{"took":160,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":13,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3292005","_score":21.930365,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"FOLLOW-UP XX/XX/2019 ; XX/XX/19 Current : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, Mo XXXX Cell XXXX Case # XXXX ( MDOS ) Seasonal : XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, MI XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Regulation Agent/Investigator Office of Investigative Services Michigan Department of State ( MDOS ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. MI, XXXX Cell : XXXX Fax : XXXX XXXX Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, MI XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ID # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, MI XXXX Chase Dispute Services Customer Service, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, DE XXXX-XXXX. \nDear Sirs, This is a follow up letter regarding XXXX XXXX  and my complaint. There are two addresses given by this company which adds to their further attempt at deceiving consumers. \nChase Bank was originally with holding funds but did finally release the money. Therefore, no resolution was given to me. Once again, I am reaching out to you for justice. Chase released the payment to this company despite my protest. \nPlease do the legal and right thing by denying this payment to this crooked company. \n\nXXXX  XXXX Owner/ Manager ( Undisclosed by Employees ) XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Address on Receipt ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , Michigan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( Web Address ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, Michigan XXXX Re : Invoice No. XXXX ( Previous Attachment ) Please reopen case if closed. \nThere has been no resolution in this case and the company has refused to return any funds I want the dispute in this matter to continue, with court appearances if required. \n\nSee attached letter regarding the investigation by XXXX XXXX, Regulation Agent/Investigator Office of Investigative Services, Michigan Department of State ( MDOS ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. MI, XXXX Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2019 Case Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MI XXXX RE : Your Complaint Against XXXX  XXXX XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX, The Michigan Department of State, Regulatory Monitoring Division has completed its investigation of your complaint against XXXX  XXXX XXXX. The results of the investigation indicate that the Repair Facility violated the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act and accordingly, appropriate Notices of Non-Compliance have been issued. \n\n\n\nAn investigative report and supporting documents will be forwarded to the Business Compliance and Regulation Division for consideration of administrative action against the licensee. You may obtain a copy of the investigative report and supporting documents under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ). You can request documents under FOIA using one of the following methods : E-mail : XXXX USPS Mailing Address : Michigan Department of State Attn : FOIA Coordinator XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, MI XXXX Additional information regarding the Departments Freedom of Information Act process can be viewed at XXXX : XXXX -- XXXX -- XXXX. Please include your name, phone number, mailing address, and the above referenced case number in your correspondence. Please allow 15 business days from the date of this letter before submitting your request to ensure that documents are available for processing. As allowed by the Freedom of Information Act, a fee will be charged for labor, copying, and mailing costs incurred to process your FOIA request. \n\nIf you have questions regarding your complaint, please call ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX, Investigator Regulatory Monitoring Division Michigan Department of State","date_sent_to_company":"2019-06-30T20:23:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"631XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3292005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2019-06-30T19:44:30.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Sincerely, XXXX XXXX, <em>Investigator</em> Regulatory Monitoring Division Michigan <em>Department</em> of <em>State</em>"]},"sort":[21.930365,"3292005"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12052934","_score":21.831347,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint and Request for Assistance Unlawful Debt Collection Practices and Fraudulent Garnishment by Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to formally request your assistance, along with that of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Ohio Attorney General, and the appropriate XXXX XXXX, in investigating and addressing unlawful debt collection practices and fraudulent legal actions taken against me by Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. \nBackground of the Complaint On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX, I sent a Certified Debt Validation/Verification Letter to Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. , LPA, located at : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH XXXX This letter, as provided in the attachments, requested validation and verification of a debt that the firm was actively attempting to collect from me. The firm received my letter on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ( proof of receipt attached ). However, they failed to provide any validation or verification of the alleged debt as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and relevant Ohio state laws. Instead, I continued to receive harassing collection letters, including threats of lawsuits and wage garnishment. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, I sent a second letter reiterating my demand for compliance with federal and state laws, as they continued their unlawful collection attempts. Only after this second notice did the company cease direct contact with me, and complied with the laws ; or so I thought. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, I received a response from Weltman , Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, which included only copies of credit card statements. This response failed to meet the legal requirements for debt validation. Specifically, they did not provide : XXXX. A forward flow agreement demonstrating the legal chain of custody of the debt XXXX. Documentation from the original creditor confirming ownership and assignment XXXX. A purchase and sale agreement proving when and to whom the debt was transferred XXXX. Evidence that they contacted the original creditor for verification, per Ohio law XXXX. Wet Signatures acquired at the onset of that debt Unlawful Garnishment Without Due Process On XX/XX/XXXX, I received notification from my bank that Weltman , Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA had obtained a garnishment order and attempted to seize funds from my account. \n\nThis garnishment was fraudulent for the following reasons : XXXX. Lack of Due Process I was never served with a complaint, lawsuit, or court summons. I had no knowledge of any court proceeding related to this debt. \nXXXX. Violation of FDCPA and Ohio Law The law firm pursued garnishment without validating the debt, violating my rights under federal and state consumer protection laws. \nXXXX. Fraud on the Court The firm misrepresented the debt and the legal process to the court to obtain an unjustified garnishment order. \nXXXX. Potential Identity Theft Connection Due to multiple identity theft incidents affecting me since XXXX, including the recent XXXX and XXXX  data breaches, which again exposed my name, Social Security number, date of birth, financial, and healthcare information, it is critical that any alleged debt be thoroughly validated before any collection action is taken. \n\nRequest for Immediate Action Given the serious legal violations, fraudulent misrepresentations, and constitutional deprivations of due process, I request that the CFPB take immediate action to : XXXX. Investigate Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA for violations of the FDCPA, Ohio debt collection laws, and constitutional due process protections. \nXXXX. Coordinate with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to determine if fraud charges should be pursued against the firm for misrepresenting debts in legal proceedings. \nXXXX. Advise the Ohio Attorney Generals Office to open an investigation into the firms unlawful practices. \nXXXX. Alert the appropriate XXXX XXXX regarding the unethical and unlawful conduct of the attorneys involved in this case. \nXXXX. Require the reversal and cancellation of the fraudulent garnishment order and any resulting financial damages. \n\nConclusion I am appalled that a law firm specializing in debt collectionwhich should be held to the highest legal and ethical standardshas engaged in such egregious violations of my rights, the law, and the integrity of the judicial system. The defined aspect for them seeking payment for a debt is no longer of importance ; it was and is their blatant disregard for the laws, rules, and regulations shown through their actions that display a complete malice towards myself, gross negligence of the law, laws in which they are supposed to be specialized in ; and through their actions ( as documented ) have caused undue financial harm, stress, and a violation of my constitutional due process rights ; and I reserve all of my rights to pursue any and all remedies for their actions against me. \n\nI urge the CFPB, DOJ, FTC, Ohio Attorney General, and the XXXX XXXX to take immediate corrective action to address these serious infractions.