX to opt out for each other; ( B ) If both opt out, you must permit both to notify you in a single response ( such as on a form or through a telephone call ) ; and ( C ) If XXXX opts out and XXXX does not, you XXXX only disclose nonpublic personal information about XXXX, but not about XXXX and not about XXXX and XXXX jointly. ( XXXX ) Time to comply with opt out. You must comply with a consumer 's opt out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it. ( f ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. ( g ) Duration of consumer 's opt out direction. ( 1 ) A consumer 's direction to opt out under this section is effective until the consumer revokes it in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. ( 2 ) When a customer relationship terminates, the customer 's opt out direction continues to apply to the nonpublic personal information that you collected during or related to that relationship. If the individual subsequently establishes a new customer relationship with you, the opt out direction that applied to the former relationship does not apply to the new relationship. ( h ) Delivery. When you are required to deliver an opt out notice by this section, you must deliver it according to 313.9. ( i ) Model privacy form. Pursuant to 313.2 ( a ) of this part, a model privacy form that meets the notice content requirements of this section is included in appendix A of this part. [ 65 FR 33677, May 24, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 62966, Dec. 1, 2009 ] 16 CFR 313 Privacy of Consumer 16 CFR 433.2 Preservation of consumers ' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. or, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan ( as purchase money loan is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such purchase money loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. [ 40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975 ; 40 FR 58131, Dec. 15, 1975 ] 16 CFR 433.3 Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before November 1, 1977 from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). ( a ) Any seller who has taken or received an open end consumer credit contract before XX/XX/XXXX, shall be exempt from the requirements of 16 CFR part 433 with respect to such contract provided the contract does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses. ( b ) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this exemption : ( 1 ) All pertinent definitions contained in 16 CFR 433.1. ( 2 ) Open end consumer credit contract : a consumer credit contract pursuant to which open end credit is extended. ( 3 ) Open end credit : consumer credit extended on an account pursuant to a plan under which a creditor may permit an applicant to make purchases or make loans, from time to time, directly from the creditor or indirectly by use of a credit card, check, or other device, as the plan may provide. The term does not include negotiated advances under an open-end real estate mortgage or a letter of credit. ( 4 ) Contract which does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses : A consumer credit contract which does not constitute or contain a negotiable instrument, or contain any waiver, limitation, term, or condition which has the effect of limiting a consumer 's right to assert against any holder of the contract all legally sufficient claims and defenses which the consumer could assert against the seller of goods or services purchased pursuant to the contract. [ 42 FR 19490, Apr. 14, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 46510, Sept. 16, 1977 ] 16 CFR 424.1Unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In connection with the sale or offering for sale by retail food stores of food, grocery products or other merchandise to consumers in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 44, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ( 1 ), to offer any such products for sale at a stated price, by means of an advertisement disseminated in an area served by any stores which are covered by the advertisement, if those stores do not have the advertised products in stock and readily available to customers during the effective period of the advertisement, unless the advertisement clearly and adequately discloses that supplies of the advertised products are limited or the advertised products are available only at some outlets. [ XXXX FR XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as amended at XXXX FR XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX ] I WANT THE CFPB TO PUBLISH THIS DESCRIPTION ON CONSUMERFINANCE.GOV SO THAT OTHERS CAN LEARN FROM MY EXPERIENCE. \n\nThe CFPB will take steps to remove my personal information from this description but someone may still be able to identify me. Learn how it works. I consent to publishing this description after the CFPB has taken these steps.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-17T22:58:52.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07111","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8016083","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-12-17T22:58:47.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 313.10 ( a ), you must provide a <em>clear</em> and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section."]},"sort":[5.469377,"8016083"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":39,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":39}]}},"product":{"doc_count":39,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":28,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":28}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","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":39,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":16,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":8},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":4},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":5},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1},{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":39,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":39}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":39,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":21},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":16},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":39,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":39}]}},"company":{"doc_count":39,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":12},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":12},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Freedom Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Meta Payments Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":39,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"NJ","doc_count":10},{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"MD","doc_count":4},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":39,"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":28},{"key":"Company believes complaint represents an opportunity for improvement to better serve consumers","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":39,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Servicemember","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":[5.469377,"8016083"]}}}