{"took":189,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":9,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7985168","_score":7.6020265,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing this complaint to seek assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in informing others that Citibank provides no protection for consumers when dealing with hotels when the room you paid for months in advance is not the room you receive at check-in after seeking resolution through the Citibank Dispute Department XXXX I was disappointed to learn today that the Costo Citibank Visa fails to offer protection in such cases. \n\nOn XX/XX/2023, I spoke with a Citibank representative named XXXX, who informed me that Visa and Mastercard always side with hotels in such situations because the registration card signed upon check-in is considered a contract. When I asked for documentation to support this policy, the representative could not provide it but suggested it could be available online and that I should \" XXXX it. '' My contact with Citibank 's Dispute Department began on XX/XX/2023, when I submitted a dispute for {$680.00} for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The hotel should have provided the room I had initially booked on XX/XX/2023, for which I had paid a deposit of {$680.00} using my Costo Citibank Visa. \n( For your review, the additional details of what happened on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, 2023, are outlined in the attached document. ) On XX/XX/2023, I contacted Citibank to file a dispute regarding my stay at XXXX XXXX. The bank issued a temporary credit of {$680.00} on XX/XX/2023. \nA few weeks later, Citibank received a response from XXXX. The hotel provided a folio and registration card in response to the dispute. \n\nHowever, the documents provided by XXXX XXXX did not address that the room I was given on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, differed from the one I had booked on XX/XX/2023. Additionally, the folio provided by the hotel falsely stated that I had stayed for two nights, which was not true. \n\nI was quick to point out in my response that the registration card is a necessary document for check-in, as guests must sign it to access their hotel room, and it has nothing to do with the fact the room I was assigned was not the room I paid for. \n\nIn fact, on the afternoon of XX/XX/2023, after speaking with two XXXX employees ( XXXX and XXXX XXXX and reaching a resolution on XX/XX/XXXX. I would return the keys to the room I had been given at check-in. \nIn exchange, I was offered food and beverage credit and a new room, which was the type of room I had initially booked. Unfortunately, a traumatic encounter with two different XXXX employees occurred later that day, which caused me to leave the hotel on the afternoon of XX/XX/2032. The folio and statement XXXX provided to Citibank are bold lies. \n\nIn a detailed statement to Citibank Visa, I did not receive the room I had paid for and left the hotel on the afternoon of XX/XX/XXXX. I filed a dispute with Citibank on the evening of XX/XX/2023. \nAfter providing the details of what happened that evening by phone, the conditional credit of {$680.00}. \nHowever, a few weeks later, I received the XXXX ( the XXXX ) response to Citibank on XX/XX/2023. The letter provides a limited explanation for why the conditional credit was reversed in the XXXX 's favor on XX/XX/2023. \n\nI contacted Citibank 's Dispute Department for more information. I was told that I would need to respond in writing, provide a detailed response/ explanation, and ask for the credit to be resorted after submitting the additional details. The credit of {$680.00} was restored on XX/XX/2023. \n\nI responded to the request for more information by providing the Citibank Dispute Department additional information that included a signed XXXX letter with images of the room in question and further supporting details, including reviews of other guests that experienced the same mistreatment, website data that XXXX made changes to their website after my encounter, regarding the room types and booking options. \n\nThe information I provided to XXXX clearly outlines the dishonesty and mistreatment I received from Circa to the XXXX XXXX Department. \n\nA short time later, I received a letter from XXXX stating that they had contacted the Merchant regarding the credit and XXXX would contact me if there was an issue. \n\nOn XX/XX/2023, Citibank again reversed the credit of {$680.00}, finding the XXXX 's favor yet again and without explanation. \n\nI contacted Citibank on XX/XX/2023, for an explanation as to why, after all the detailed information I provided, I was still responsible for a service I did not receive. \n\nThe first Citibank representative could not explain ; he could only say that it was the decision of the XXXX Department and that there was nothing more that Citibank could do for me. At this point, I asked him to speak with a supervisor. \n\nInitially, the Citibank supervisor, XXXX, could not explain why the charge was upheld in the XXXX 's favor. I asked to speak with the Dispute Investigator and was told they are only available by correspondence ; I asked for an email address. XXXX could not provide me with any information, including a contact email for the specific person handling my dispute. \n\nHowever, moments into the conversation, XXXX made a claim that struck me as odd. \n\nShe informed me that Visa and Mastercard always side with the hotel because the registration card is a signed contract. \n\nEven if the hotel does not provide the services you paid for, if they produce a registration card, you have XXXX recourse as a consumer. She went on to state that this is XXXX and XXXX policy, and XXXX must abide by this policy. \n\nThis was a policy I was unfamiliar with when I asked for that documentation. XXXX told me she didn't have it, but I could XXXX it. \n\nTo be clear, I asked her again. If I sign a document expecting a specific service and the XXXX doesn't provide that service, I'm just out of luck. \nShe apologized and said that, unfortunately, when it comes to hotels, she is afraid so. \n\nI asked her what protection I would have, and she said very little, if any ; again, I signed a contract. \n\nI have never heard of any such policy, and I have yet to be able to verify this policy that Visa and MasterCard supposedly have in writing somewhere on the internet. \n\nI selected the Costo Citibank Visa because of the supposed consumer protection. \nIf that policy exists, what protection does Citibank offer its customers when services are not provided? \nAccording to the representative named XXXX, there is XXXX protection if a consumer signs a hotel registration card. \n\nA signature, ID, and credit card are required at the time of registration for any hotel. It was only after my husband and I got to the room that we found out the room they assigned was not the room I had reserved. \n\nI was shocked to hear that a Merchant can produce fraudulent documents and refuse to provide the service the customer has paid for, and Citibank will always find in the Merchant 's favor... \n\n\nI am disappointed as I believe that Costco Citibank has mistreated me again. \nhaving found out today, from a Citi Bank representative that the Costco Citibank Visa card does not provide any protection against fraudulent activity. \n\nAccording to Citibank, Visa, and MasterCard ignore the dishonest behavior exhibited by companies like XXXX XXXX and XXXX based on a policy that the Citibank employee I spoke with today could not locate. \n\nI want to bring to the attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the experience I had with the staff at XXXX XXXX is not unique. Many other guests have reported similar behavior from the establishment. \n\nThe issue is that guests often reserve a specific room, but upon checking in, they are given a different room from what they paid for. I have come across various online reviews where guests have expressed their frustration with the dishonesty and aggression shown by the staff at XXXX. \n\nKnowing that Citibank is willing to support fraudulent behavior based on an unwritten credit card policy is disheartening. I am disappointed that Costco Citibank offers no protection to consumers in good standing like me. It is even more concerning that representatives like XXXX disseminate unsupported claims about XXXX and XXXX. \n\nIn summary, I feel let down by Costco Citibank, and I hope that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will investigate this issue and help end such fraudulent practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-11T20:22:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"934XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7985168","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-12-11T19:36:20.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Many</em> other guests have reported similar behavior from the establishment. \n\nThe issue is that guests often reserve a specific room, but upon checking in, they are given a different room from what they paid for. I have come <em>across</em> various online reviews where guests have expressed their frustration with the dishonesty and aggression shown by the staff at XXXX. \n\nKnowing that Citibank is willing to <em>support</em> fraudulent behavior based on an unwritten credit card policy is disheartening."]},"sort":[7.6020265,"7985168"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17172809","_score":7.203447,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'Re: DATA BREACH - Supplemental / Revised Notice & Demand / Dispute / Data Breach + FCRA Violations\\nSubject: Disputed items on file; persistent noncompliance; data breach; request for removal or correction; documentation; XXXXTo Whom It May Concern:\\n\\nI write as a follow-up and supplement to my prior dispute(s), and to place you on further notice of your ongoing noncompliance, and to demand immediate removal or correction of the disputed items. This letter restates and strengthens my position under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.  1681 et seq.), 47 U.S. Code  605  Unauthorized publication or use of communications, and related consumer protection and tort theories, and references recent legal developments.\\n\\nBelow is a statement of the facts, legal basis, demands, and preservation instructions. \\n\\n1. Statement of Facts  Timeline & Prior Disputes\\n\\t1.\\tIn September 2024, I submitted the first formal dispute notice to TransUnion (or via a furnisher, as applicable) regarding multiple items/accounts on my credit file. That XXXX XXXX XXXXotice was included in the CFPB complaint and report you responded to.\\n\\t2.\\tIn response to the CFPB complaint (filed after that dispute), XXXX   TransUnion removed only one of the disputed accounts, claiming to verify the remainder. You have not provided to me, nor (so far as I know), to any court or agency, any substantive creditor or lender documentation that supports your verification of those remaining disputed items (e.g. signed agreements, original statements, XXXX XXXXThe fact that you report many of the same accounts differently across Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion (or even differently from your prior XXXX representations) strongly suggests those items are inaccurate, improperly merged, misattributed, or otherwise erroneous. Indeed, the XXXX XXXX documentation (and the other CRA reports) demonstrate discrepancies that you have ignored or failed to reconcilXXXX  above demonstrates a pattern of ongoing noncompliance and violation of your duty under FCRA 1681i to reinvestigate disputed items, correct or delete inaccurate data, and provide rXXXX XXXXarately, TransUnion has recently disclosed a major data breach (XXXX XXXX XXXX) affecting approximately XXXX individuals, in which unauthorized actors accessed a third-party application tied to your consumer support operations.  \\n\\t\\tThe breach reportedly exposed names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and other personally identifiable information (though you claim no credit information was accessed).  XXXXhis breach underscores systemic deficiencies in your data security, internal controls, and breach readiness, and calls into question the integrity of your verification and recordkeeping processes.\\n\\t\\tThe public class action lawsuits (e.g. by firms investigating claims) already reference TransUnions failure to safeguard consumer data.  \\n\\nTogether, these facts support a claim that your verifications of my disputed items were not reasonable, and that you have persisted in reporting inaccurate information despite repeated noticeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  are key legal principles and cases that support your obligations and potential liability.\\n\\n2.1 FCRA  Duty to reinvestigate & ensure accuracy\\n\\t\\tUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a), upon receipt of a consumers dispute, a credit reporting agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, consider all relevant information provided, and promptly correct or delete information found to be inaccurate or unverifiable.\\n\\t\\tUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b), a credit reporting agency must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in consumer reports.\\n\\t\\tUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681g(b), a consumer has a right to receive a free description of the procedures used in the reinvestigation and the result.\\n\\t\\tUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681i(d), you must provide notice of the results to furnishers and allow them to respond.\\n\\t\\tUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681n (willful noncompliance) and 1681o (negligent noncompliance), I am entitled to statutory damages, actual damages, costs, and attorneys fees, as applicablXXXXBecause you have repeatedly ignored my dispute notices (from XXXX XXXX onward), and have failed to provide credible documentation supporting your verifications, your noncompliance is ongoing and may be willfuXXXX XXXX XXXXability, data security, and heightened scrutinXXXXhile FCRA typically governs credit reporting, the existence of a major data breach implicates additional legal theories (negligence, invasion of privacy, data security, breach of implied contract, etc.). The fact of the breach also raises the standard by which your verification and recordkeeping practices should be judged. Your admissions and public disclosures provide strong support for claims that your security controls and dispute-handling processes are deficient.\\n\\n2.3 Case law where plaintiffs prevailed (or favorable rulings) against TransUnion / CRAs\\n\\nHere are several relevant decisions you may draw upon or cite:\\n\\t\\tArrizon v. TransUnion, LLC (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dist., XXXX XXXX XXXX)  In this case, the Illinois appellate court considered claims against TransUnion for dissemination of inaccurate information, including a long procedural history from federal to state court.  \\XXXX v. TransUnion LLC, XXXX XXXX XXXX)  The court held that CRAs must ensure maximum possible accuracy, even for debts that are void under state law, and that a reasonable procedure must catch legal invalidity.  XXXX XXXX. TransUnion LLC, XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXX  held that each class member must satisfy standing and that TransUnions placement of a false terrorist alert and mishandling of disclosures warranted damages.  XXXX XXXX  v. Ramirez, U.SXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   While the Supreme Court limited the ability of class members to recover in certain circumstances (holding that only those plaintiffs who suffered concrete harm have Article III standing), the decision reaffirmed the importance of the FCRAs protections and has been heavily discussed in the context of consumer reporting suits.  \\n\\t\\tFluker v. Trans Union, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   In that pending or decided district court litigation, the plaintiff alleged failure by TransUnion to reinvestigate identity theft disputes and failure to ensure accuracy of credit reports.  \\n\\nWhile not all of these are complete victories, they illustrate that courts have recognized consumer rights under FCRA and held CRAs liable in similar contexts.XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXBased on the foregoing, I hereby repeat and expand my demands. You must, within XXXX XXXX  of your receipt of this letter:\\n\\t1.\\tConduct a fresh, full, reasonable reinvestigation of every disputed item (including those you previously verified) in light of my XXXX XXXX dispute, my documentation, and the inconsistencies across CRAs and your own recordsXXXXroduce to me, in writing, the results of your reinvestigation, including:\\XXXXThe identity (name, address, contact) of each furnisher/creditor from whom you obtained verification.\\n\\t\\tAll documentation or data considered  e.g. account contracts, original creditor statements, chain-of-title, payment ledgers, or any other record that demonstrates the accuracy and ownership of the account.\\n\\t\\tA description of the procedures you used in your investigation, including cross-checking among CRAs or internal consistency checksXXXXDelete or permanently suppress from my TransUnion credit file (and cease further reporting) any item for which you cannot provide competent, verifiable documentary support demonstrating that it is accurate, owned by me, or properly attributedXXXXNotify all furnishers of the disputed accounts that the information is disputed, and instruct them to cease reporting or updating the disputed items until the dispute is resolved.XXXXFlag my credit file with an identity theft or data breach alert (fraud alert or victim of data breach notation) to warn anyone reviewing the file of heightened XXXX distribution of my file (or portions thereof) to third parties for account-opening or creditgranting purposes until the dispute is resolved in my favor or you provide full documentatioXXXXPreserve all evidence  This includes all related documents, communications, logs, audit trails, internal notes, dispute investigation files, security and forensic reports related to your handling of my file, and all materials relating to the XXXX  data breach. You must not destroy or alter any relevant recordsXXXX  Demand for Immediate Removal of Unauthorized Hard Inquiries\\n\\nIn addition to the disputed accounts, I hereby formally dispute and demand the immediate removal of all hard inquiries listed on my TransUnion credit report whereXXXXo credit was extended,\\n\\t\\tNo loan, service, or account was ever opened or approvedXXXX  did not receive any valuable consideration or benefit from the inquiry, andXXXX XXXXnd/or the reporting creditor have failed to produce any documentation justifying or authorizing such inquiry.\\n\\nLegal Basis:\\n\\nUnder the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b), a consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report only under specific permissible purposes, such as:\\n\\t\\tIn connection with a credit transaction that is initiated by the consumer (1681b(a)(3)(A)),\\n\\t\\tFor employment purposes with written permission (1681b(a)(3)(B)),\\n\\t\\tOr with the consumers express consent (1681b(c) and (e)).\\n\\nAny inquiry placed without a permissible purpose is a violation of FCRA, and a consumer has the right to demand its immediate deletion.\\n\\nAdditionally, an inquiry without a completed credit transaction or where no consideration was exchanged, constitutes a false representation of consumer-initiated credit activity, which injures the consumers creditworthiness, artificially lowers credit scores, and suggests false activity to potential lenders.\\n\\nIf a creditor or lender made an inquiry, but did not extend credit, did not open an account, and cannot prove that I provided informed, written, or recorded consent to that inquiry, it must be deleted under the FCRAs accuracy and permissible use provisions.\\n\\nSupporting Case Law:\\n\\nIn Pintor v. TransUnion, LLC, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the court held that a plaintiff stated a valid FCRA claim where TransUnion failed to remove inquiries that were allegedly made without the consumers knowledge or consent.\\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the court emphasized that consumer reporting agencies must promptly delete inquiries where the furnisher cannot confirm a permissible purposeXXXXAccordingly, I hereby demand that all hard inquiries that meet any of the following conditions be immediately removed from my TransUnion credit file:\\n\\t\\tThe lender or creditor did not extend credit, issue a loan, approve a service, or otherwise complete a transaction;\\n\\t\\tI received no benefit or consideration (no value exchanged);\\n\\t\\tThere is no signed authorization or proof of permissible purpose;XXXXhe inquiry was not initiated by me or lacks my express written consent.