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-11T14:02:29.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"458XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12052934","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.","date_received":"2025-02-13T20:27:50.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Investigate</em> Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA for violations of the FDCPA, Ohio debt collection laws, and constitutional due process protections. \nXXXX. <em>Coordinate</em> with the <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> and the Federal Trade Commission to determine if fraud charges should be pursued against the firm for misrepresenting debts in legal proceedings. \nXXXX. Advise the Ohio <em>Attorney</em> Generals Office to open an <em>investigation</em> into the firms unlawful practices. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[21.831347,"12052934"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12847312","_score":18.30146,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, I am filing this formal and urgent complaint against one or more entities that have reported a fraudulent tradeline on my credit report. I am the victim of identity theft and ongoing misconduct that I now believe may constitute federal crimes under multiple U.S. Code statutes. \n\nA debt accounttotaling {$130.00}, and showing a suspicious {$1.00} paymentwas added to my credit file without my knowledge, consent, or participation. I did not open this account, authorize it, or recognize the creditor in any way. I have never received services, statements, nor agreed to any repayment related to this account. \n\nI disputed the tradeline with the credit bureaus, but they improperly \" verified '' it. No evidence has been presented to me. The parties involved have not fulfilled their obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to reasonably investigate and remove fraudulent data. The supposed {$1.00} payment appears to be a fabricated transaction intended to manipulate the statute of limitations and prolong the life of a false debt. \n\nIDENTITY THEFT AND WIRE FRAUD FEDERAL CRIMES I am alleging that this conduct constitutes not just civil harm, but criminal activity, and I am requesting that the CFPB : - Refer this complaint to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) - Contact the Department of Justice if appropriate - Coordinate with my State Attorney General, who has not responded to a previous complaint filed over a month ago This case involves : Wire Fraud ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) The false debt, verification, and transmission of credit data occurred via electronic systems that cross state lines ( internet-based credit reporting, email, automated dispute resolution systems ). This meets the criteria for wire fraud, a federal felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison per count. \n\nAny scheme to defraud another using interstate electronic communicationincluding submitting or verifying false credit informationis prosecutable under federal law. \n\nIdentity Theft ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX & XXXX ) My personally identifying information was used without my knowledge or consent. Under federal law, the unauthorized use of someones identity to commit fraud or obtain anything of value is identity theftand if done in furtherance of another felony ( such as wire fraud ), it qualifies as aggravated identity theft, with mandatory additional prison time. \n\nXXXX. DAMAGES AND HARM Because of this false tradeline : - I have been denied housing - I am currently homeless- I have no access to stable income, public benefits, or healthcare - My mental and physical health are deteriorating - I may soon lose my only mailing address, making me further unreachable and vulnerable- This is not a mere clerical error. I am experiencing irreparable harm to my life and safety, directly caused by this misconduct. \n\nXXXX. LEGAL VIOLATIONS FCRA AND BEYOND The parties involved have likely violated : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. ) XXXX Failure to reasonably investigate my dispute XXXX ( b ) Furnishers must investigate disputed information XXXX Willful noncompliance ( eligible for punitive damages ) XXXX Negligent noncompliance Other Relevant Laws XXXX U.S.C. XXXX XXXX fraud XXXX XXXX. XXXX Identity theft XXXX XXXX. XXXX Aggravated identity theft State consumer protection and fraud statutes ( pending investigation ) XXXX. WHAT I AM REQUESTING Immediate referral to the FBI, FTC, and DOJ for criminal investigation - CFPB assistance in contacting my State Attorney General to compel a response - Access to or referral for legal representation or legal aid services- Full investigation into the furnisher and the credit reporting agency 's conduct - Enforcement action against any party found to be willfully or negligently complicit - Restitution for damages suffered under FCRA, and support restoring my credit profile I am NOT simply requesting the removal of the tradelineI am demanding a criminal investigation and civil enforcement for the willful destruction of my livelihood. \n\nThank you your time and help in this matter. \n- XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-06T18:00:28.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"95831","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12847312","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CONTRACT CALLERS INC","date_received":"2025-04-06T17:04:35.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Indicated you were committing crime by not paying debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["IDENTITY THEFT AND WIRE FRAUD FEDERAL CRIMES I am alleging that this conduct constitutes not just civil harm, but criminal activity, and I am requesting that the CFPB : - Refer this complaint to the Federal Bureau of <em>Investigation</em> ( FBI ) - Contact the <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> if <em>appropriate</em> - <em>Coordinate</em> with my <em>State</em> <em>Attorney</em> General, who has not responded to a previous complaint filed over a month ago This case involves : Wire Fraud ( XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[18.30146,"12847312"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15630503","_score":15.829937,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Consumer Complaint Forensic Report Complainant : XXXX XXXX, XXXX  of the XXXX XXXX  Date : XX/XX/year> 1. Introduction 1.1 The complainant, XXXX XXXX, is an enrolled XXXX  of the XXXX XXXX. \n1.2 The purpose of this filing is to request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) investigate systematic XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  discrimination perpetrated by BancFirst Corporation ( hereinafter BancFirst ) in violation of federal consumer protection statutes, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), and to coordinate with relevant authorities regarding violations of the XXXX XXXX  Civil Rights Ordinance .\n\n2. Jurisdiction & Authority 2.1 The CFPB is authorized under 12 U.S.C. 5491 ( a ) to receive, investigate, and enforce actions against any financial institution that violates consumer financial laws. BancFirst is a covered financial institution under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.\n\n2.2 Regulation 12 CFR 1002.1 et seq. ( Regulation B ), which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq., prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of race, XXXX, religion, national origin, XXXX, marital status, age, or because a person has exercised a right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Disability discrimination is encompassed within this prohibition.\n\n2.3 The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., enforced by the CFPB, regulates the procurement and use of consumer reports and requires a permissible purpose.\n\n2.4 Because BancFirst conducts retail banking on XXXX XXXX reservation land, the Bureau has a compelling interest in enforcing these federal statutes to protect tribal members and ensuring coordination with tribal authorities.