\\n\\nYou must also provide a written explanation ofXXXXhe original source and purpose of each hard inquiry;\\n\\t2.\\tWhether credit was extended or a transaction completed;\\n\\t3.\\tThe date and nature of any signed or recorded authorization you claim to have relied upon.\\n\\nFailure to remove unauthorized hard inquiries will constitute willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and subject you to statutory and punitive damages.\\n\\n\\nIf you fail to comply, I will proceed with all available legal remedies, including:\\n\\t\\tFiling suit for statutory and actual damages (under 15 U.S.C. 1681n/1681o), injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees\\n\\t\\tJoining or initiating class action claims\\n\\t\\tComplaints to the CFPB, FTC, state attorneys general, and other regulatory bodies\\n\\t\\tSeeking punitive or exemplary damages (where available) for willful or reckless misconduct\\n\\nI require your written acknowledgment and substantive response within 30 days from receipt of this notice, sent to the address above. Failure to respond or refusal to remove or correct the disputed items will be considered willful noncompliance and will be used as evidence in any future litigation or regulatory action.\\n\\nSincerely,\\n\\nManuel Javier CarrilloXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accompanies my TransUnion dispute submission regarding inaccurate and unlawfully obtained data linked to the TransUnion data breach. All items listed below are inaccurate, re-aged, misleading, or unauthorized and must be corrected or deleted immediately under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.  1681 et seq.),  604,  605B, and  623, as well as 47 U.S. Code  605, which prohibits the unauthorized publication or use of communications or data obtained without proper authorization.\\n\\n\\n\\nI. Verified and Accurate Personal Information\\n\\nField\\tCorrect Information\\tNotes\\nFull XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Personal Information to Be Removed\\nCategory\\tInaccurate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXRemove all\\tNot mine / duplicates\\nEmployers\\tMilayva Roof Co  Jamba Juice\\tRemove\\tOutdated or not affiliated\\n\\nIII. Accounts with Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting\\n\\nEach of the following accounts contains data-breach exposure, re-aging, or inconsistent reporting across bureaus, producing false delinquencies, charge-offs, or payment patterns.\\n\\n1. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Pay Status: > Charge-off <\\n\\t\\tInaccuracies: Business account incorrectly tied to personal credit; continuous Date Updated entries (XXXX) suggest unlawful re-aging. Payment-status history changes monthly, which misrepresents true closure.\\n\\t\\tRequested Action: Delete immediately; business accounts are not consumer debts under FCRA.\\n\\n\\n2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX > Paid, Closed <\\n\\t\\tInaccuracies: Reported 120 days past due despite full payment XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  misstate closure.\\n\\t\\tRequested Action: Correct to Paid as agreed / Closed  Never late or deleteXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  high-balance history altered; inconsistent late-payment pattern across bureaus; taxable charge-off misclassified as open delinquency.\\n\\t\\tRequested Action: Delete or update to Closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  differ by CRA; months reported 90 on TransUnion show OK elsewhere. Misleading to lenders.\\n\\t\\tRequested Action: Remove all negative history or delete entire account for data integrityXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXCharge-off)\\n\\t\\tInaccuracies: Successive Charge-off postings monthly through 09/25; indicates re-aging and false open status.\\n\\t\\tRequested Action: Delete entirely; account is a completed charge-off (taxable event).\\n\\n\\n\\n6. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Status: Charge-off\\n\\t\\tInaccuracies: Re-aged and reported as updated 10/06/25; misleads creditors and violates FCRA 623(a)(5).\\n\\t\\tRequested Action: Delete immediatelyXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX: Listed as joint account despite no joint contract; false placed for collection date XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX: Factoring account falsely assigned; consumer never contracted with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXelete immediatelyXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXs: Duplicate factoring entry; collection status without agreement; repeated updates after closure.\\n\\t\\tRequested Action: Delete in full.\\n\\n\\n\\nIV. Requested Summary of Corrections\\n\\t1.\\tKeep only the accurate personal information in Section I.\\n\\t2.\\tRemove all inaccurate personal and employment data (Section II).\\n\\t3.\\tDelete or correct each erroneous account (Section III).\\n\\t4.\\tProvide written confirmation of all changes within 30 days.\\n\\n\\n\\nV. Unauthorized / Identity-Theft Inquiries\\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\\tNo permissible purpose; identity-theft suspected.\\tDelete immediately & block future accessXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXUnauthorized soft inquiry; no application.\\tDelete immediately\\XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXermissible purpose; possible breach data use.\\tRemove & block access\\nRXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  no credit application.\\tDelete immediately\\nFXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXUnauthorized access to file; no request made by consumer.\\tRemove\\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX possible identity-theft link.\\tRemove\\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXNo permissible purpose; unauthorized inquiry.\\tDelete immediately\\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX valuable consideration or credit exte\\t\\n\\nSupporting Notes\\n\\t\\tNone of the above inquiries were authorized by me or connected to legitimate credit applications.\\n\\t\\tThese violations fall under FCRA 604(a) (no permissible purpose) and must be blocked per 605B (identity-theft provision).\\n\\t\\tPlease confirm removal and initiate an identity-theft block across the file.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-11T16:01:28.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92807","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17172809","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-11T15:39:29.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["You have not provided to me, nor (so far as I know), to any court or agency, any substantive creditor or lender documentation that <em>supports</em> your verification of those remaining disputed items (e.g. signed agreements, original statements, XXXX XXXXThe fact that you report <em>many</em> of the same accounts differently <em>across</em> Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion (or even differently from your prior XXXX representations) strongly suggests those items are inaccurate, improperly merged, misattributed, or otherwise"],"issue":["Incorrect <em>information</em> on your report"]},"sort":[7.203447,"17172809"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12926172","_score":5.374337,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Adverse Action Narrative TransUnions Systematic Violation of FCRA 615 ( a ) and Federal Law I am submitting this narrative to document TransUnions unlawful reporting of fraudulent accounts and adverse public records without evidence of proper adverse action notification from furnishers, in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 15 U.S.C. 1681m ( a ), and multiple provisions under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.\n\n1. Legal Obligation to Provide Adverse Action Notices According to FCRA 615 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681m ), if a creditor, lender, or any entity takes adverse action against a consumer based on information obtained from a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ), they are required to send an adverse action notice that includes : The name and contact information of the CRA.\n\nA statement that the CRA did not make the decision to take the adverse action.\n\nA notice of the consumer 's right to a free credit report.\n\nThe right to dispute inaccuracies with the CRA. \n\nFailure to issue this notice is not only a violation of federal law it undermines my ability to respond, dispute, or correct errors in a timely manner. \n\n2. TransUnions Violation of this Requirement TransUnion is knowingly reporting fraudulent accounts and public records including bankruptcies and collection accounts without verifying whether an adverse action notice was sent by the creditor or data furnisher. \n\nIn many of these cases, the creditor used an address that does not belong to me and to which I never had access. \n\nThis is supported by : My FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ), which identifies accounts on my credit report that I never authorized and which are tied to unauthorized addresses, such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX none of which are my legal residences. \n\nMy XXXX XXXX Police Report ( XXXX ) documenting the loss of my drivers license, Social Security card, and other personal documents. These materials were likely used by third parties to fraudulently open accounts in my name. \n\nBecause these furnishers had incorrect and unauthorized addresses, it is legally impossible for them to have fulfilled the adverse action notice requirement under 1681m. If I never received a notice, I was never informed of the creditors adverse decision, and therefore deprived of my opportunity to dispute it.\n\nTransUnion, as the consumer reporting agency, has a duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) to maintain maximum possible accuracy in the consumer file and to use reasonable procedures to ensure that furnishers are compliant with the law. Allowing accounts to report without confirming proper adverse action notifications were issued to the consumer shows a failure of those procedures. \n\n3. Adverse Action Violations = FCRA Noncompliance + Criminal Conduct TransUnions willful and repeated actions violate : FCRA 615 ( a ) : No adverse action notices = illegal reporting.\n\nFCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to use reasonable procedures to ensure furnishers followed the law.\n\nFCRA 1681n & 1681o : Willful and negligent noncompliance with FCRA obligations.\n\nFCRA 1681i : Failure to investigate after formal disputes.\n\nBecause TransUnion continues reporting these accounts after receiving identity theft documentation, this conduct also meets the threshold for criminal violations : Wire Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1343 ) : Transmitting false credit data electronically.\n\nMail Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1341 ) : Using USPS to deliver credit reports containing knowingly inaccurate data.\n\nObstruction of Justice ( 18 U.S.C. 1519 ) : Ignoring FTC and police documentation.\n\nComputer Fraud and Abuse Act ( 18 U.S.C. 1030 ) : Unauthorized access, use, and dissemination of sensitive consumer data.\n\nAiding and Abetting ( 18 U.S.C. 2 ) : TransUnions cooperation with creditors who failed to follow the law makes them liable as a principal actor. \n\n4. The Core Issue : Lack of a Permissible Address = No Legal Notice Possible The entire adverse action process depends on a valid and current consumer address. In my case, creditors used old or fraudulent addresses, which means : They could not have legally notified me.\n\nI never received notice of these debts or denials.\n\nThe entries on my credit file were made and reported illegally.\n\nBy allowing these entries to remain on file despite having received identity theft affidavits and police documentation, TransUnion is complicit in these legal violations.\n\nthis formal complaint against TransUnion and TransUnion for multiple violations of federal law, including but not limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Title 18 of the U.S. Code. My primary concern arises from the mishandling of my credit file, improper reinsertion of fraudulent accounts, failure to block fraudulent information, and obstruction of justice. Background of the Incident I lost my purse, which contained my government-issued ID, Social Security card , and financial documents. Despite my efforts to recover it, I was unable to do so. At the time, I did not immediately report the loss, as I did not notice any unauthorized activity. However, upon reviewing my credit report, I discovered that fraudulent accounts had been opened shortly after the loss using my stolen information. These fraudulent accounts were not only unauthorized but also resulted in adverse actions sent to an address that does not belong to me. I have since filed a police report and an FTC Identity Theft Report to document and address this identity theft. Despite these reports, TransUnion has refused to remove fraudulent accounts and TransUnions Special Handling Department, under the authority of an individual named XXXX, has been uncooperative, dismissive, and has failed to take the necessary protective actions regarding my identity and account security. Violations Committed by TransUnion 1. Unlawful Reinsertion of Fraudulent Accounts TransUnion initially removed a fraudulent account after my dispute, only to reinsert it without the legally required notice, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) of the FCRA. This action deprived me of my right to dispute it again, a blatant violation of consumer protection laws. 2. Failure to Block Fraudulent Information Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ), a credit reporting agency must block identity theft-related information within four business days after receiving appropriate documentation, such as an FTC Identity Theft Report and a police report. Despite my submission of these documents, TransUnion refused to comply, allowing fraudulent accounts to continue damaging my credit profile. 3. Failure to Validate Information I formally requested debt validation for these fraudulent accounts under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), but TransUnion failed to provide any proof that I authorized the accounts. If no such proof exists, they are legally required to delete the information immediately, yet they continue to report these fraudulent accounts. 4. Criminal Violations Committed by TransUnion By knowingly reporting false information, TransUnion is engaged in multiple criminal offenses, including : Wire Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1343 ) : Transmitting fraudulent credit information electronically across state lines, despite receiving an FTC Identity Theft Report and a police report. Bank Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1344 ) : Knowingly allowing fraudulent accounts to remain, misleading federally insured financial institutions in lending decisions. Mail Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1341 ) : Enabling creditors to send adverse action notices to an incorrect address, preventing me from disputing fraudulent accounts. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 371 ) : Willfully collaborating with creditors to maintain fraudulent accounts despite evidence of identity theft. Obstruction of Justice ( 18 U.S.C. 1519 ) : Refusing to acknowledge official reports, obstructing federal investigations, and hindering regulatory enforcement efforts. Violations Committed by TransUnions Special Handling Department 1. Failure to Properly Investigate and Protect My Identity TransUnion, under the supervision of an individual named XXXX in the Special Handling Department Case Number : XXXX has failed to secure my credit file and has acted in bad faith. Despite my request for added security measures, XXXX has been uncooperative, rude, and negligent in addressing my identity theft concerns. This is a direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ), which mandates credit bureaus to ensure the accuracy and protection of consumer credit reports. 2. Failure to Adhere to the FCRA and CFPB Guidelines As a consumer reporting agency, TransUnion is required to maintain accurate credit files and must comply with all consumer protection laws. Their failure to do so constitutes : Negligent Noncompliance with the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681o ) : Failing to take reasonable steps to prevent identity theft and fraudulent credit reporting. Willful Noncompliance with the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) : Knowingly allowing inaccurate and fraudulent information to remain on my credit report. I lost my PURSE, which contained sensitive personal information, including my government-issued ID, Social Security card , and financial documents. Despite retracing my steps, I was unable to recover it. At the time, I did not report the loss because I did not notice any immediate fraudulent activity. Recently, while reviewing my credit report, I discovered fraudulent accounts had been opened in my name shortly after the loss. These accounts were opened without my authorization, using my stolen information, and adverse actions were sent to an address that does not belong to me. I am filing this report because I believe the person who found my wallet used my personal information to commit identity theft. I am pursuing all legal remedies to resolve this matter and hold the responsible party accountable. I am filing this complaint against TransUnion for multiple violations of federal law regarding their handling of fraudulent accounts on my credit report. Despite an FTC Identity Theft Report already on file and a newly filed police report, TransUnion continues to report accounts that were fraudulently opened in my name. These accounts stem from a stolen wallet containing my government-issued ID, Social Security card , and financial information, which led to unauthorized credit activity. Violations Committed by TransUnion 1. Unlawful Reinsertion of Fraudulent Accounts TransUnion initially deleted an account after my dispute, only to reinsert it without legally required notice under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). This is a clear violation, as they failed to provide written notification within five business days, depriving me of my right to dispute it again. 2. Failure to Block Fraudulent Information Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ), TransUnion must block information resulting from identity theft within four business days after receiving proper documentation, including an FTC Identity Theft Report and a police report. They refused to comply, allowing creditors to continue reporting fraudulent accounts. 3. Failure to Validate Information I requested debt validation for the fraudulent accounts as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), but TransUnion failed to provide any proof that I authorized these accounts. If no legal proof exists, they are obligated to delete the information immediately. 4. Criminal Violations Committed By knowingly reporting false information, TransUnion is engaging in wire fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1343 ), bank fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1344 ), and mail fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1341 ), as they transmitted fraudulent data electronically and allowed adverse action notices to be sent to an incorrect address. Additionally, their actions amount to conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, as they are willfully participating in deceptive financial reporting that harms consumers. TransUnion is not above the law and can not continue to act as if they are merely a reporting entity while ignoring their legal obligations. I will pursue civil litigation if necessary and will also escalate this matter to the United States District Attorney for criminal review. There is indisputable evidence proving TransUnion Is noncompliance, and they can not lawfully claim innocence given the facts presented. Criminal Violations Committed by TransUnion Under Title 18 U.S. Code TransUnion actions in knowingly re-reporting fraudulent accounts, failing to block identity theft-related information, and refusing to comply with federal dispute laws constitute multiple criminal violations under Title 18 of the United States Code . These violations extend beyond civil infractions and fall under federal criminal law, which carries severe penalties, including fines and imprisonment. Below are the specific statutes TransUnion has violated : 1. Wire Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1343 ) TransUnion has engaged in wire fraud by electronically transmitting false and misleading information across state lines. Despite receiving an FTC Identity Theft Report and a police report, they continue to report fraudulent accounts as valid. By doing so, they knowingly facilitate the misrepresentation of my financial status to lenders, which can cause financial harm, denials of credit, or higher interest rates. This constitutes a scheme to defraud, using electronic means to commit fraud against me as a consumer. 