\n\n3. Factual Allegations Chronology of Discriminatory Conduct Date Event Description XX/XX/year> Scammer Designation A senior employee named \" XXXX '' of BancFirsts internal Back Ops operation labelled XXXX XXXX a scammer and ordered that his accounts be closed and he be barred from returning to any BancFirst branch. No investigation or factual basis was provided. \nXX/XX/year> Account Blockage BancFirst blocked XXXX XXXX access to all deposit accounts, refused his withdrawal requests, and threatened further adverse action if he pursued the matter. \nXX/XX/year> Unauthorized Credit Inquiries BancFirst obtained two consumer report pulls from nationwide consumer reporting agencies without any permissible purpose or written authorization from XXXX XXXX, in direct violation of the FCRA. \nXX/XX/year> Derogatory Remarks During a phone call, a Back Ops supervisor referred to XXXX XXXX wife, an Indonesian national, stating when we see immigration and XXXX as the reason for the transfer we think scammer, using that remark as a justification for the scammer label. \nXX/XX/year> Denial of Reasonable Accommodation XXXX XXXX, who has a documented physical XXXX ( facial paralysis ) and a cognitive XXXX that together constitute a substantial limitation of one or more major life activities, was denied service and a reasonable accommodation. His XXXX was apparent and reported during the interaction, yet was met with disrespectful treatment. \nXXXX Evidence of Systemic Discrimination A review of employee headshots and biographies for all 30+ BancFirst Oklahoma branches revealed XXXX XXXX XXXX  employees and few XXXX employees. Internal hiring manuals ( Back-Ops Staffing Guide ) restrict recruitment to a non-public closed-door list that appears to exclude tribal members and minorities, evidencing a culture of discrimination. \n4. Legal Claims Fact Statutory Violation Authority Unauthorized credit pulls FCRA illegal consumer report request without permissible purpose. 15 U.S.C. 1681b ; 12 CFR 1022 et seq.\n\nScammer label & account closure based on national origin ECOA discriminatory credit decision based on national origin ( of spouse ). 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( a ) ; 12 CFR 1002.4, 1002.6 Scammer label & denial of service based on XXXX ECOA discriminatory credit decision based on XXXX and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( a ) ; 12 CFR 1002.4, 1002.6 Derogatory remarks & culture of discrimination ECOA evidence of a discriminatory pattern or practice that informs credit decisions. 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( a ), ( e ) ; 12 CFR 1002.4 5. Evidence Attachments ( Redacted and available upon request ) Exhibit Description Exhibit A Conversation with Back Ops supervisor labeling XXXX XXXX a scammer. \nExhibit B Screenshot of account-block notice sent to XXXX XXXX. \nExhibit C Medical certification of XXXX. \nExhibit D Copies of the two unauthorized credit-report requests.\n\nExhibit E Transcript of phone call containing derogatory remark about Indonesian spouse.\n\nExhibit F Internal Back-Ops Staffing Guide showing closed-door hiring policy.\n\nExhibit G Employee demographic spreadsheet ( 30+ Oklahoma branches 0 XXXX  XXXX , 0 XXXX employees ). \n6. Requested Relief 6.1 Monetary Relief Restitution and Compensatory Damages for XXXX XXXX loss of access to funds, and reputational harm. \n\nStatutory FCRA damages {$1000.00} per unauthorized credit inquiry ( total {$2000.00} ). \n\n6.2 Injunctive Relief Order BancFirst to : Immediately cease all discriminatory practices ( including scammer designations without basis, account blockages without cause, and denial of reasonable accommodations ).\n\nImplement a tribal affirmative action plan with goals and timetables for recruiting and hiring XXXX XXXX XXXX, other tribal members, and XXXX applicants, and eliminate the closed-door hiring policy. \n\nSubmit to an independent, CFPB-approved audit of all Oklahoma-branch hiring , promotion, and credit-decision practices within 60 days.\n\nProhibit BancFirst from engaging in any retaliation against XXXX XXXX or any individual who assisted in this complaint. \n\n6.3 Civil Penalties Impose significant civil money penalties on BancFirst for its egregious and abusive practices.\n\n6.4 Compliance Reporting Require BancFirst to file quarterly compliance reports with the CFPB for a period of two ( 2 ) years.\n\n7. Conclusion & Request for Coordination 7.1 The facts set forth demonstrate a systemic pattern of discrimination that breaches the ECOA and FCRA.\n\n7.2 The complainant respectfully requests that the CFPB investigate BancFirsts conduct, enforce compliance with federal statutes, and forward this complaint to its appropriate enforcement divisions. \n\nXXXX Further, the complainant asks that the CFPB coordinate its investigation and enforcement actions with the Attorney General of the XXXX XXXX, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to ensure comprehensive remedial action is taken.\n\nRespectfully submitted, Signature XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CC : Attorney General of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Bureau of XXXX XXXX XXXX DC","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-31T15:16:33.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"74017","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15630503","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANCFIRST CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-08-31T14:12:35.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX Further, the complainant asks that the CFPB <em>coordinate</em> its <em>investigation</em> and enforcement actions with the <em>Attorney</em> General of the XXXX XXXX, the <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> Civil Rights Division, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to ensure comprehensive remedial action is taken.\n\nRespectfully submitted, Signature XXXX XXXX, XXXX."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing issue"],"sub_issue":["Was not notified of <em>investigation</em> status or results"]},"sort":[15.829937,"15630503"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14783545","_score":14.65968,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Attorney Misconduct and Consumer Rights Violations To : Nebraska Counsel for Discipline, Nebraska XXXX XXXX XXXX, Nebraska Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), XXXX, Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), as well as the Minnesota XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( OLPR ), Minnesota Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Minnesota Department XXXX XXXX I. Summary and Jurisdiction This complaint details a pattern of unethical conduct, procedural violations, and unlawful consumer abuse most recently by multiple attorneys not limited to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX Firm as well as a prior law firm with multiple attorneys from XXXX and XXXX across XXXX cases. All operating out of both Minnesota and Nebraska representing XXXX XXXX XXXX Services. The misconduct spans multiple areas : legal ethics, XXXX discrimination, FDCPA and FCRA violations, and judicial abuse. Therefore, this complaint is submitted to multiple appropriate bodies for investigation and immediate action. \nXXXX. Parties Involved - XXXX XXXX Initiating attorney for the duplicate case refiled, XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX Filed improper XX/XX/XXXX blanket denial and retaliatory XX/XX/XXXX motion to amend responses nearly XXXX days after the fact on a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. \n- XXXX XXXX Appeared XX/XX/XXXX, in place of XXXX XXXX, who failed to appear, declared himself as the Lead Attorney and sole counsel from the firm going forward, allowed XXXX unauthorized filings in violation of cease and desist that he acknowledged was in place and on record. \nXXXX. Chronology and Procedural Misconduct XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX Firm refiles CI XXXX XXXX XXXX under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via XXXX XXXX, despite improper standing and no tradeline in the locked, frozen, and fraud alerted credit files despite unauthorized access. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Defendant files counterclaims, XXXX violations, renewed motions, retaliation notices, disciplinary requests. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX XXXX knowingly files an improper general denial, violating XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Case dismissed with prejudice. No compliance at all throughout for what they initiated for the second time. No motions by XXXX ruled on still preserved and pending. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Court hearing XXXX confirms on record he is the lead attorney and is the sole counsel going forward. He threatened the defendant on record to cease the pursuit of counterclaims or they will refile the case yet again. XXXX continuance granted for stipulation on my pending motions and counterclaims. No stipulation or settlement was attempted by the Plaintiff or counsel in violation of the XXXX continuance request causing unnecessary delay and continuing harm. \nXX/XX/XXXX : nearly XXXX days after the hearing giving them additional time to respond. Defendant files motion for the hearing to rule on pending motions per the XXXX 's order. It also outlined ongoing misconduct and continued violations. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX files retaliatory amendment motion without service. Court grants on a Friday. Defendant was never provided the motion nor had the opportunity to object to the obvious retaliatory act prior to it being ordered. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Defendant files Motion to Strike citing systemic XXXX, due process, and ethics violations. \nIV. Legal and Ethical Violations Committed XXXX but not limited to : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Lack of candor toward the tribunal XXXX Unfairness toward opposing party XXXX / XXXX Lack of competence and diligence XXXX General misconduct Title XXXX of the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Denial of access to justice due to XXXX XXXX C.F.R. XXXX Discriminatory court access XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX Harassment and failure to validate debt ( FDCPA ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) Failure to investigate disputed debts ( FCRA ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims and contentions ( XXXX 's blanket XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal ( XXXX 's complicity XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX Respect for rights of third persons ( XXXX retaliation ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX Violation of civil rights under XXXX of law ( systemic XXXX process denial ) Bivens v. XXXX Unknown Named Agents, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Right to constitutional remedies when federal actors are complicit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Due process rights for pro se litigants must be respected XXXX XXXX. XXXX Prohibits discrimination in public services ( Title XXXX XXXX ) XXXX U.S.C. XXXX Section XXXX XXXX XXXX, applies to federally funded programs including courts XXXX XXXX. XXXX Obligation to ensure effective communication with XXXX individuals The following Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct have also been violated by Attorneys XXXX and XXXX and should serve as procedural grounds for formal discipline : Rule XXXX ( Competence ) Rule XXXX ( Meritorious Claims and Contentions ) Rule XXXX ( Candor to the Tribunal ) Rule XXXX ( Respect for Rights of Third Persons ) Rule XXXX ( Misconduct ) The following Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct ( MRPC ) violations XXXX also include but are not limited to : Rule XXXX ( c ) - Disobeying a court order Rule XXXX ( a ) - Unfairness to opposing party Rule XXXX - Truthfulness in statements Rule XXXX ( d ) - Conduct prejudicial to justice Rule XXXX ( a ) - Violation through others Rule XXXX - Lack of competence Rule XXXX - Expediting litigation Rule XXXX ( g ) - Discrimination or harassment Rule XXXX ( c ) - Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation Rule XXXX ( b ) - Responsibilities of a supervisory lawyer Rule XXXX ( a ) Confidentiality These violations show intentional, repeated disregard for ethical and procedural duties and merit immediate professional sanction. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX These actions that have now been allowed to go on for over a year and are fully evidenced across XXXX court records and have inflicted serious mental, emotional, physical, and financial harm on a vulnerable pro se litigant, while the attorneys exploited procedural gaps and weaponized litigation. The chilling effect of these lawsuits now prevents the Defendant from disputing further inaccurate credit entries for fear of immediate retaliatory litigation. This is a continuing injury and results in sustained, compounding financial and emotional harm. \nIt also undermines public confidence in legal institutions and the equal application of law. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX Firm and its attorneys appear to be continuing the same unlawful practices previously employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, another firm that represented XXXX Funding in the related cases. This includes a disturbing pattern of constitutional violations, denial of due process, and disregard for the civil and XXXX rights of the Defendant. Despite repeated notifications to courts and regulators, no entity has taken meaningful action to address or restrain this coordinated abuse of legal process and perpetrated throughout the court record of XXXX cases including the current case part XXXX of CI XXXX XXXX XXXX involving my properly filed and preserved counterclaims. \nThis abuse is not isolated. It reflects a broader systemic pattern whereby XXXX XXXX and its agents weaponize the legal system against consumers, particularly vulnerable and pro se individuals, through attorney-swapping, serial filings, forum shopping, and retaliation in response to protected activity. These practices, now employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, mirror those previously used by XXXX XXXX XXXX and warrant urgent oversight as ongoing, coordinated legal terrorism. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, highlighting the timeline of the most recent intentional harm that reflects extensive procedural neglect and retaliatory conduct : XXXX days since XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was filed on XX/XX/XXXX including complete non-compliance and failure to appear then voluntarily dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. All motions filed still pending and unanswered. \nXXXX days since case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was filed on XX/XX/XXXX simultaneously also with complete non-compliance and failure to appear and then voluntarily dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. All motions and filings have gone unaddressed and remain pending. \nXXXX  days since XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was refiled by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX under improper standing. \nXXXX days since Defendants counterclaims were filed. \nXXXX days since Attorney XXXX XXXX submitted an improper blanket denial violating XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX and deemed admitted per Nebraska law. \nXXXX days since the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, yet still revived in retaliation to legally protected actions. \nXXXX  days since XXXX XXXX confirmed on record at the hearing on XX/XX/XXXX that he alone would represent the XXXX going forward to eliminate the confusion by all the unauthorized attorney hopping. \nXXXX  days between Defendants XX/XX/XXXX filing exposing these failures and Plaintiffs retaliatory amendment to retroactively go back nearly XXXX days and now attempt to properly respond to the counterclaims. \nXXXX days from Plaintiffs improper motion on XX/XX/XXXX to this filing date during which time no service or objection opportunity was permitted regarding the plaintiff 's motion for leave to file amended answer to defendants counterclaim. \n\nThis chronology demonstrates a pattern of systemic discrimination and retaliation. The XXXX has failed to rule on any of Defendants properly filed motions for over a year, while allowing Plaintiffs unauthorized and procedurally invalid retaliatory filings within hours. \nThe Courts willingness to grant ex parte orders, ignore pending motions, dismissals, and accept clearly retaliatory filings while refusing to enforce its own record has made it complicit in denying this Defendant equal access to justice. This violates core due process protections under the XXXX Amendment and XXXX Title XXXX. Such imbalanced treatment of a vulnerable pro se litigant constitutes a denial of due process, as well as a direct violation of protections under the Americans with XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \n\nAs of the date of this complaint, Plaintiff and its legal representatives including multiple law firms have committed over XXXX documented procedural, statutory, and constitutional violations. These include violations of the XXXX, FDCPA, FCRA, and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The repeated and escalating nature of these acts carried out on court record and in direct retaliation for protected filings constitutes continued intentional infliction of emotional distress ( IIED ). Defendant continues to suffer severe harm, loss of livelihood, decreased quality of life, deteriorating health, and fear of legal retaliation for asserting fundamental rights. Cumulative damages now exceed {$750000.00}, supported by continuing injury theory and stacking of statutory remedies under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( FDCPA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( emotional distress in civil rights claims ), Doe XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( statutory damages ), and State ex rel. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( affirming cumulative statutory penalties where violations are ongoing and willful ). \n\nVI. XXXX Requested XXXX. Investigate and discipline XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and others involved for misconduct. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX and XXXX for possible systemic violations. \nXXXX. Refer to DOJ XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX systemic discrimination. \nXXXX. XXXX and publicly censure the individual attorneys for their extensive misconduct. \nXXXX. Require restitution or corrective measures where applicable. \nXXXX. Require improved XXXX compliance and service of process. \nXXXX. Accept this complaint as a continued notice of pattern of abuse for future consumer alerts. \nThis complaint is submitted under oath and penalty of perjury to multiple agencies empowered to investigate legal malpractice, ethical violations, consumer fraud, and civil rights abuses, including those involving XXXX Title XXXX. The undersigned respectfully invokes the jurisdiction of all listed bodies and seeks a formal inquiry, discipline, and any enforcement remedies appropriate under state, federal, or professional codes. \nI, as a pro se litigant, have been expected to meet every procedural and substantive standard or face judgement, while Plaintiff represented by licensed counsel has been permitted to bypass deadlines, ignore filings, and violate court protocol without consequence. This disparity is not only unfair, it is unconstitutional. \nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and abilities. \n\nExecuted on XX/XX/XXXX. \nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T02:01:58.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"690XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14783545","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.","date_received":"2025-07-21T01:53:39.000Z","state":"NE","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This complaint is submitted under oath and penalty of perjury to multiple agencies empowered to <em>investigate</em> legal malpractice, ethical violations, consumer fraud, and civil rights abuses, including those involving XXXX Title XXXX. The undersigned respectfully invokes the jurisdiction of all listed bodies and seeks a formal inquiry, discipline, and any enforcement remedies <em>appropriate</em> under <em>state</em>, federal, or professional codes."]},"sort":[14.65968,"14783545"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12756381","_score":10.665009,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Mail Fraud Enforcement Referral Request Not a New Dispute From : XXXX XXXX XXXX Private Legal Complainant | Independent Enforcement Action XXXX XXXXXXXX | XXXX ========================================================================= To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Enforcement Division CC : Equifax Information Services , LLC Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Division of Enforcement U.S. Postal Inspection Service ( Mail Fraud Division ) Department of Justice Criminal Division Department of Justice Consumer Protection Branch ========================================================================= Date : XX/XX/XXXX ========================================================================= Subject : Federal Mail Fraud Referral Equifaxs Systemic Use of USPS to Transmit Deceptive, False, and Obstructive Dispute Responses in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 Dear CFPB Enforcement Division, This formal enforcement referral is submitted pursuant to my rights under federal consumer protection law. I am a resident of XXXX XXXX XXXXing in my capacity as a private complainant and sworn affiant. \nI submit this referral independently and without legal representation, in response to documented misconduct by Equifax Information Services , LLC, involving the use of the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) to transmit deceptive, obstructive, and materially false dispute response lettersa pattern that constitutes prosecutable mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341 and supports enforcement action under multiple federal and state statutes. \nThese communications from Equifax contained knowingly false claims regarding document quality, identity verification, and dispute legitimacytactics that were spread across multiple months, often delivered in clusters on the same day using varied false pretenses. \nA sworn and notarized Affidavit of Truth is attached in support of this complaint, attesting to the accuracy of the facts and timelines asserted herein, and preserving the legal integrity of this referral for civil, regulatory, and criminal review XXXX Overview of Mail Fraud Scheme This referral concerns a systemic and sustained mail-based fraud operation carried out by Equifax Information Services , LLC, involving the repeated transmission of materially false and obstructive dispute response letters via the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) . These mailings were not clerical errors or isolated deviationsthey reflect a coordinated internal strategy designed to suppress, distort, and evade federally protected consumer rights. \nBetween XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax mailed at least 61 dispute response letters to the complainant. These letters contain one or more of the following misrepresentations : Misclassifying valid, affidavit-backed disputes as frivolous or fraudulent, Claiming documents were illegible, mismatched, or procedurally invalid despite receiving complete packages, Falsely asserting that no consumer credit file could be located, Refusing to block identity theft-related tradelines under FCR\n\nA 605B ( c ), despite receiving all statutory documentation. These actions are further aggravated by the following : On multiple occasions, Equifax mailed several letters on the same day, each invoking different false justifications for denialdemonstrating premeditated tactic rotation and dispute suppression ; Not a single one of the mailed letters references or is directly linked to any open or closed CFPB complaint ID submitted by the consumer, despite Equifax being fully aware of the open investigations and statutory requirements for linkage and response. This omission constitutes constructive concealment from federal regulators and may support prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 ( False Statements or Omissions in Matters within Federal Jurisdiction ). \n========================================================================= Each of the 61 USPS-delivered responses thus constitutes a separate fraudulent act under 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( Mail Fraud ) and supports additional civil and regulatory exposure under : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 1681c2, 1681i, 1681e ( b ) ), The Consumer Financial Protection Act ( UDAAP provisions under 12 U.S.C. 55315536 ), The D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( D.C. Code 28-3904 and 28-3905 ), and The Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ( O.C.G.A. 10-1-393 and 10-1-399 ).\n\nThis pattern of using USPS mailings to obscure, rather than resolve, federal dispute processes demand urgent regulatory coordination and criminal review. \n========================================================================= Violation Matrix ( Mailed Misrepresentations by Category ) The following tables document the 61 verified instances of mail-based misrepresentation by Equifax between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nEquifax 's 61 systemic mail tactics fall into six ( 6 ) clearly identifiable categories of fraudulent mail conduct, including : Category 1 - Claim Proof of Identity Information Doesn't Match Credit File Category 2 - Claim Unable to Locate Credit File with Information Provided Category 3 - False Claim Documents Provided Illegible Category 4 - False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification Category 5 - Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification Category 6 - Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B ( c ) ========================================================================= Table 1 : Fraudulent Mail Tactics Used by Equifax By Category A total of 61 unique violations across the above six ( 6 ) categories : Mail Fraud Tactic used by Equifax Mail Fraud Category Count of Equifax Fraudulent Tactic Claim Proof of Identity Information Doesn't Match Credit File 1 3 Claim Unable to Locate Credit File with Information Provided 2 3 False Claim Documents Provided Illegible 3 5 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 4 17 Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) 5 1 Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ) 5 3 Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) XXXX XXXX Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) XXXX XXXX Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unlawful Frivolous Dispute ClassificatioXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B 6 23 Grand Total 61 ========================================================================= Table 2 : Mail Fraud Tactics by Date Temporal Spread Across 61 USPS Letters The fraud tactics listed above were not committed in a single batch. Instead, they were strategically spread across 19 separate USPS delivery dates, spanning more than three months. In several cases, Equifax mailed multiple letters on the same day, each letter containing a different false justificationa strong indicator of structured evasion, not clerical inconsistency. \nHere is the chronological breakdown : XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX violations across XXXX mailing days XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX violations across XXXX mailing days XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX violations across XXXX mailing days Mail Fraud Tactic used by Equifax by Month and Day Count of Equifax Fraudulent Tactic XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Claim Proof of Identity Information Doesn't Match Credit File 1 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Claim Proof of Identity Information Doesn't Match Credit File 1 False Claim Documents Provided Illegible 1 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B 2 XX/XX/XXXX XXXX False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B 1 XX/XX/XXXX XXXX False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX False Claim Documents Provided Illegible 1 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Claim Unable to Locate Credit File with Information Provided 1 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  1 Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B 1 XXXX XXXX False Claim Documents Provided Illegible 1 Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX False Claim Documents Provided Illegible XXXX Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) XXXX Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXnlawful Frivolous XXXX Classification XXXX XXXX ) XXXX Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Claim Proof of Identity Information Doesn't Match Credit File 1 False Claim Documents Provided Illegible 1 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 3 Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Claim Unable to Locate Credit File with Information Provided 1 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Claim Unable to Locate Credit File with Information Provided 1 False Victim of Fraud or Identity Theft Classification 1 Unlawful Frivolous Dispute Classification ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Unlawful Refusal to Block Information pursuant Section 605B 1 Grand Total 61 ========================================================================= Notable Insights : High-Level Interpretation of Equifaxs Mail Fraud Execution Rhythm A closer examination of Equifaxs mailing behavior reveals a deliberate, coordinated rhythm of mail-based misrepresentations that further confirms intent to defraud and suppress lawful disputes. \nThese actions were not sporadicthey were executed in tactically concentrated bursts, deploying different legal evasion strategies on the same day to dilute evidentiary connections and frustrate reinvestigation triggers. \nKey examples include : XX/XX/XXXX : Equifax issued seven ( 7 ) USPS letters to the complainant in a single mail batch. Within this batch, the company deployed three separate false justifications : o Misclassifying a valid identity theft report as a fraudulent dispute, o Refusing to block tradelines despite a complete 605B file, o Flagging disputes as frivolous without basis or statutory notice. \nXX/XX/XXXX : A single-day mailing event included eleven ( 11 ) separate letters, each using a mix of five ( 5 ) categories with distinct statutory violations. These included false identity claims, 605B refusals, illegibility assertions, and multiple varieties of frivolous dispute classificationsall mailed together. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Four ( 4 ) USPS letters were sent concurrently, each invoking a unique obstructive tactic : o One falsely claimed the complainant was a victim of identity theft ( when no such claim was made ), o Another stated the file could not be located, o A third denied a 605B block request without citing any deficiency, o And the fourth dismissed the dispute as frivolous. \n========================================================================= This conduct constitutes a pattern and practice of obstruction and deception, further supporting enforcement under the CFPBs supervisory and enforcement authorities pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5511 ( c ) These patterns also reflect intentional tactic variation across the same-day USPS dispatches , structured to give the illusion of individualized review, while in fact executing a multi-layered evasion strategy. Such rhythm and variation support the legal theory of a pre-engineered scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341, amplified by material omissions under 18 U.S.C. 1001. \n========================================================================= This Referral Supplements and Escalates Already-Filed Federal Complaints This same-day, multi-tactic deployment reflects a deliberate internal dispute suppression framework, not random or isolated error. Each instance is tied to a documented dispute, FTC Fraud Report, and supporting affidavit already submitted to federal agencies under : CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX FTC Fraud Report : XXXX FTC Fraud Report : XXXX Each of the 61 USPS mailings detailed in this report is connected to these broader complaints and supported by sworn affidavits, identity verification documents, and dispute records already in the possession of regulatory agencies. \n========================================================================= Legal Authority for Mail Fraud Referral Under 18 U.S.C. 1341, it is a federal crime to : devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises ... and place in any post office or authorized depository... any matter or thing to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service.\n\nEquifax has violated this statute by : Using USPS to deliver dispute response letters containing false, misleading, or intentionally obstructive statements ; Issuing multiple letters on the same exact day, each employing distinct fraudulent tacticse.g., one falsely claiming \" documents were illegible, '' while another from the same batch falsely states \" unable to locate file, '' and yet another mislabels the dispute as frivolous ; Refusing to block identity theft data under FCRA 605B, despite receiving : o Valid FTC Identity Theft Reports ; o Sworn Notarized Affidavits of Truth ; o Full item identification, proof of address, and timely documentation.\n\n========================================================================= These letters were not isolated errorsthey represent a coordinated strategy to evade federal compliance obligations while feigning due process through USPS correspondence.\n\nEach mailed communication was strategically designed to : Mislead the consumer, Obstruct lawful reinvestigation rights, Create a false record for federal agencies ( e.g., CFPB ), and Preserve the illusion of compliance to regulators. \nThis pattern demonstrates not only deceptive conduct, but a structured scheme to defraud, executed using the United States Postal Service. \n========================================================================= Criminal and Civil Violations ( Compounded ) Equifaxs conduct constitutes a complex and coordinated violation of multiple criminal and civil statutes. These violations are not isolatedthey are part of a deliberate dispute suppression system facilitated through mail, digital platforms, and regulatory misrepresentation. \n========================================================================= A. 18 U.S.C. 1341 Mail Fraud ( Federal Criminal Law ) This statute prohibits the use of the U.S. Mail to execute or attempt to execute any scheme or artifice to defraud.\n\nWhoever places in any post office or authorized depository for mail any matter or thing to be sent for the purpose of executing such scheme shall be fined or imprisoned Equifax 's Violation : Equifax used the U.S. Postal Service to transmit 61 separate dispute response letters, each containing false, misleading, or obstructive content. These were part of a mail-based scheme to defraud consumers and regulators by falsely denying disputes, suppressing legitimate identity theft reports, and issuing deceptive justifications to avoid blocking inaccurate data.\n\nEach letter constitutes a separate prosecutable act under this statute.\n\n========================================================================= B. 18 U.S.C. 1001 False Statements to Federal Agencies This statute criminalizes knowingly and willfully making materially false statements in any matter under the jurisdiction of a federal agency. \nWhoever knowingly and willfully makes any materially false representation shall be fined or imprisoned Equifax 's Violation : By reporting to the CFPB that disputes were fraudulent or frivolouswhen the consumer made no such claim and provided valid documentationEquifax made false material representations to a federal agency. These responses alter the regulatory record, mislead federal investigators, and interfere with statutory oversight. Each false CFPB response may constitute a separate offense.\n\n========================================================================= C. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, 1681i, 1681e ( b ) 1. 1681c-2 ( FCRA 605B ) Failure to Block Identity Theft Information Requires CRAs to block disputed information resulting from identity theft within four business days after receiving : Proof of identity FTC Identity Theft Report Specific dispute information Written request Violation : Equifax failed to block accounts after receiving valid 605B packages, constituting unlawful refusal to act under federal statute.\n\n2. 1681i Failure to Reinvestigate and Provide Results Requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and report results within 30 days. \nViolation : Equifax denied or ignored lawful disputes using pretextual letters ( file not found, documents illegible ) without conducting a real reinvestigation or providing required results. \n3. 1681e ( b ) Failure to Ensure Accuracy CRAs must maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy of consumer reports.\n\nViolation : By continuing to report tradelines that had been validly disputed, flagged as identity theft, and accompanied by documentation, Equifax failed to uphold its accuracy obligations.\n\n========================================================================= D. 12 U.S.C. 5531 & 5536 CFPA / UDAAP Violations ( Federal Civil Law ) Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) are prohibited under Title X of the XXXX XXXX\n\nViolation : Equifaxs pattern of : Misclassifying disputes without basis, Mailing contradictory letters on the same day, Refusing to block verified fraud entries, Falsely reporting to federal regulators, qualifies as both deceptive and abusive conduct under UDAAP. This creates substantial consumer harm that is not reasonably avoidable and serves no legitimate business interest. \n========================================================================= XXXX XXXX Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) Misrepresentation of a Material Fact Prohibits companies from misrepresenting the nature or characteristics of services or rights. \n2. 28-3904 ( f ) Failure to State a Material Fact Where Omission Is Misleading Requires clear disclosure of material facts, especially when silence misleads the consumer.\n\n3. 28-3905 ( k ) ( 2 ) Treble Damages for Willful Violations Allows for recovery of three times actual damages when a violation is found to be willful. \nViolation : Equifax issued deceptive letters to a XXXX resident ( the complainant ) falsely stating : Disputes were frivolous, Identity documents didnt match, Files could not be located, despite receiving valid documents. This constitutes actionable deception under XXXX law and triggers treble damages. \n========================================================================= F. Georgia Fair Business Practices Act O.C.G.A. 10-1-393 & 10-1-399 As Equifax is headquartered in Georgia, it is subject to the Georgia FBPA, which prohibits : Deceptive representations, Obstruction of lawful rights, Failure to deliver expected services.\n\nViolation : Equifaxs failure to honor its legal duties under FCRA, while issuing false and conflicting letters, constitutes a violation of Georgias consumer protection laws. The complainant may pursue damages and attorneys fees under 10-1-399, with the Georgia AG authorized to investigate and prosecute civil violations. \n========================================================================= Evidence and Exhibits All exhibits are timestamped, indexed, and maintained in accordance with federal evidentiary standards and will be provided upon subpoena or direct regulatory request : Mail Letters from Equifax containing the 61 violations, Original disputes, notarized affidavits, and FTC reports submitted. \n========================================================================= Request for Action Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( c ), I respectfully request that the CFPB formally refer this matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency, including the U.S. Postal Inspection Service ( USPIS ), for investigation under 18 U.S.C. 1341 with a recommendation to initiate a full criminal investigation into Equifaxs mail-based scheme to defraud, mislead, and obstruct lawful consumer dispute procedures in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and related statutes.\n\nBecause the scheme involves use of the United States Postal Service to transmit materially deceptive correspondence, jurisdiction properly lies with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service under Title 18 and relevant federal regulations.\n\nThis matter falls within the jurisdiction of the CFPB under 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( c ) and 12 U.S.C. 5538, which authorize the Bureau to refer evidence of potential criminal conduct to appropriate law enforcement agencies. \n========================================================================= Additionally, I request that the CFPB coordinate multi-agency enforcement with the following entities : ========================================================================= CFPB Enforcement Division for investigation and civil enforcement of systemic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), and ongoing patterns of Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices ( UDAAP ) under 12 U.S.C. 55315536 ; ========================================================================= Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Division of Enforcement for enforcement of deceptive business practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, and joint review of Equifaxs dispute-handling procedures as they relate to identity theft, consumer fraud, and reinvestigation obligations ; ========================================================================= U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Criminal Division for potential criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( Mail Fraud ) and 18 U.S.C. 1001 ( False Statements to a Federal Agency ), given the volume and structure of Equifaxs misrepresentations across multiple USPS mailings ; ========================================================================= U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Consumer Protection Branch for civil enforcement, litigation support, and regulatory coordination concerning widespread consumer rights violations, including Equifaxs refusal to honor federally mandated dispute, suppression, and reinvestigation obligations pursuant to : 15 U.S.C. 1681s ( FCRA enforcement referrals ), 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 5536 ( UDAAP violations under CFPA ), 15 U.S.C. 45 ( unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act, via interagency coordination ), and 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1001 where applicable to fraudulent mail use and false statements in agency responses. \n========================================================================= This case involves not only civil noncompliance, but a clear pattern of regulatory evasion, evidentiary misrepresentation, and mail-based deception. These actions demand criminal scrutiny, civil penalties, and structural correction to protect both consumers and the integrity of the federal complaint system. \n========================================================================= Closing and Affirmation I affirm that this referral is made independently, based on sworn personal knowledge and evidence. I am not affiliated with any credit repair organization. I am pursuing lawful remedies under civil, administrative, and criminal law as permitted under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. \nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX ========================================================================= Enclosures : Sworn and notarized Affidavit of Truth Equifax Mail Fraud Matrix ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Formal Notice of Systemic Consumer Fraud Timeline of Equifaxs Obstructive Tactics Extension Complaint Notice - Equifax Mail Fraud CFPB Complaint ID XXXX XXXX CFPB Complaint ID XXXX - XXXX ReportFraud.ftc.gov - XXXX XXXX ReportFraud.ftc.gov - XXXX XXXX ReportFraud.ftc.gov - XXXX XXXX XXXX - Mail Fraud Complaint XXXX XXXX Equifax Mail Fraud Dispute Response Letters o ( See 61 individual Mail Fraud attachments on CFPB Complaint ) =========================================================================","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-02T03:59:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20008","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12756381","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-02T03:33:30.