2. Bank Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1344 ) TransUnion refusal to correct fraudulent accounts enables creditors to make lending decisions based on false information. This affects federally insured banks that rely on TransUnion reports when determining loan eligibility. By knowingly allowing fraudulent accounts to remain, TransUnion is aiding and abetting bank fraud by facilitating financial deception that leads to wrongful lending or credit denials. 3. Mail Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1341 ) TransUnion permitted creditors to send adverse action notices to an incorrect address, resulting in my inability to dispute fraudulent accounts in a timely manner. Mailing false credit reports and adverse actions based on fraudulent data constitutes mail fraud, as they knowingly sent or caused misleading documents to be mailed, which is a federal offense. XXXX. Conspiracy to Commit XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) TransUnion willful collaboration with creditors to keep fraudulent accounts reporting, despite clear evidence of identity theft, constitutes conspiracy to commit fraud. They are acting in concert with financial institutions by refusing to delete fraudulent accounts, ultimately harming consumers while profiting from inaccurate credit reporting. XXXX. Obstruction of Justice ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) TransUnion refusal to acknowledge official identity theft complaints, police reports, and FTC reports amounts to obstruction of justice. By ignoring and delaying legally required actions, they are actively interfering with federal investigations and regulatory enforcement, which is a federal crime. \n\nUnder the FCRA, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, a consumer reporting agency XXXX furnish a consumer report only under certain circumstances and for specified permissible purposes. I did not authorize these entities to access my credit information, nor did any permissible purpose exist for such inquiries and account postings. Therefore, their actions constitute a direct violation of federal law. 2. Unauthorized Access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ( CFAA ), 18 U.S.C. 1030 ( a ) ( 2 ) Accessing my credit information without proper authorization may also constitute a violation of the CFAA, 18 U.S.C. 1030 ( a ) ( 2 ), which prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information. By retrieving my credit report without my consent, these entities have potentially engaged in unlawful access to protected computer systems containing my personal and financial data. 3. TransUnion 's Responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) As a consumer reporting agency, TransUnion is obligated under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation if a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any item in their credit file. Failure to promptly correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information after such a dispute constitutes non-compliance with federal law. It is imperative that TransUnion upholds its legal duties to ensure the integrity of the information it reports. 4. Failure to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy, 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), TransUnion must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. The inclusion of unauthorized inquiries and accounts indicates a failure to maintain reasonable procedures, thereby violating this provision of the FCRA. 5. Facilitating Violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6801 The GLBA requires financial institutions to protect the security and confidentiality of consumers ' nonpublic personal information. By allowing unauthorized entities to access and place information on my credit report, TransUnion may be facilitating violations of the GLBA, compromising the privacy and security of my personal financial data. 6. Negative Impact on My Creditworthiness These unauthorized inquiries and accounts have adversely affected my credit score and creditworthiness, causing potential harm to my financial reputation and opportunities. Under the FCRA, I have the right to dispute inaccurate information and expect timely correction to prevent further damage. 7. Violation of Wire Fraud Statute ( 18 U.S.C. 1343 ) TransUnion has committed wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 by electronically transmitting unauthorized hard inquiries and accounts on my credit report without my explicit consent. By using interstate wire communications to execute this scheme, TransUnion intentionally misrepresented my credit information. Despite prior disputes and notices, the company repeatedly included these unauthorized entries, demonstrating an intentional effort to defraud me through electronic means. This misuse of electronic systems to disseminate false information satisfies all elements required for wire fraud under federal law. 8. Violations Under the XXXX XXXX and Corrupt Organizations Act ( XXXX ) ( 18 U.S.C. 19611968 ) This marks the third instance in which TransUnion has been involved in reporting unauthorized inquiries and accounts from the same entities on my credit report. Under the XXXX XXXX and Corrupt Organizations Act ( XXXX ), 18 U.S.C. 19611968, engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise is prohibited. TransUnion 's repeated unauthorized reporting of this information, in collaboration with these companies, constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity. By knowingly facilitating these unauthorized entries, TransUnion is participating in an enterprise engaging in illegal activities, thereby violating XXXX statutes. 9. Violation of Mail Fraud Statute ( 18 U.S.C. 1341 ) TransUnion is sending me copies of my credit report via postal mail, which contain unauthorized and inaccurate information. By using the United States Postal Service to deliver these credit reports with knowingly incorrect data, TransUnion is utilizing the mail system to further a scheme that misrepresents my creditworthiness. This action constitutes mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341, which prohibits the use of the postal service in executing a scheme to defraud or obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. TransUnion 's deliberate dissemination of false credit information through the mail meets all legal criteria for mail fraud as defined by federal law. 10. Aiding and Abetting Unauthorized Activities ( 18 U.S.C. 2 ) TransUnion is allowing these companies to place unauthorized inquiries and accounts on my credit report without proper verification or permissible purpose. By facilitating these unlawful actions and failing to protect me as a consumer, TransUnion is aiding and abetting these entities in violating federal laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Under 18 U.S.C. 2, anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of a federal offense is punishable as a principal. TransUnion 's negligence and failure to exercise due diligence make them complicit in these unlawful activities, directly contributing to the harm inflicted upon me. 11. Grounds for Bank Fraud ( 18 U.S.C. 1344 ) TransUnion 's actions also constitute bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1344, which prohibits schemes to defraud financial institutions or to obtain assets under their control by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. By inaccurately reporting information that adversely affects my creditworthiness, TransUnion is influencing financial institutions to make decisions based on false information. This leads to wrongful financial gain for the entities involved and causes financial harm to me. Manipulating credit reports in this manner meets the criteria for bank fraud as defined by federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-10T17:01:45.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77038","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12926172","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-10T16:11:33.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In <em>many</em> of these cases, the creditor used an address that does not belong to me and to which I never had access. \n\nThis is <em>supported</em> by : My FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ), which identifies accounts on my credit report that I never authorized and which are tied to unauthorized addresses, such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX none of which are my legal residences."]},"sort":[5.374337,"12926172"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3024586","_score":5.1262126,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is based on HSBC Bank USA, N.A. refusal to award a {$200.00} incentive bonus for a new checking account applied to on XX/XX/XXXX and funded XX/XX/XXXX. Terms state {$1500.00} in new funds must be kept in account for 3 months and processing of promotion takes 8 weeks. Secure chat, secure messaging, and phone calls to customer support centers ( including unanswered messages to customer retention department ) have been made regarding the missing {$200.00}. All phone calls and secure messaging responses from HSBC Bank USA, N.A. have been recorded. The offer page was saved as a PDF before the application was submitted in XX/XX/XXXX. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is  refusing to honor the terms and conditions of a checking account campaign widely disseminated across the United States. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. refuses to accept evidence proving eligibility of the promotion. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is stating the offer is invalidated because of a credit card that was opened in XX/XX/XXXX. This is not stated in the terms and condition, which explicitly define New Consumer Deposit Offers as checking accounts. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is refusing to furnish terms stating ineligibility of the promotion due to a previous banking relationship in the past year. No consumer deposit account has ever been opened besides the choice checking account on XX/XX/XXXX. Below is the entire complaint that includes secure messages from HSBC Bank USA, N.A., web history screenshots, and account terms from https : //www.us.hsbc.com. \n\nThis complaint is based on HSBC Bank USA, N.A., hereafter HSBC, refusal to award a {$200.00} incentive bonus for a new checking account, which was applied to on XX/XX/XXXX and funded XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSummary of terms saved on day of account application, XX/XX/XXXX : Open your new HSBC Choice Checking account online by XX/XX/XXXX ; and Deposit a minimum Qualifying Balance of {$1500.00} or more in New Money in combined checking and savings accounts within 30 calendar days of account opening ; and Maintain at least the minimum Qualifying Balance for 90 calendar days from the date you deposited the minimum Qualifying Balance. \n\nYou will automatically receive the {$200.00} Welcome Deposit in your new HSBC Choice Checking account approximately eight weeks after completing all qualifying activities. It's that simple. \n\nTwo transactions were made to the checking account : {$1500.00} was deposited XX/XX/XXXX and {$100.00} was deposited XX/XX/XXXX. All calls to HSBC were recorded and I would be happy to provide a link if necessary to corroborate what is written below. Secure message replies from HSBC sent through secure chat are copied below. \n\nA chat was initiated on XX/XX/XXXX inquiring about the bonus. The response is displayed below : XX/XX/XXXX Dear REDACTED : We are writing you in regard to the conversation you had with us via Live Chat. \n\nUpon review, we show that you did not qualify for the promotion when opening your account. The reason for this, was due to the account not being opened through the promotional page. If you have proof that you followed the account opening process correctly for the promotion, please either utilize our Live Chat feature or call our Premier Customer Service line at XXXX ( toll free at XXXX ) to provide this proof. \n\nIf you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us either via BankMail or Live Chat. \n\n\nFor additional information on the products and services HSBC Bank offers, please visit us at us.hsbc.com Thank you, HSBC Digital Contact Center HSBC Bank USA, N.A. XX/XX/XXXX. All Rights Reserved. \n\n\nI called the number listed in the secure message from HSBC and told the representative I had proof in my search results of clicking the offer link in addition to a saved PDF of the offer page from XX/XX/XXXX. I was told there was no mechanism for me to submit this proof. I then initiated a secure chat was was told the same thing. Finally, I sent a reply to the secure message above stating I had the evidence requested, but no HSBC agent had the means to accept it. Each time after contacting customer support I was told to wait 5-7 business days for the marketing and promotions team to respond since this was not a customer facing team. \n\nThe response from HSBC is below : XX/XX/XXXX Dear REDACTED : Thank you for contacting HSBC Bank USA, N.A. \n\nWe understand your concern with regards to the promotional bonus offer for {$200.00} Please be informed that my colleague has forwarded the concern to the online team please allow 2-3 business days to investigate on this.\n\nHowever the offer link has to be from HSBC link. \n\nWe apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused. \n\nIf you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us by calling XXXX, initiating a Live Chat on us.hsbc.com or by replying to this BankMail. \n\nFor additional information on the products and services HSBC Bank offers, please visit us at us.hsbc.com Thank you, HSBC Digital Contact Center HSBC Bank USA, N.A. XX/XX/XXXX. All Rights Reserved. \n\nTen days later, on XX/XX/XXXX I received a reply from secure messaging stating a new reason why HSBC was refusing to award the promotion -- a credit card application that was approved XX/XX/XXXX. I responded to the secure message quoting the terms below, which do not include opening a line of credit as an exclusion to the checking account offer : Customers who held an HSBC consumer deposit or investment account from XX/XX/XXXX through and including XX/XX/XXXX are not eligible for this offer. All qualifying activities must be completed within the stated time frames in order to be eligible for the Welcome Deposit ... Eligible customers who take advantage of this offer can not receive any other New Consumer Deposit Offers provided by HSBC Bank USA, N.A. New Consumer Deposit Offers are defined as incentives in a form of merchandise and/or cash bonus that are offered to customers who open an eligible checking account and satisfy qualifying activities. \n\n\nAfter no response through secure messaging I called the premier call center and asked to speak to a supervisor. Both I and the supervisor agreed that per the terms new consumer deposit offers clearly refer to checking accounts and not lines of credit. She made a new inquiry to the marketing and promotions department asking for clarification on what account was previously opened in the past year. She then said if the only previous account was a credit card I could expect to receive the {$200.00} bonus. The response via secure messaging was received XX/XX/XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Dear REDACTED : Thank you for contacting HSBC Bank USA, N.A We thank you for your follow-up BankMail with regards to the account opening promotional bonus. \n\nWe regret to inform you that the account did not qualify for the promotional bonus as you had previous relationship in the last 1 year of campaign start date. \n\nWe regret for any inconvenience this may cause. \n\nIf you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Alternatively, you may contact our Customer Relationship Center at XXXX for further assistance. \n\nThank you, HSBC Digital Contact Center HSBC Bank USA, N.A. XX/XX/XXXX. All Rights Reserved. \n\nAfter replying again and stating the terms do not define a line of credit as a new consumer account I received a response XX/XX/XXXX. \nNote the link to the offer page in the reply from HSBC is for the advance checking instead of the choice checking : XX/XX/XXXX Dear REDACTED : Thank you for contacting HSBC Bank USA, N.A We thank you for your follow-up BankMail with regards to the account opening promotional bonus. \n\nIn order to get the bonus you have to be new to bank customer Upon review, we notice that your account did not qualify for the promotional bonus as you had previous relationship in the last 1 year of campaign start date. In order to know more details Please click on the below link. \n\nhttps : //www.us.hsbc.comXXXX # advance-checking-details We appreciate you giving us the opportunity to service your account via this mode of communication. We encourage you to continue to use this service for your banking related inquiries. \n\nIf you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us by initiating a chat with us. Live Chat agents available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to help with many of your banking needs. Log on to Personal Internet Banking and click the Live Chat button found on the right side of the screen to start chatting. or by replying to this Bank Mail. For additional information on the products and services HSBC Bank offers, please visit us at us.hsbc.com alternatively you may also call our customer care at XXXX - XXXX Monday - Sunday XXXXXXXX XXXX - XXXXXXXX XXXX EST. \n\nThank you, HSBC Digital Contact Center HSBC Bank USA, N.A. XX/XX/XXXX. All Rights Reserved. \n\n\n\nNew message from XX/XX/XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Dear REDACTED : Thank you for contacting HSBC Bank USA, N.A. \n\nWe understand your concern with regards to the promotional bonus offer for {$200.00} Please be informed as per the investigation done by our Marketing and Campaign Team, your account is not qualified for the promotional offer. \nAs there was a past relationship with HSBC in last 1 year of campaign start date. However, please be informed we have forwarded your request again to the Campaign Team based on your BankMail to reconsider and consider your account. \n\nThank you, HSBC Digital Contact Center HSBC Bank USA, N.A. XX/XX/XXXX. All Rights Reserved. \n\nNew message from XX/XX/XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Dear REDACTED : Greetings from HSBC USA N.A.!\n\nHope this BankMail finds you well. \nWe are writing this BankMail with regards to the welcome bonus inquiry you had. \n\nAs we mention in our earlier correspondence BankMail, we regert to inform you after our Marketing and Campaign Team has reviewed your account, it has been concluded that you do not qualify for the offer as we notice that your account did not qualify for the promotional bonus as you had previous relationship in the last 1 year of campaign start date. \nWe regert any inconvinience this may have caused. However, as per the promotion offer of your account opening, customer who held any HSBC consumer account are not eligible for the offer. \n\nPlease be informed, we have log a complain number XXXX on your behalf so that our Management Team can review it. \n\nWe sincerely apologize for any inconvinience this may have caused. \n\n\nThank you, HSBC Digital Contact Center HSBC Bank USA, N.A. XX/XX/XXXX. All Rights Reserved.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-09-20T05:33:25.000Z","issue":"Opening an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"87107","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3024586","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC.","date_received":"2018-09-20T05:08:07.000Z","state":"NM","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive terms that were advertised"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is  refusing to honor the terms and conditions of a checking account campaign widely <em>disseminated</em> <em>across</em> the United States. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. refuses to accept evidence proving eligibility of the promotion. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is stating the offer is invalidated because of a credit card that was opened in XX/XX/XXXX. This is not stated in the terms and condition, which explicitly define New Consumer Deposit Offers as checking accounts."]},"sort":[5.1262126,"3024586"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12954528","_score":4.312581,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nExperian Information Solutions , Inc. and XXXX XXXX, Defendants. \n\nCase No. _______ Complaint for Violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC Act Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise under federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( via 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( d ) ). The Court also has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for federal court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2. Supplemental/Additional Jurisdiction : To the extent any state law claims or regulatory violations are asserted or applicable ( including unfair/deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and parallel state laws ), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. ( Note : The primary causes of action are federal ; no diversity jurisdiction is required or asserted. ) 3. Venue : Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because the Plaintiff resides in Oregon, the harm to Plaintiffs credit and reputation occurred in Oregon, and Defendants conduct substantial business in Oregon. Defendants regularly sell products/reports and maintain data on Oregon consumers ( including Plaintiff ), and many of the acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District.\n\nParties 4. Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ) is a natural person and consumer residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OR XXXX. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ) ) and FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) ). Plaintiff has no significant personal debts or credit obligations currently in her name, as evidenced by public records ( see infra 15 ).\n\n5. Defendant Experian : Defendant Experian Information Solutions , Inc. ( Experian ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). Experian is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. Experian regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \nXXXX. Defendant XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties in Oregon. \n7. Agency Liability : At all relevant times, Defendants acted individually and through their agents, employees, and representatives, each of whom was acting within the scope of their employment and authority. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of such agents as described herein. \n\nFactual Background 8. Overview : This case arises from Defendants willful and reckless failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws in connection with inaccurate and unlawful information on Plaintiffs credit reports. In summary, Experian and XXXX have been reporting multiple erroneous accounts and a bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file that do not belong to her or are otherwise unverifiable. Despite repeated notices and disputes from Plaintiff including an official identity theft report and detailed dispute letters Defendants failed to reasonably reinvestigate the disputed information, refused to remove the unlawful entries, and continued reporting them, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants conduct violates the FCRAs requirements for accuracy and reinvestigation, the FDCPAs prohibitions on false debt information ( to the extent applicable ), and constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the FTC Act and CFPB regulations. \n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early XXXX, Plaintiff discovered that her Experian and XXXX credit reports contained several inaccurate derogatory entries, including five account tradelines and a purported bankruptcy that she did not authorize. These disputed items, which remain on her reports as of the date of filing this Complaint, are : XXXX  XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX  XXXX reported as a charge-off. No account number is listed on the credit report for this debt, and the account is unverified and inaccurately reported. This account had been subject to prior legal proceedings ( including a bankruptcy matter ), yet it is still being reported as an outstanding charge-off, which is misleading. \nXXXX  XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened ~XX/XX/XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account , also listed as a charge-off with no account number on the report. Like the above, this account is unverified, appears to have been included in past bankruptcy litigation, and is being illegally re-aged or misreported as a valid debt despite the absence of supporting information. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ( # XXXX ) : A mortgage tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an open date that is not verified. The reporting on this account contains fraudulent and deceptive inaccuracies for example, the accounts status and date of first delinquency are unconfirmed, and the information reported is inconsistent across Experian and XXXX. The furnisher XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX has provided no documentation ( such as an original promissory note or payment history ) to substantiate this debt, calling into question its validity. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account ( Opened XXXX XXXX ) : An auto finance account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misclassified on the credit reports as an auto lease when in fact it was a standard retail installment loan. This account is inaccurate and unverifiable ; the furnishing source has failed to verify its legitimacy. The misclassification and lack of verification render the reporting false and misleading. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account ( Opened ~XX/XX/XXXX ) : A second auto finance account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX similarly falsely reported as an auto lease instead of a loan. This tradeline is also inaccurate and unverified under FCRA guidelines, lacking proper documentation or proof that it belongs to Plaintiff or was reported correctly. \nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX bankruptcy at any time. There is no court case number or documentation provided with this entry. In fact, the federal PACER system ( Public Access to Court Electronic Records ) does not furnish bankruptcy data to credit bureaus ; therefore, the presence of this entry on Plaintiffs credit report is wholly unsupported and unlawful. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity or misattribution, yet Defendants have continued to report it without any proof of its authenticity. \n10. No Supporting Documentation : For each of the above-listed disputed accounts and the bankruptcy, Defendants have no legitimate proof or documentation demonstrating that the information is accurate or that the accounts actually belong to Plaintiff. Plaintiff owes no such debts. Notably, as of XX/XX/XXXX, a search of the Oregon Secretary of States UCC ( Uniform Commercial Code ) filings under Plaintiffs name yielded No file entries, indicating that Plaintiff has no recorded liens or personal debt obligations in the public record. This public record confirmation underscores that the accounts appearing on her credit reports are not valid debts of hers. Defendants have been reporting these items without any underlying contractual documents, account statements, judgments, or court records tying them to Plaintiff. \nXXXX. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, XXXX initiated disputes with Experian and XXXX to correct these egregious errors. XXXX prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both Experian and XXXX ( as well as to XXXX ) identifying each incorrect account and the bogus bankruptcy, and demanding their immediate deletion. In her dispute correspondence, Plaintiff cited the relevant provisions of federal law and highlighted the legal deficiencies of each reported item. For example, Plaintiffs letter ( a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ) explicitly noted that : ( a ) the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-offs were reported without the required creditor notice and appeared to involve misreported bankruptcy status ; ( b ) the accounts lacked a proper first date of delinquency, raising concerns of illegal re-aging ; ( c ) the XXXX accounts were mischaracterized in type ; and ( d ) the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX bankruptcy was not hers and could not be verified through any official source. Plaintiffs dispute letter put Defendants on clear notice that the information was inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally impermissible to report. Along with her dispute letter, Plaintiff provided supporting evidence, including an FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ) and proof of her identity and address, to facilitate the investigation. This Identity Theft Report, filed with the Federal Trade Commission, formally declared that fraudulent or erroneous accounts were being reported in Plaintiffs name. \n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, Experian and XXXX failed to perform a meaningful reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ). Instead of removing the plainly invalid accounts, Defendants continued reporting them with no changes. Upon information and belief, Defendants either ignored some of Plaintiffs dispute submissions or failed to forward all relevant information to the furnishers of the accounts, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). Notably, in subsequent communications, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any new information or documentation to substantiate the disputed items legitimacy. In fact, Experian and XXXX failed to even maintain the documents Plaintiff provided : at least one of the Defendants admitted to having lost Plaintiffs FTC Identity Theft Report that she had submitted, which made a proper reinvestigation impossible. By effectively conducting sham investigations or no real investigation at all, Defendants violated their reinvestigation duties under the FCRA. \n13. Failure to Mark or Notify ( FCRA & FDCPA Duties ) : In addition, Defendants did not properly mark the disputed accounts as disputed on Plaintiffs credit file during the investigation period, nor did they notify the furnishers of the disputes in a timely and effective manner. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) requires that when a consumer disputes information, the credit reporting agency must note that dispute in all subsequent consumer reports for that item until it is resolved. On information and belief, Experian and XXXX did not include a notice of dispute on at least some of the accounts when sharing Plaintiffs credit report with third parties, thereby misrepresenting the status of the debts. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants acted as agents of the furnishers or worked in concert with them, their continued reporting of these disputed debts without clarification or verification also constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), it is a deceptive practice for a debt collector to communicate credit information which is known ( or should be known ) to be false or disputed. By extension, Defendants actions in publishing disputed, false debts to others without indicating the disputes or ensuring accuracy are unfair and deceptive acts in connection with debt collection and credit reporting. \nXXXX. Willful Reporting of False Bankruptcy : The inclusion of the non-existent XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit reports is especially damaging and unlawful. Plaintiff has never filed for bankruptcy, and Defendants were so informed. This bankruptcy entry lacks any courthouse, case number, or filing date, yet Defendants treated it as a legitimate public record. Because XXXX and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts do not directly furnish data to consumer reporting agencies, Defendants have no permissible source to verify this entry. The presence of this false bankruptcy indicates a grave failure in Defendants procedureseither a case of mixed credit files ( attributing someone elses bankruptcy to Plaintiff ) or reliance on inaccurate third-party public record data. Either scenario reflects a willful failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy as required by FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Even after Plaintiffs disputes, Experian and XXXX did not remove the bankruptcy, demonstrating reckless disregard for truth. Reporting a derogatory public record without a permissible purpose or proper verification is a direct violation of FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) as well, because Defendants had no authorization or legitimate reason to be reporting a bankruptcy that was never filed by the consumer. \n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from Experian and XXXX directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against Experian and XXXX regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint XXXX ). The CFPB forwarded the complaint to the Defendants. In her CFPB complaint, Plaintiff reiterated the unlawful reporting and attached her prior dispute letter and evidence ( including the FTC Identity Theft Report # XXXX, her dispute letter, and the Oregon UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put Experian and XXXX on notice that federal regulators were now involved and that the companies were expected to comply with their legal obligations promptly. However, Defendants again failed to take corrective action within the required time frame. By a status update on XX/XX/XXXX, each Defendant provided only an interim response to the CFPB, indicating that they were still working on the issue. As of the date of this Complaint ( and well over 30 days since Plaintiffs disputes were initiated ), Defendants have not deleted the disputed accounts or the false bankruptcy from Plaintiffs credit files. The 30-day deadline for completing a reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) has passed with no resolution. Defendants failure to fully respond and correct the information within 30 days ( or even 45 days, if applicable ) constitutes another FCRA violation. Their pattern of delay and non-response demonstrates willful non-compliance and has prolonged Plaintiffs injuries. \nXXXX. Harm to XXXX : Defendants conduct has caused significant harm to Plaintiff. The continued presence of these false and derogatory items on her credit reports has severely damaged Plaintiffs credit score and reputation, leading to credit denials and other adverse actions. Plaintiff has been denied credit opportunities and has suffered XX/XX/XXXX, humiliation, and emotional distress from the ordeal of having her good name tarnished by incorrect information. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended time and resources in her efforts to correct these issues including drafting dispute letters, filing the CFPB complaint, conducting public record research, and now preparing this lawsuit all of which are a direct result of Defendants unlawful practices. Defendants willful refusal to comply with the law ( despite multiple notices ) demonstrates a blatant disregard for Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff therefore seeks statutory damages, actual damages ( for credit harm and emotional distress ), and punitive damages to punish and deter such conduct, as well as injunctive relief to prevent further recurrences. \n\nCauses of Action By reason of the facts aforesaid, Defendants Experian and XXXX have willfully ( and negligently in the alternative ) violated multiple provisions of law. Each of the following constitutes a separate count against one or both Defendants : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to conduct a proper investigation after receiving notice of dispute ( Defendants failed to ensure that furnishers investigated and corrected the disputed information, resulting in continued reporting of inaccurate data ). \nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 1 ) improper reporting of a XXXX bankruptcy ( Defendants reported a bankruptcy that was not filed by Plaintiff, which is obsolete or impermissible information under the FCRAs public record reporting standards ). \nFCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate / sham investigation of disputed information ( Defendants did not meaningfully reinvestigate Plaintiffs disputes within 30 days, failed to review all relevant information, and simply left the false information on the reports ). \nFCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer information without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and disseminating Plaintiffs credit information including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the information itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ). \nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable. Defendants conduct in reporting and attempting to collect ( through credit reporting mechanisms ) debts not owed by Plaintiff, and failing to note disputes, is unfair and deceptive. This includes, but is not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false or misleading representation of debts and credit information ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ). ( While Experian and XXXX are credit bureaus, their actions facilitated collection of invalid debts in a manner that violates the FDCPAs consumer protections. ) Unfair and Deceptive Practices ( FTC Act ) engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and equivalent CFPB regulations. Defendants willful misreporting of information and failure to correct known errors constitute unfair and deceptive practices affecting commerce. Federal regulators ( FTC/CFPB ) prohibit consumer reporting agencies from such conduct, and Defendants actions were in knowing disregard of these standards. \n\nEach of the above violations was committed willfully ( or at least negligently ), entitling Plaintiff to relief under FCRA 616 and 617 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ), FDCPA 813 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ), and other applicable provisions. \n\nDemand for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and grant the following relief against XXXX Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX : XXXX. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs Experian and XXXX XXXX files, and permanently prohibiting Defendants from reporting those accounts or any related information on Plaintiffs credit report without first obtaining competent verification that the information is accurate and truly pertains to Plaintiff. This includes, but is not limited to, deletion of the following entries : the XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX Financial Services accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), and the bogus XXXX bankruptcy record. \nXXXX. Statutory Damages : Award statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation for Defendants numerous willful violations of the FCRA and ( where applicable ) the FDCPA. Given the multiple unlawful accounts and acts involved, Plaintiff seeks an amount not less than {$6000.00} ( for the six disputed items/violations enumerated above ) per Defendant, or such greater amount as the evidence may show, as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ). \nXXXX. Actual Damages : Award actual damages according to proof at trial, for the financial harm and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered. This includes, inter alia, credit denials, increased costs of credit, lost opportunities, damage to reputation, and the stress, anxiety, and humiliation endured as a result of Defendants conduct. ( Actual damages are available under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and 1681n, and under 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) ).\n\n4. Punitive Damages : Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, to punish Defendants for their willful, egregious misconduct and to deter such conduct in the future ( pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 2 ) ). Defendants have shown reckless or knowing disregard for the law and for Plaintiffs rights, warranting an exemplary damages award.\n\n5. Attorneys Fees and Costs : Award Plaintiff her reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including court fees and ( if Plaintiff retains counsel ) attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 3 ). ( Plaintiff is currently self-represented ; however, she reserves the right to seek attorneys fees if she later retains counsel for this action or as otherwise allowable. ) 6. Further Relief : Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any declaratory relief or additional measures that may be needed to ensure Defendants compliance with the law and to fully vindicate Plaintiffs rights. This may include Court monitoring of Defendants credit reporting relating to Plaintiff and any other equitable relief within the Courts power. \n\nDated : XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nRespectfully","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:33:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12954528","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:33:19.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer <em>information</em> without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and <em>disseminating</em> Plaintiffs credit <em>information</em> including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the <em>information</em> itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ). \nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable."],"company":["Experian <em>Information</em> Solutions Inc."]},"sort":[4.312581,"12954528"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12959305","_score":4.2847843,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion LLC, Defendants. \n\nCase No. _______ Complaint for Violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC Act Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise under federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( via 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( d ) ). The Court also has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for federal court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2. Supplemental/Additional Jurisdiction : To the extent any state law claims or regulatory violations are asserted or applicable ( including unfair/deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and parallel state laws ), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. ( Note : The primary causes of action are federal ; no diversity jurisdiction is required or asserted. ) 3. Venue : Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because the Plaintiff resides in Oregon, the harm to Plaintiffs credit and reputation occurred in Oregon, and Defendants conduct substantial business in Oregon. Defendants regularly sell products/reports and maintain data on Oregon consumers ( including Plaintiff ), and many of the acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District.\n\nParties 4. Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ) is a natural person and consumer residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OR XXXX046. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ) ) and FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) ). Plaintiff has no significant personal debts or credit obligations currently in her name, as evidenced by public records ( see infra 15 ).\n\n5. Defendant XXXX : Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \n6. Defendant TransUnion : Defendant TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). TransUnion is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX  XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. TransUnion regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties in Oregon. \n7. Agency Liability : At all relevant times, Defendants acted individually and through their agents, employees, and representatives, each of whom was acting within the scope of their employment and authority. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of such agents as described herein.\n\nFactual Background 8. Overview : This case arises from Defendants willful and reckless failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws in connection with inaccurate and unlawful information on Plaintiffs credit reports. In summary, XXXX and TransUnion have been reporting multiple erroneous accounts and a bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file that do not belong to her or are otherwise unverifiable. Despite repeated notices and disputes from Plaintiff including an official identity theft report and detailed dispute letters Defendants failed to reasonably reinvestigate the disputed information, refused to remove the unlawful entries, and continued reporting them, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants conduct violates the FCRAs requirements for accuracy and reinvestigation, the FDCPAs prohibitions on false debt information ( to the extent applicable ), and constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the FTC Act and CFPB regulations.\n\n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early 2025, Plaintiff discovered that her XXXX and TransUnion credit reports contained several inaccurate derogatory entries, including five account tradelines and a purported bankruptcy that she did not authorize. These disputed items, which remain on her reports as of the date of filing this Complaint, are : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX reported as a charge-off. No account number is listed on the credit report for this debt, and the account is unverified and inaccurately reported. This account had been subject to prior legal proceedings ( including a bankruptcy matter ), yet it is still being reported as an outstanding charge-off, which is misleading. \nXXXX  XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX also listed as a charge-off with no account number on the report. Like the above, this account is unverified, appears to have been included in past bankruptcy litigation, and is being illegally re-aged or misreported as a valid debt despite the absence of supporting information. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Account ( # XXXX ) : A mortgage tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an open date that is not verified. The reporting on this account contains fraudulent and deceptive inaccuracies for example, the accounts status and date of first delinquency are unconfirmed, and the information reported is inconsistent across XXXX and TransUnion. The furnisher XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided no documentation ( such as an original promissory note or payment history ) to substantiate this debt, calling into question its validity. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened XXXX XXXX ) : An auto finance account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misclassified on the credit reports as an auto lease when in fact it was a standard retail installment loan. This account is inaccurate and unverifiable ; the furnishing source has failed to verify its legitimacy. The misclassification and lack of verification render the reporting false and misleading. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : A second auto finance account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX similarly falsely reported as an auto lease instead of a loan. This tradeline is also inaccurate and unverified under FCRA guidelines, lacking proper documentation or proof that it belongs to Plaintiff or was reported correctly. \nXXXX XXXX  Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XXXX XXXX bankruptcy at any time. There is no court case number or documentation provided with this entry. In fact, the federal PACER system ( Public Access to Court Electronic Records ) does not furnish bankruptcy data to credit bureaus ; therefore, the presence of this entry on Plaintiffs credit report is wholly unsupported and unlawful. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity or misattribution, yet Defendants have continued to report it without any proof of its authenticity.\n\n10. No Supporting Documentation : For each of the above-listed disputed accounts and the bankruptcy, Defendants have no legitimate proof or documentation demonstrating that the information is accurate or that the accounts actually belong to Plaintiff. Plaintiff owes no such debts. Notably, as of XX/XX/XXXX, a search of the Oregon Secretary of States UCC ( Uniform Commercial Code ) filings under Plaintiffs name yielded No file entries, indicating that Plaintiff has no recorded liens or personal debt obligations in the public record. This public record confirmation underscores that the accounts appearing on her credit reports are not valid debts of hers. Defendants have been reporting these items without any underlying contractual documents, account statements, judgments, or court records tying them to Plaintiff. \n11. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, Plaintiff initiated disputes with XXXX and TransUnion to correct these egregious errors. Plaintiff prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both XXXX and TransUnion ( as well as to XXXX ) identifying each incorrect account and the bogus bankruptcy, and demanding their immediate deletion. In her dispute correspondence, Plaintiff cited the relevant provisions of federal law and highlighted the legal deficiencies of each reported item. For example, Plaintiffs letter ( a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ) explicitly noted that : ( a ) the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX charge-offs were reported without the required creditor notice and appeared to involve misreported bankruptcy status ; ( b ) the accounts lacked a proper first date of delinquency, raising concerns of illegal re-aging ; ( c ) the XXXX accounts were mischaracterized in type ; and ( d ) the XXXX XXXX bankruptcy was not hers and could not be verified through any official source. Plaintiffs dispute letter put Defendants on clear notice that the information was inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally impermissible to report. Along with her dispute letter, Plaintiff provided supporting evidence, including an FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ) and proof of her identity and address, to facilitate the investigation. This Identity Theft Report, filed with the Federal Trade Commission, formally declared that fraudulent or erroneous accounts were being reported in Plaintiffs name.\n\n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, XXXX and TransUnion failed to perform a meaningful reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ). Instead of removing the plainly invalid accounts, Defendants continued reporting them with no changes. Upon information and belief, Defendants either ignored some of Plaintiffs dispute submissions or failed to forward all relevant information to the furnishers of the accounts, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). Notably, in subsequent communications, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any new information or documentation to substantiate the disputed items legitimacy. In fact, XXXX and TransUnion failed to even maintain the documents Plaintiff provided : at least one of the Defendants admitted to having lost Plaintiffs FTC Identity Theft Report that she had submitted, which made a proper reinvestigation impossible. By effectively conducting sham investigations or no real investigation at all, Defendants violated their reinvestigation duties under the FCRA.\n\n13. Failure to Mark or Notify ( FCRA & FDCPA Duties ) : In addition, Defendants did not properly mark the disputed accounts as disputed on Plaintiffs credit file during the investigation period, nor did they notify the furnishers of the disputes in a timely and effective manner. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) requires that when a consumer disputes information, the credit reporting agency must note that dispute in all subsequent consumer reports for that item until it is resolved. On information and belief, XXXX and TransUnion did not include a notice of dispute on at least some of the accounts when sharing Plaintiffs credit report with third parties, thereby misrepresenting the status of the debts. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants acted as agents of the furnishers or worked in concert with them, their continued reporting of these disputed debts without clarification or verification also constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), it is a deceptive practice for a debt collector to communicate credit information which is known ( or should be known ) to be false or disputed. By extension, Defendants actions in publishing disputed, false debts to others without indicating the disputes or ensuring accuracy are unfair and deceptive acts in connection with debt collection and credit reporting.\n\n14. Willful Reporting of False Bankruptcy : The inclusion of the non-existent XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit reports is especially damaging and unlawful. Plaintiff has never filed for bankruptcy, and Defendants were so informed. This bankruptcy entry lacks any courthouse, case number, or filing date, yet Defendants treated it as a legitimate public record. Because PACER and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts do not directly furnish data to consumer reporting agencies, Defendants have no permissible source to verify this entry. The presence of this false bankruptcy indicates a grave failure in Defendants procedureseither a case of mixed credit files ( attributing someone elses bankruptcy to Plaintiff ) or reliance on inaccurate third-party public record data. Either scenario reflects a willful failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy as required by FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Even after Plaintiffs disputes, XXXX and TransUnion did not remove the bankruptcy, demonstrating reckless disregard for truth. Reporting a derogatory public record without a permissible purpose or proper verification is a direct violation of FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) as well, because Defendants had no authorization or legitimate reason to be reporting a bankruptcy that was never filed by the consumer.\n\n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from XXXX and TransUnion directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against XXXX and TransUnion regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint NoXXXX ). The CFPB forwarded the complaint to the Defendants. In her CFPB complaint, Plaintiff reiterated the unlawful reporting and attached her prior dispute letter and evidence ( including the FTC Identity Theft Report # XXXX, her dispute letter, and the XXXX UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put XXXX and TransUnion on notice that federal regulators were now involved and that the companies were expected to comply with their legal obligations promptly. However, Defendants again failed to take corrective action within the required time frame. By a status update on XX/XX/XXXX, each Defendant provided only an interim response to the CFPB, indicating that they were still working on the issue. As of the date of this Complaint ( and well over 30 days since Plaintiffs disputes were initiated ), Defendants have not deleted the disputed accounts or the false bankruptcy from Plaintiffs credit files. The 30-day deadline for completing a reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) has passed with no resolution. Defendants failure to fully respond and correct the information within 30 days ( or even 45 days, if applicable ) constitutes another FCRA violation. Their pattern of delay and non-response demonstrates willful non-compliance and has prolonged Plaintiffs injuries.\n\n16. Harm to Plaintiff : Defendants conduct has caused significant harm to Plaintiff. The continued presence of these false and derogatory items on her credit reports has severely damaged Plaintiffs credit score and reputation, leading to credit denials and other adverse actions. Plaintiff has been denied credit opportunities and has suffered anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress from the ordeal of having her good name tarnished by incorrect information. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended time and resources in her efforts to correct these issues including drafting dispute letters, filing the CFPB complaint, conducting public record research, and now preparing this lawsuit all of which are a direct result of Defendants unlawful practices. Defendants willful refusal to comply with the law ( despite multiple notices ) demonstrates a blatant disregard for Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff therefore seeks statutory damages, actual damages ( for credit harm and emotional distress ), and punitive damages to punish and deter such conduct, as well as injunctive relief to prevent further recurrences.\n\nCauses of Action By reason of the facts aforesaid, Defendants XXXX and TransUnion have willfully ( and negligently in the alternative ) violated multiple provisions of law. Each of the following constitutes a separate count against one or both Defendants : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to conduct a proper investigation after receiving notice of dispute ( Defendants failed to ensure that furnishers investigated and corrected the disputed information, resulting in continued reporting of inaccurate data ).\n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 1 ) improper reporting of a XXXX bankruptcy ( Defendants reported a bankruptcy that was not filed by Plaintiff, which is obsolete or impermissible information under the FCRAs public record reporting standards ).\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate / sham investigation of disputed information ( Defendants did not meaningfully reinvestigate Plaintiffs disputes within 30 days, failed to review all relevant information, and simply left the false information on the reports ).\n\nFCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer information without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and disseminating Plaintiffs credit information including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the information itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ).\n\nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable. Defendants conduct in reporting and attempting to collect ( through credit reporting mechanisms ) debts not owed by Plaintiff, and failing to note disputes, is unfair and deceptive. This includes, but is not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false or misleading representation of debts and credit information ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ). ( While XXXX and TransUnion are credit bureaus, their actions facilitated collection of invalid debts in a manner that violates the FDCPAs consumer protections. ) Unfair and Deceptive Practices ( FTC Act ) engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and equivalent CFPB regulations. Defendants willful misreporting of information and failure to correct known errors constitute unfair and deceptive practices affecting commerce. Federal regulators ( FTC/CFPB ) prohibit consumer reporting agencies from such conduct, and Defendants actions were in knowing disregard of these standards. \n\nEach of the above violations was committed willfully ( or at least negligently ), entitling Plaintiff to relief under FCRA 616 and 617 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ), FDCPA 813 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ), and other applicable provisions. \n\nDemand for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and grant the following relief against Defendants XXXX Information Solutions , Inc. and TransUnion LLC : 1. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs XXXX and TransUnion credit files, and permanently prohibiting Defendants from reporting those accounts or any related information on Plaintiffs credit report without first obtaining competent verification that the information is accurate and truly pertains to Plaintiff. This includes, but is not limited to, deletion of the following entries : the two XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), and the bogus XXXX bankruptcy record. \nXXXX. Statutory Damages : Award statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation for Defendants numerous willful violations of the FCRA and ( where applicable ) the FDCPA. Given the multiple unlawful accounts and acts involved, Plaintiff seeks an amount not less than {$6000.00} ( for the six disputed items/violations enumerated above ) per Defendant, or such greater amount as the evidence may show, as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Actual Damages : Award actual damages according to proof at trial, for the financial harm and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered. This includes, inter alia, credit denials, increased costs of credit, lost opportunities, damage to reputation, and the stress, anxiety, and humiliation endured as a result of Defendants conduct. ( Actual damages are available under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and 1681n, and under 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) ).\n\n4. Punitive Damages : Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, to punish Defendants for their willful, egregious misconduct and to deter such conduct in the future ( pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 2 ) ). Defendants have shown reckless or knowing disregard for the law and for Plaintiffs rights, warranting an exemplary damages award.\n\n5. Attorneys Fees and Costs : Award Plaintiff her reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including court fees and ( if Plaintiff retains counsel ) attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 3 ). ( Plaintiff is currently self-represented ; however, she reserves the right to seek attorneys fees if she later retains counsel for this action or as otherwise allowable. ) 6. Further Relief : Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any declaratory relief or additional measures that may be needed to ensure Defendants compliance with the law and to fully vindicate Plaintiffs rights. This may include Court monitoring of Defendants credit reporting relating to Plaintiff and any other equitable relief within the Courts power.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:48:35.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12959305","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:48:07.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer <em>information</em> without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and <em>disseminating</em> Plaintiffs credit <em>information</em> including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the <em>information</em> itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ).\n\nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable."]},"sort":[4.2847843,"12959305"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12959229","_score":4.2847843,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion LLC, Defendants. \n\nCase No. _______ Complaint for Violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC Act Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise under federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( via 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( d ) ). The Court also has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for federal court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2. Supplemental/Additional Jurisdiction : To the extent any state law claims or regulatory violations are asserted or applicable ( including unfair/deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and parallel state laws ), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. ( Note : The primary causes of action are federal ; no diversity jurisdiction is required or asserted. ) 3. Venue : Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because the Plaintiff resides in Oregon, the harm to Plaintiffs credit and reputation occurred in Oregon, and Defendants conduct substantial business in Oregon. Defendants regularly sell products/reports and maintain data on Oregon consumers ( including Plaintiff ), and many of the acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District.\n\nParties 4. Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ) is a natural person and consumer residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OR XXXX046. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ) ) and FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) ). Plaintiff has no significant personal debts or credit obligations currently in her name, as evidenced by public records ( see infra 15 ).\n\n5. Defendant XXXX : Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \n6. Defendant TransUnion : Defendant TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). TransUnion is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX  XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. TransUnion regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties in Oregon. \n7. Agency Liability : At all relevant times, Defendants acted individually and through their agents, employees, and representatives, each of whom was acting within the scope of their employment and authority. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of such agents as described herein.\n\nFactual Background 8. Overview : This case arises from Defendants willful and reckless failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws in connection with inaccurate and unlawful information on Plaintiffs credit reports. In summary, XXXX and TransUnion have been reporting multiple erroneous accounts and a bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file that do not belong to her or are otherwise unverifiable. Despite repeated notices and disputes from Plaintiff including an official identity theft report and detailed dispute letters Defendants failed to reasonably reinvestigate the disputed information, refused to remove the unlawful entries, and continued reporting them, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants conduct violates the FCRAs requirements for accuracy and reinvestigation, the FDCPAs prohibitions on false debt information ( to the extent applicable ), and constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the FTC Act and CFPB regulations.\n\n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early 2025, Plaintiff discovered that her XXXX and TransUnion credit reports contained several inaccurate derogatory entries, including five account tradelines and a purported bankruptcy that she did not authorize. These disputed items, which remain on her reports as of the date of filing this Complaint, are : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX reported as a charge-off. No account number is listed on the credit report for this debt, and the account is unverified and inaccurately reported. This account had been subject to prior legal proceedings ( including a bankruptcy matter ), yet it is still being reported as an outstanding charge-off, which is misleading. \nXXXX  XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX also listed as a charge-off with no account number on the report. Like the above, this account is unverified, appears to have been included in past bankruptcy litigation, and is being illegally re-aged or misreported as a valid debt despite the absence of supporting information. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Account ( # XXXX ) : A mortgage tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an open date that is not verified. The reporting on this account contains fraudulent and deceptive inaccuracies for example, the accounts status and date of first delinquency are unconfirmed, and the information reported is inconsistent across XXXX and TransUnion. The furnisher XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided no documentation ( such as an original promissory note or payment history ) to substantiate this debt, calling into question its validity. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened XXXX XXXX ) : An auto finance account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misclassified on the credit reports as an auto lease when in fact it was a standard retail installment loan. This account is inaccurate and unverifiable ; the furnishing source has failed to verify its legitimacy. The misclassification and lack of verification render the reporting false and misleading. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : A second auto finance account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX similarly falsely reported as an auto lease instead of a loan. This tradeline is also inaccurate and unverified under FCRA guidelines, lacking proper documentation or proof that it belongs to Plaintiff or was reported correctly. \nXXXX XXXX  Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XXXX XXXX bankruptcy at any time. There is no court case number or documentation provided with this entry. In fact, the federal PACER system ( Public Access to Court Electronic Records ) does not furnish bankruptcy data to credit bureaus ; therefore, the presence of this entry on Plaintiffs credit report is wholly unsupported and unlawful. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity or misattribution, yet Defendants have continued to report it without any proof of its authenticity.\n\n10. No Supporting Documentation : For each of the above-listed disputed accounts and the bankruptcy, Defendants have no legitimate proof or documentation demonstrating that the information is accurate or that the accounts actually belong to Plaintiff. Plaintiff owes no such debts. Notably, as of XX/XX/XXXX, a search of the Oregon Secretary of States UCC ( Uniform Commercial Code ) filings under Plaintiffs name yielded No file entries, indicating that Plaintiff has no recorded liens or personal debt obligations in the public record. This public record confirmation underscores that the accounts appearing on her credit reports are not valid debts of hers. Defendants have been reporting these items without any underlying contractual documents, account statements, judgments, or court records tying them to Plaintiff. \n11. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, Plaintiff initiated disputes with XXXX and TransUnion to correct these egregious errors. Plaintiff prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both XXXX and TransUnion ( as well as to XXXX ) identifying each incorrect account and the bogus bankruptcy, and demanding their immediate deletion. In her dispute correspondence, Plaintiff cited the relevant provisions of federal law and highlighted the legal deficiencies of each reported item. For example, Plaintiffs letter ( a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ) explicitly noted that : ( a ) the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX charge-offs were reported without the required creditor notice and appeared to involve misreported bankruptcy status ; ( b ) the accounts lacked a proper first date of delinquency, raising concerns of illegal re-aging ; ( c ) the XXXX accounts were mischaracterized in type ; and ( d ) the XXXX XXXX bankruptcy was not hers and could not be verified through any official source. Plaintiffs dispute letter put Defendants on clear notice that the information was inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally impermissible to report. Along with her dispute letter, Plaintiff provided supporting evidence, including an FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ) and proof of her identity and address, to facilitate the investigation. This Identity Theft Report, filed with the Federal Trade Commission, formally declared that fraudulent or erroneous accounts were being reported in Plaintiffs name.\n\n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, XXXX and TransUnion failed to perform a meaningful reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ). Instead of removing the plainly invalid accounts, Defendants continued reporting them with no changes. Upon information and belief, Defendants either ignored some of Plaintiffs dispute submissions or failed to forward all relevant information to the furnishers of the accounts, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). Notably, in subsequent communications, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any new information or documentation to substantiate the disputed items legitimacy. In fact, XXXX and TransUnion failed to even maintain the documents Plaintiff provided : at least one of the Defendants admitted to having lost Plaintiffs FTC Identity Theft Report that she had submitted, which made a proper reinvestigation impossible. By effectively conducting sham investigations or no real investigation at all, Defendants violated their reinvestigation duties under the FCRA.\n\n13. Failure to Mark or Notify ( FCRA & FDCPA Duties ) : In addition, Defendants did not properly mark the disputed accounts as disputed on Plaintiffs credit file during the investigation period, nor did they notify the furnishers of the disputes in a timely and effective manner. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) requires that when a consumer disputes information, the credit reporting agency must note that dispute in all subsequent consumer reports for that item until it is resolved. On information and belief, XXXX and TransUnion did not include a notice of dispute on at least some of the accounts when sharing Plaintiffs credit report with third parties, thereby misrepresenting the status of the debts. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants acted as agents of the furnishers or worked in concert with them, their continued reporting of these disputed debts without clarification or verification also constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), it is a deceptive practice for a debt collector to communicate credit information which is known ( or should be known ) to be false or disputed. By extension, Defendants actions in publishing disputed, false debts to others without indicating the disputes or ensuring accuracy are unfair and deceptive acts in connection with debt collection and credit reporting.\n\n14. Willful Reporting of False Bankruptcy : The inclusion of the non-existent XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit reports is especially damaging and unlawful. Plaintiff has never filed for bankruptcy, and Defendants were so informed. This bankruptcy entry lacks any courthouse, case number, or filing date, yet Defendants treated it as a legitimate public record. Because PACER and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts do not directly furnish data to consumer reporting agencies, Defendants have no permissible source to verify this entry. The presence of this false bankruptcy indicates a grave failure in Defendants procedureseither a case of mixed credit files ( attributing someone elses bankruptcy to Plaintiff ) or reliance on inaccurate third-party public record data. Either scenario reflects a willful failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy as required by FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Even after Plaintiffs disputes, XXXX and TransUnion did not remove the bankruptcy, demonstrating reckless disregard for truth. Reporting a derogatory public record without a permissible purpose or proper verification is a direct violation of FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) as well, because Defendants had no authorization or legitimate reason to be reporting a bankruptcy that was never filed by the consumer.\n\n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from XXXX and TransUnion directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against XXXX and TransUnion regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint NoXXXX ). The CFPB forwarded the complaint to the Defendants. In her CFPB complaint, Plaintiff reiterated the unlawful reporting and attached her prior dispute letter and evidence ( including the FTC Identity Theft Report # XXXX, her dispute letter, and the XXXX UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put XXXX and TransUnion on notice that federal regulators were now involved and that the companies were expected to comply with their legal obligations promptly. However, Defendants again failed to take corrective action within the required time frame. By a status update on XX/XX/XXXX, each Defendant provided only an interim response to the CFPB, indicating that they were still working on the issue. As of the date of this Complaint ( and well over 30 days since Plaintiffs disputes were initiated ), Defendants have not deleted the disputed accounts or the false bankruptcy from Plaintiffs credit files. The 30-day deadline for completing a reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) has passed with no resolution. Defendants failure to fully respond and correct the information within 30 days ( or even 45 days, if applicable ) constitutes another FCRA violation. Their pattern of delay and non-response demonstrates willful non-compliance and has prolonged Plaintiffs injuries.\n\n16. Harm to Plaintiff : Defendants conduct has caused significant harm to Plaintiff. The continued presence of these false and derogatory items on her credit reports has severely damaged Plaintiffs credit score and reputation, leading to credit denials and other adverse actions. Plaintiff has been denied credit opportunities and has suffered anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress from the ordeal of having her good name tarnished by incorrect information. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended time and resources in her efforts to correct these issues including drafting dispute letters, filing the CFPB complaint, conducting public record research, and now preparing this lawsuit all of which are a direct result of Defendants unlawful practices. Defendants willful refusal to comply with the law ( despite multiple notices ) demonstrates a blatant disregard for Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff therefore seeks statutory damages, actual damages ( for credit harm and emotional distress ), and punitive damages to punish and deter such conduct, as well as injunctive relief to prevent further recurrences.\n\nCauses of Action By reason of the facts aforesaid, Defendants XXXX and TransUnion have willfully ( and negligently in the alternative ) violated multiple provisions of law. Each of the following constitutes a separate count against one or both Defendants : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to conduct a proper investigation after receiving notice of dispute ( Defendants failed to ensure that furnishers investigated and corrected the disputed information, resulting in continued reporting of inaccurate data ).\n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 1 ) improper reporting of a XXXX bankruptcy ( Defendants reported a bankruptcy that was not filed by Plaintiff, which is obsolete or impermissible information under the FCRAs public record reporting standards ).\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate / sham investigation of disputed information ( Defendants did not meaningfully reinvestigate Plaintiffs disputes within 30 days, failed to review all relevant information, and simply left the false information on the reports ).\n\nFCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer information without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and disseminating Plaintiffs credit information including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the information itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ).\n\nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable. Defendants conduct in reporting and attempting to collect ( through credit reporting mechanisms ) debts not owed by Plaintiff, and failing to note disputes, is unfair and deceptive. This includes, but is not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false or misleading representation of debts and credit information ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ). ( While XXXX and TransUnion are credit bureaus, their actions facilitated collection of invalid debts in a manner that violates the FDCPAs consumer protections. ) Unfair and Deceptive Practices ( FTC Act ) engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and equivalent CFPB regulations. Defendants willful misreporting of information and failure to correct known errors constitute unfair and deceptive practices affecting commerce. Federal regulators ( FTC/CFPB ) prohibit consumer reporting agencies from such conduct, and Defendants actions were in knowing disregard of these standards. \n\nEach of the above violations was committed willfully ( or at least negligently ), entitling Plaintiff to relief under FCRA 616 and 617 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ), FDCPA 813 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ), and other applicable provisions. \n\nDemand for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and grant the following relief against Defendants XXXX Information Solutions , Inc. and TransUnion LLC : 1. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs XXXX and TransUnion credit files, and permanently prohibiting Defendants from reporting those accounts or any related information on Plaintiffs credit report without first obtaining competent verification that the information is accurate and truly pertains to Plaintiff. This includes, but is not limited to, deletion of the following entries : the two XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), and the bogus XXXX bankruptcy record. \nXXXX. Statutory Damages : Award statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation for Defendants numerous willful violations of the FCRA and ( where applicable ) the FDCPA. Given the multiple unlawful accounts and acts involved, Plaintiff seeks an amount not less than {$6000.00} ( for the six disputed items/violations enumerated above ) per Defendant, or such greater amount as the evidence may show, as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Actual Damages : Award actual damages according to proof at trial, for the financial harm and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered. This includes, inter alia, credit denials, increased costs of credit, lost opportunities, damage to reputation, and the stress, anxiety, and humiliation endured as a result of Defendants conduct. ( Actual damages are available under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and 1681n, and under 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) ).\n\n4. Punitive Damages : Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, to punish Defendants for their willful, egregious misconduct and to deter such conduct in the future ( pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 2 ) ). Defendants have shown reckless or knowing disregard for the law and for Plaintiffs rights, warranting an exemplary damages award.\n\n5. Attorneys Fees and Costs : Award Plaintiff her reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including court fees and ( if Plaintiff retains counsel ) attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 3 ). ( Plaintiff is currently self-represented ; however, she reserves the right to seek attorneys fees if she later retains counsel for this action or as otherwise allowable. ) 6. Further Relief : Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any declaratory relief or additional measures that may be needed to ensure Defendants compliance with the law and to fully vindicate Plaintiffs rights. This may include Court monitoring of Defendants credit reporting relating to Plaintiff and any other equitable relief within the Courts power.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:48:35.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12959229","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:48:07.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer <em>information</em> without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and <em>disseminating</em> Plaintiffs credit <em>information</em> including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the <em>information</em> itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ).\n\nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable."]},"sort":[4.2847843,"12959229"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12959455","_score":4.2740836,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion LLC, Defendants. \n\nCase No. _______ Complaint for Violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC Act Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise under federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( via 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( d ) ). The Court also has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for federal court jurisdiction over FCRA claims.\n\n2. Supplemental/Additional Jurisdiction : To the extent any state law claims or regulatory violations are asserted or applicable ( including unfair/deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and parallel state laws ), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. ( Note : The primary causes of action are federal ; no diversity jurisdiction is required or asserted. ) 3. Venue : Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because the Plaintiff resides in Oregon, the harm to Plaintiffs credit and reputation occurred in Oregon, and Defendants conduct substantial business in Oregon. Defendants regularly sell products/reports and maintain data on Oregon consumers ( including Plaintiff ), and many of the acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District.\n\nParties 4. Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ) is a natural person and consumer residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OR XXXX046. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ) ) and FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) ). Plaintiff has no significant personal debts or credit obligations currently in her name, as evidenced by public records ( see infra 15 ).\n\n5. Defendant XXXX : Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. \n6. Defendant TransUnion : Defendant TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). TransUnion is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX  XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. TransUnion regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties in Oregon. \n7. Agency Liability : At all relevant times, Defendants acted individually and through their agents, employees, and representatives, each of whom was acting within the scope of their employment and authority. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of such agents as described herein.\n\nFactual Background 8. Overview : This case arises from Defendants willful and reckless failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws in connection with inaccurate and unlawful information on Plaintiffs credit reports. In summary, XXXX and TransUnion have been reporting multiple erroneous accounts and a bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file that do not belong to her or are otherwise unverifiable. Despite repeated notices and disputes from Plaintiff including an official identity theft report and detailed dispute letters Defendants failed to reasonably reinvestigate the disputed information, refused to remove the unlawful entries, and continued reporting them, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants conduct violates the FCRAs requirements for accuracy and reinvestigation, the FDCPAs prohibitions on false debt information ( to the extent applicable ), and constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the FTC Act and CFPB regulations.\n\n9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early 2025, Plaintiff discovered that her XXXX and TransUnion credit reports contained several inaccurate derogatory entries, including five account tradelines and a purported bankruptcy that she did not authorize. These disputed items, which remain on her reports as of the date of filing this Complaint, are : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX reported as a charge-off. No account number is listed on the credit report for this debt, and the account is unverified and inaccurately reported. This account had been subject to prior legal proceedings ( including a bankruptcy matter ), yet it is still being reported as an outstanding charge-off, which is misleading. \nXXXX  XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX also listed as a charge-off with no account number on the report. Like the above, this account is unverified, appears to have been included in past bankruptcy litigation, and is being illegally re-aged or misreported as a valid debt despite the absence of supporting information. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Account ( # XXXX ) : A mortgage tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an open date that is not verified. The reporting on this account contains fraudulent and deceptive inaccuracies for example, the accounts status and date of first delinquency are unconfirmed, and the information reported is inconsistent across XXXX and TransUnion. The furnisher XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided no documentation ( such as an original promissory note or payment history ) to substantiate this debt, calling into question its validity. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened XXXX XXXX ) : An auto finance account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misclassified on the credit reports as an auto lease when in fact it was a standard retail installment loan. This account is inaccurate and unverifiable ; the furnishing source has failed to verify its legitimacy. The misclassification and lack of verification render the reporting false and misleading. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened ~XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) : A second auto finance account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX similarly falsely reported as an auto lease instead of a loan. This tradeline is also inaccurate and unverified under FCRA guidelines, lacking proper documentation or proof that it belongs to Plaintiff or was reported correctly. \nXXXX XXXX  Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XXXX XXXX bankruptcy at any time. There is no court case number or documentation provided with this entry. In fact, the federal PACER system ( Public Access to Court Electronic Records ) does not furnish bankruptcy data to credit bureaus ; therefore, the presence of this entry on Plaintiffs credit report is wholly unsupported and unlawful. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity or misattribution, yet Defendants have continued to report it without any proof of its authenticity.\n\n10. No Supporting Documentation : For each of the above-listed disputed accounts and the bankruptcy, Defendants have no legitimate proof or documentation demonstrating that the information is accurate or that the accounts actually belong to Plaintiff. Plaintiff owes no such debts. Notably, as of XX/XX/XXXX, a search of the Oregon Secretary of States UCC ( Uniform Commercial Code ) filings under Plaintiffs name yielded No file entries, indicating that Plaintiff has no recorded liens or personal debt obligations in the public record. This public record confirmation underscores that the accounts appearing on her credit reports are not valid debts of hers. Defendants have been reporting these items without any underlying contractual documents, account statements, judgments, or court records tying them to Plaintiff. \n11. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, Plaintiff initiated disputes with XXXX and TransUnion to correct these egregious errors. Plaintiff prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both XXXX and TransUnion ( as well as to XXXX ) identifying each incorrect account and the bogus bankruptcy, and demanding their immediate deletion. In her dispute correspondence, Plaintiff cited the relevant provisions of federal law and highlighted the legal deficiencies of each reported item. For example, Plaintiffs letter ( a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ) explicitly noted that : ( a ) the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX charge-offs were reported without the required creditor notice and appeared to involve misreported bankruptcy status ; ( b ) the accounts lacked a proper first date of delinquency, raising concerns of illegal re-aging ; ( c ) the XXXX accounts were mischaracterized in type ; and ( d ) the XXXX XXXX bankruptcy was not hers and could not be verified through any official source. Plaintiffs dispute letter put Defendants on clear notice that the information was inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally impermissible to report. Along with her dispute letter, Plaintiff provided supporting evidence, including an FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ) and proof of her identity and address, to facilitate the investigation. This Identity Theft Report, filed with the Federal Trade Commission, formally declared that fraudulent or erroneous accounts were being reported in Plaintiffs name.\n\n12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, XXXX and TransUnion failed to perform a meaningful reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ). Instead of removing the plainly invalid accounts, Defendants continued reporting them with no changes. Upon information and belief, Defendants either ignored some of Plaintiffs dispute submissions or failed to forward all relevant information to the furnishers of the accounts, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). Notably, in subsequent communications, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any new information or documentation to substantiate the disputed items legitimacy. In fact, XXXX and TransUnion failed to even maintain the documents Plaintiff provided : at least one of the Defendants admitted to having lost Plaintiffs FTC Identity Theft Report that she had submitted, which made a proper reinvestigation impossible. By effectively conducting sham investigations or no real investigation at all, Defendants violated their reinvestigation duties under the FCRA.\n\n13. Failure to Mark or Notify ( FCRA & FDCPA Duties ) : In addition, Defendants did not properly mark the disputed accounts as disputed on Plaintiffs credit file during the investigation period, nor did they notify the furnishers of the disputes in a timely and effective manner. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) requires that when a consumer disputes information, the credit reporting agency must note that dispute in all subsequent consumer reports for that item until it is resolved. On information and belief, XXXX and TransUnion did not include a notice of dispute on at least some of the accounts when sharing Plaintiffs credit report with third parties, thereby misrepresenting the status of the debts. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants acted as agents of the furnishers or worked in concert with them, their continued reporting of these disputed debts without clarification or verification also constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), it is a deceptive practice for a debt collector to communicate credit information which is known ( or should be known ) to be false or disputed. By extension, Defendants actions in publishing disputed, false debts to others without indicating the disputes or ensuring accuracy are unfair and deceptive acts in connection with debt collection and credit reporting.\n\n14. Willful Reporting of False Bankruptcy : The inclusion of the non-existent XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit reports is especially damaging and unlawful. Plaintiff has never filed for bankruptcy, and Defendants were so informed. This bankruptcy entry lacks any courthouse, case number, or filing date, yet Defendants treated it as a legitimate public record. Because PACER and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts do not directly furnish data to consumer reporting agencies, Defendants have no permissible source to verify this entry. The presence of this false bankruptcy indicates a grave failure in Defendants procedureseither a case of mixed credit files ( attributing someone elses bankruptcy to Plaintiff ) or reliance on inaccurate third-party public record data. Either scenario reflects a willful failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy as required by FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Even after Plaintiffs disputes, XXXX and TransUnion did not remove the bankruptcy, demonstrating reckless disregard for truth. Reporting a derogatory public record without a permissible purpose or proper verification is a direct violation of FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) as well, because Defendants had no authorization or legitimate reason to be reporting a bankruptcy that was never filed by the consumer.\n\n15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from XXXX and TransUnion directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against XXXX and TransUnion regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint NoXXXX ). The CFPB forwarded the complaint to the Defendants. In her CFPB complaint, Plaintiff reiterated the unlawful reporting and attached her prior dispute letter and evidence ( including the FTC Identity Theft Report # XXXX, her dispute letter, and the XXXX UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put XXXX and TransUnion on notice that federal regulators were now involved and that the companies were expected to comply with their legal obligations promptly. However, Defendants again failed to take corrective action within the required time frame. By a status update on XX/XX/XXXX, each Defendant provided only an interim response to the CFPB, indicating that they were still working on the issue. As of the date of this Complaint ( and well over 30 days since Plaintiffs disputes were initiated ), Defendants have not deleted the disputed accounts or the false bankruptcy from Plaintiffs credit files. The 30-day deadline for completing a reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) has passed with no resolution. Defendants failure to fully respond and correct the information within 30 days ( or even 45 days, if applicable ) constitutes another FCRA violation. Their pattern of delay and non-response demonstrates willful non-compliance and has prolonged Plaintiffs injuries.\n\n16. Harm to Plaintiff : Defendants conduct has caused significant harm to Plaintiff. The continued presence of these false and derogatory items on her credit reports has severely damaged Plaintiffs credit score and reputation, leading to credit denials and other adverse actions. Plaintiff has been denied credit opportunities and has suffered anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress from the ordeal of having her good name tarnished by incorrect information. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended time and resources in her efforts to correct these issues including drafting dispute letters, filing the CFPB complaint, conducting public record research, and now preparing this lawsuit all of which are a direct result of Defendants unlawful practices. Defendants willful refusal to comply with the law ( despite multiple notices ) demonstrates a blatant disregard for Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff therefore seeks statutory damages, actual damages ( for credit harm and emotional distress ), and punitive damages to punish and deter such conduct, as well as injunctive relief to prevent further recurrences.\n\nCauses of Action By reason of the facts aforesaid, Defendants XXXX and TransUnion have willfully ( and negligently in the alternative ) violated multiple provisions of law. Each of the following constitutes a separate count against one or both Defendants : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to conduct a proper investigation after receiving notice of dispute ( Defendants failed to ensure that furnishers investigated and corrected the disputed information, resulting in continued reporting of inaccurate data ).\n\nFCRA 605 ( a ) ( 1 ) improper reporting of a XXXX bankruptcy ( Defendants reported a bankruptcy that was not filed by Plaintiff, which is obsolete or impermissible information under the FCRAs public record reporting standards ).\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate / sham investigation of disputed information ( Defendants did not meaningfully reinvestigate Plaintiffs disputes within 30 days, failed to review all relevant information, and simply left the false information on the reports ).\n\nFCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer information without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and disseminating Plaintiffs credit information including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the information itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ).\n\nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable. Defendants conduct in reporting and attempting to collect ( through credit reporting mechanisms ) debts not owed by Plaintiff, and failing to note disputes, is unfair and deceptive. This includes, but is not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false or misleading representation of debts and credit information ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ). ( While XXXX and TransUnion are credit bureaus, their actions facilitated collection of invalid debts in a manner that violates the FDCPAs consumer protections. ) Unfair and Deceptive Practices ( FTC Act ) engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and equivalent CFPB regulations. Defendants willful misreporting of information and failure to correct known errors constitute unfair and deceptive practices affecting commerce. Federal regulators ( FTC/CFPB ) prohibit consumer reporting agencies from such conduct, and Defendants actions were in knowing disregard of these standards. \n\nEach of the above violations was committed willfully ( or at least negligently ), entitling Plaintiff to relief under FCRA 616 and 617 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ), FDCPA 813 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ), and other applicable provisions. \n\nDemand for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and grant the following relief against Defendants XXXX Information Solutions , Inc. and TransUnion LLC : 1. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs XXXX and TransUnion credit files, and permanently prohibiting Defendants from reporting those accounts or any related information on Plaintiffs credit report without first obtaining competent verification that the information is accurate and truly pertains to Plaintiff. This includes, but is not limited to, deletion of the following entries : the two XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), and the bogus XXXX bankruptcy record. \nXXXX. Statutory Damages : Award statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation for Defendants numerous willful violations of the FCRA and ( where applicable ) the FDCPA. Given the multiple unlawful accounts and acts involved, Plaintiff seeks an amount not less than {$6000.00} ( for the six disputed items/violations enumerated above ) per Defendant, or such greater amount as the evidence may show, as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\n3. Actual Damages : Award actual damages according to proof at trial, for the financial harm and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered. This includes, inter alia, credit denials, increased costs of credit, lost opportunities, damage to reputation, and the stress, anxiety, and humiliation endured as a result of Defendants conduct. ( Actual damages are available under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and 1681n, and under 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) ).\n\n4. Punitive Damages : Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, to punish Defendants for their willful, egregious misconduct and to deter such conduct in the future ( pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 2 ) ). Defendants have shown reckless or knowing disregard for the law and for Plaintiffs rights, warranting an exemplary damages award.\n\n5. Attorneys Fees and Costs : Award Plaintiff her reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including court fees and ( if Plaintiff retains counsel ) attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 3 ). ( Plaintiff is currently self-represented ; however, she reserves the right to seek attorneys fees if she later retains counsel for this action or as otherwise allowable. ) 6. Further Relief : Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any declaratory relief or additional measures that may be needed to ensure Defendants compliance with the law and to fully vindicate Plaintiffs rights. This may include Court monitoring of Defendants credit reporting relating to Plaintiff and any other equitable relief within the Courts power.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-12T23:48:32.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12959455","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-12T23:33:58.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer <em>information</em> without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and <em>disseminating</em> Plaintiffs credit <em>information</em> including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the <em>information</em> itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ).\n\nFDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable."]},"sort":[4.2740836,"12959455"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9227984","_score":4.1674957,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"The company disregard constitutional rights of the people by violating the laws of our great nation. Their bland and non factual notice with no supporting evidence to rebut any of the laws put in place to protect my rights as a consumer. The government put these laws in place to protect against companies that bully and disregard peoples constitutional rights. This company has violated my constitutional rights by continuing to knowingly violate government laws Pursuant to The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the following proofs of claim are requested immediately : 1. ) Proof of claim : The Alleged Lenders involved in the alleged loans, did not purchase THE PROMISSORY NOTE from the consumer, hereinafter the Alleged Borrower. If not rebutted, this statement stands as truth 2. ) Proof of claim : The Alleged Borrowers may repay the alleged loan with the same species of money as may be on the loan per GAAP, ending all interest and liens. If not rebutted, this statement stands as truth. A. Proof of claim : The Alleged Lender converted the Alleged Borrowers promissory note, accepting the Alleged Borrowers promissory note as money or like money to fund a check or similar instrument that the Alleged Lender then lent to the Alleged Borrower ( which has an economic effect similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling. ) If not rebutted, this statement stands as truth. B. Proof of claim : The Alleged Lender has failed to follow Federal Laws 12 U.S.C. 1831n ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) and/or 12 CFR 741.6 ( b ) regarding General Accepted Accounting Principles and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards concerning this loan. If not rebutted, this statement stands as truth. C. Proof of claim : The Alleged Borrower truly provided the money, transfer of funds money equivalent, credit, funds, capital, or thing of value, and they pursued to securitize it! If not rebutted, this statement stands as truth. Please PROVIDE ME with the below mentioned items : * The amount you claim the Principal owes you. * IRS Documents such as 1099a, 1099c and any other IRS forms filled out on my behalf without my knowledge. * Full accounting ledger. * ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS. * An explanation showing me how you have computed the amount. * COPIES of any DOCUMENTS that prove I agreed to pay the alleged amount. ( Reason they refuse to hand over documents because they dont exist ) * The identity of the original creditor. * Confirmation that the account has not crossed the statute of limitation ( SOL ) period. * Evidence that you are a licensed debt collector. * Evidence of your license numbers and your registered agent. FACTS ON THE MATTER : 1. Fact, I so invoke nunc pro tunc, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ) declare that I am that I am, the consumer in fact, natural person, creditor, lender, executor, administrator, holder in Due course of any and all derivatives thereof for the surname/given name and have been appointed and accepted being the executor both public & private for all matter proceeding, and I hereby claim that I will autograph as the agent, attorney in fact, and I furthermore Demand that you correct your reporting. 2. Fact, Pursuant Title 15 USC 1681a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( I ) - Congress makes it clear that a consumer report should NOT include transactions between the consumer and the person making the report. This alleged transaction that you are reporting, and failed to investigate, whether or not it factually took place, can be categorized as a transaction that took place between the consumer, and the person making the report. Which means it should not be included in my consumer report, and in fact is a VIOLATION of my consumer right. 3. It is a Fact that Pursuant Title 15 USC 1681a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( III ) - In your initial investigation I was never given the opportunity to deny this information being communicated on my consumer report. This is in fact another violation. 4. It is a Fact that Pursuant Title 15 USC 1681a ( e ) - The production of an \" investigative consumer report '' involves obtaining information about a consumer 's character, reputation, personal characteristics, or lifestyle through personal interviews with their neighbors, friends, associates, or others who may have knowledge of the consumer. This information is used to form a report that provides a comprehensive understanding of the consumer. 5. Fact, I the consumer, original creditor do so extend my open ended credit on file to eliminate any verified debt, all valid debt must be verified and documented on record by wet ink signature, so be it, and ; 6. Fact, that I by this notice and demand declare I have no verified evidence for certified mailings, and again for the record, I have absolutely no knowledge of the alleged debts listed on your website, company records, or any and all derivatives therefore, of, and/or with any affiliates or agencies acting as a real party or a third party interlopers, I again state I have no knowledge of this indirect, unverified, debt, so be it, and ; 7. Fact, I am an eyewitness to the information by allegations against my name being incorrect, and I demand the documented verification of any and all derivatives for an alleged debt for any such debts alleged to be mine the consumer in fact, so be it, and ; 8. I do not know any of the alleged creditors and debt collectors, so be it, and ; 9. I never sat across a table from any of the alleged creditors and debt collectors and never entered into a contract with any receiving a meeting of the minds, so be it, and ; 10. Fact, I know that no valid direct verified contracts exist with me and another party by wet ink signature, I know that any attempt to collect a debt is actually alleged indirect action, please verify and document all verifications, accordingly, so be it, and ; 11. Fact, all allege contracts are completely fraudulent and the attempt to enforce a fraudulent contract is unlawful due to the contract being created through the illegal activity of identity theft and power of attorney fraud, so be it, and Demand that you stop sending me fraudulent bills and ; 12. Fact, my request to block information that is fraudulent, and a result of identity theft was not done in error. 13. Fact, my request to block information was not a material misrepresentation. 14. Fact, I never benefited or obtained goods, services, or money from the alleged transactions. 15. Fact, Pursuant to FCRA 605B & 15 USC 1681 c-2, when a block imposed by a consumer reporting agency is rescinded, any information present in the consumer 's file prior to the block can not be considered as proof of the consumer 's knowledge or expectation of obtaining goods, services, or money due to the block. 16. Fact, please show good faith in this matter by expediting the securing of the alleged information listed on your sight in order to avoid me receiving further injury, damages, mental anguish, and losses due to me being a victim of identity theft, so be it, and ; 17. Fact, In order to ensure a thorough investigation is conducted, it is important to gather as much information as possible from a variety of sources. This includes obtaining full names and addresses of all individuals interviewed, as well as a detailed account of what was said during the interviews. Additionally, it is important to confirm the method used to verify the information obtained during the interviews, as this helps to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information included in the report. 18. Fact, It is also important to note that the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) regulates the production of consumer reports, including investigative consumer reports. The FCRA sets strict guidelines for the information that can be included in a consumer report, as well as the methods used to obtain that information. Under the FCRA, companies producing consumer reports are required to conduct a reasonable investigation and to provide consumers with a copy of the report if requested. They must also provide the consumer with information about the sources of the information included in the report. 19. Fact, the production of an investigative consumer report requires a thorough investigation to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information included in the report. The FCRA provides the legal framework for the production of consumer reports and helps to ensure that consumers are protected against the dissemination of inaccurate or incomplete information. 20. Fact, I am sure the removal of my information from your website, company records, or any and all derivatives therefore, of, and/or with any corporate affiliates like XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to ensure my privacy rights wont be violated again due to my lack of consent and this herein unrebutted affidavit of truth being serviced to you today and therefore, standing as truth in commerce, or I will be compelled to take legal steps against you for the below mentioned reasons ( Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( F.C.R.A. ) ; Violation of the F.D.C.P.A. ; Defamation of character ; Use of my copyrighted property ), so be it, and ; 21. Fact, I am not a debtor. 22. Fact, A copy of consumer contract is not sufficient evidence to validate a debt. ( Reference- Pacific Concrete F.C.U. v. Kauanoe 62 Haw. 334 614 P.2d 936 ( 1980 ) ). 23. Fact, natural person defined see 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) The term consumer means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt., so be it, and ; 24. Fact, natural person defined see 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 4 ) The term creditor means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another, so be it, and ; 25. It is a fact that Credit is defined in 15 USC 1602 ( f ) as The term credit means the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment ; 26. Fact, as an executive of a Private U.S. Estate any fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money drawn or authorized by my signature as an authorized officer of the United States IS an obligation of the UNITED STATES to settle ; not mine! 27. Fact, that according to the congressional findings in 15 USC 1692 on Abusive Practices it states that There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy ; I believe that my privacy is being violated by your company, and ; 28. As of XXXX, an amendment to Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA, says that a debt collector can't report a debt to the three major credit reporting agencies, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, before first contacting the consumer ; 29. Fact, Actual damages are not capped at { {$1000.00} }. ( Reference- Smith V law offices of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 199112 RB.R.R.182 ) 30. Fact, If this affidavit is not rebutted point for point by a duly qualified representative of Consumer Reporting Agency at any level, in any manner, at any time within ( 5 ) five days upon receipt, these facts are proven and confirmed as true. I hereby Demand! That you BLOCK AND REMOVE the following accounts from my consumer file. Take further notice that your failure to follow these laws and meet my demands will result in holding your company civilly and criminally liable and invoking specified remedies under Title 15 including but not limited to FCRA violations, TILA violations, FDCPA violations, and I will seek reimbursement for all my damages. Any man or woman responding to this affidavit will answer in the manner of this affidavit, using your XXXX or family name for signature, and mailing it to the below named notary, address provided, within five ( 5 ) days, or default will be obtained. If more time is needed to respond to this request, it must be requested in writing within five ( 5 ) days of receipt. MAXIMS OF LAW 1. In Commerce- Truth is sovereign. 2. For a matter to be resolved, it must be expressed. 3. Point of Law : Silence equates to an agreement. Further Affiant sayeth not. TERMS DEFINED PURSUANT TO 15 U.S. CODE 1681a 1. The term consumer means an individual. 2. The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility 3. The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer. 4. The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. 5. The term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. You have 4 business days from the receipt of this notice to block and remove all fraudulent items and remarks from my consumer file or I may seek damages Pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1681m. Additionally, I DO NOT consent to any automated scan response or e- Oscar verification methods. CERTIFICATION I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America pursuant to 28 USC 1746 ( 1 ) that the foregoing is true and correct. Validation Request Pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 USC 1692g ) I am writing to dispute the validity of the debt you have claimed I owe and to request validation of said debt as per my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), specifically 15 USC 1692g. I do not acknowledge any legal obligation to pay the debt as asserted by your agency until competent evidence is provided to validate its existence and ownership. I am not requesting mere verification or proof of my mailing address, but a thorough validation of the debt, as required by law. Please be advised that any negative reporting of invalidated information to XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX XXXX constitute fraud under Federal and State Laws. Should such reporting occur, I reserve the right to take legal action against both your agency and your client for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and defamation of character. To properly validate the debt, I request the following information within 30 days of your receipt of this letter : The amount of the debt being claimed. The name and contact information of the original creditor to whom the debt is owed. Verification or copies of any documents pertaining to the debt, including the original contract, statements of account, and any agreements signed by me. Proof that your agency is licensed to collect debts in my state. A statement indicating that if I dispute the debt within 30 days of receipt of your validation, you will provide verification of the debt or a copy of any judgment against me. Additionally, I request the completion of the following CREDITOR/DEBT COLLECTOR DECLARATION to Include the list of items requested in the declaration. Please provide the name and address of the bonding agent for your agency in case legal action becomes necessary.Failure to provide the requested validation and documentation within 30 days will result in all references to this account being deleted and removed from my credit file. A copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately. I kindly request your compliance with this validation request as required by law. I can and will sue if you do not take the proper procedures and do whats required by law to protect my constitutional rights.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-11T22:41:18.000Z","issue":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"77584","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9227984","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2024-06-11T22:27:24.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Talked to a third-party about your debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Fact, the production of an investigative consumer report requires a thorough investigation to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the <em>information</em> included in the report. The FCRA provides the legal framework for the production of consumer reports and helps to ensure that consumers are protected against the <em>dissemination</em> of inaccurate or incomplete <em>information</em>. 20."],"issue":["Threatened to contact someone or share <em>information</em> improperly"]},"sort":[4.1674957,"9227984"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":9,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":9}]}},"product":{"doc_count":9,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2}]}},{"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":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":9,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":3},{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive terms that were advertised","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Talked to a third-party about your debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":9,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":9}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":9,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":6},{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":9,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":9}]}},"company":{"doc_count":9,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":9,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"OR","doc_count":4},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"TX","doc_count":2},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":9,"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":7}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":9,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}