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Postal Inspection Service ( Mail Fraud Division ) <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> Criminal Division <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> Consumer Protection Branch ========================================================================= Date : XX/XX/XXXX ========================================================================= Subject : Federal Mail Fraud Referral Equifaxs Systemic Use of USPS to Transmit Deceptive, False, and Obstructive Dispute Responses in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 Dear CFPB Enforcement Division, This"],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"]},"sort":[10.665009,"12756381"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12896336","_score":10.262316,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"NOTICE This Complaint Is Not a Duplicate : Any Attempt to Misclassify It Constitutes Procedural Misrepresentation and Regulatory Misconduct ========================================================================= This complaint is not a duplicate of any prior submission, including but not limited to CFPB Complaint ID XXXX. It documents a new, independently reportable violationspecifically, Aidvantages continued misrepresentation of a prior CFPB complaint filed against XXXX ( ID XXXX ) as the basis for its internal fraud classification, as well as its stated policy of collapsing multiple complaints into a single response record. \n========================================================================= Any attempt by Aidvantage to mischaracterize this complaint as previously addressed or duplicative will be treated as a fraudulent procedural act and a misuse of the federal consumer complaint system, in violation of : 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) Prohibition on deceptive and abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) Furnishers duty to correct and update inaccurate information ; D.C. Code 28-3904 ( e ), ( f ) Misrepresentation and failure to honor consumer rights under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ; 18 U.S.C. 1001 Material false statements to a federal agency or in a matter within federal jurisdiction. \n========================================================================= This complaint arises from a new, post-dated violation that took place after prior complaints were filed. It involves a materially false assertion made by Aidvantage in its XX/XX/2025 response, falsely linking a separate CFPB complaint ( filed against XXXX ) to its internal servicing records, and reaffirming a pattern of improper fraud designation and procedural concealment. \n========================================================================= Furthermore, Aidvantages stated policy of responding to multiple complaints under one CFPB complaint number constitutes an attempt to suppress individualized complaint visibility, obstruct the official regulatory record, and evade accountability for ongoing and distinct legal violations. \n========================================================================= Any further attempt by Aidvantage to mislabel this submission as duplicative or to suppress its factual and legal claims through internal aggregation policies will be preserved as evidence of regulatory misconduct and will be escalated as warranted. \n========================================================================= NOTICE : Aidvantages continued misuse of the CFPBs complaint designation system to obscure procedural violations is being independently tracked as part of an active evidentiary dossier for potential regulatory enforcement and civil litigation, if warranted. \n========================================================================= Subject : Systemic Misrepresentation by Aidvantage False Identity Theft Designation, Unauthorized Use of CFPB Complaint Record, and Violation of Federal Furnisher Obligations ========================================================================= To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, FTC ========================================================================= CC : Aidvantage Credit Bureau Management ========================================================================= Date : XX/XX/2025 ========================================================================= Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX ========================================================================= Complaint ID Referenced ( for background ) : ========================================================================= XXXX ========================================================================= XXXX ========================================================================= XXXX ========================================================================= XXXX ========================================================================= Affirmation of Independent Legal Action and Federal Record Accuracy ========================================================================= I submit this complaint in my individual legal capacity and affirm that I am not affiliated with any credit repair organization. This submission documents federal loan servicing misconduct and preserves all rights for civil, regulatory, and evidentiary enforcement. Aidvantage is formally on notice. \n========================================================================= I. Unauthorized Identity Theft Designation of Federal Loan Account ========================================================================= Aidvantage unilaterally designated one or more of my federal student loan accounts as involving identity theft without my authorization, without law enforcement documentation, and without any identity theft report submitted by me. \n========================================================================= This act constitutes : ========================================================================= A material misrepresentation of the status of a federal student loan, ========================================================================= A falsification of servicing records, ========================================================================= A violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) and 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( UDAAP ). \n========================================================================= I have submitted a notarized affidavit and two FTC Fraud Reports affirming no identity theft was reported. Aidvantage proceeded with a fraud designation despite this documentation. \n========================================================================= XXXX. Misuse of CFPB Complaint System to Justify Internal Fraud Protocol ========================================================================= In its XX/XX/2025 response, Aidvantage cited CFPB Complaint ID XXXX was filed against XXXX the basis for initiating a fraud classification on my federal loan. \n========================================================================= This claim is demonstrably false. \n========================================================================= The referenced complaint does not mention identity theft, was not submitted against Aidvantage, and was never intended as a fraud-related dispute. Aidvantages use of this record to trigger internal fraud protocols constitutes a misrepresentation in a federal proceeding and may violate : ========================================================================= 18 U.S.C. 1001 False statements to a federal agency, ========================================================================= 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 2 ) Misrepresentation to a consumer or regulator, ========================================================================= FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) Furnisher duty to correct inaccurate information. \n========================================================================= III. Transmission or Attempted Transmission of False Identity Theft Information ========================================================================= Aidvantage has either transmitted or attempted to transmit this false identity theft classification to one or more consumer reporting agencies through E-Oscar or equivalent systems. \n========================================================================= This conduct violates : ========================================================================= FCRA 1681e ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, ========================================================================= 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 Accuracy and Integrity Rule under FACTA, ========================================================================= CFPB Bulletin 2014-01 Prohibition on furnishing misleading or false information. \nXXXX Aidvantage has not produced documentation identifying the system or person responsible for triggering the fraud classification despite multiple formal requests. \n========================================================================= IV. Procedural Suppression of the Official Regulatory Record ========================================================================= Aidvantages statement that multiple complaints regarding the same concerns will be responded to under one CFPB complaint number reflects a policy of collapsing distinct complaints to limit regulatory exposure. \n========================================================================= This tactic obstructs the integrity of the Bureaus public complaint system. Each complaint filed documents new dates, new legal violations, and escalating conduct. Collapsing separate records may violate : ========================================================================= 12 U.S.C. 5495 CFPB coordination and supervisory authority requirements. \n========================================================================= This behavior appears designed to evade systemic accountability for recurring violations. \n========================================================================= V. Enforcement Referral and Legal Preservation ========================================================================= Pursuant to the Bureaus statutory mandate under 12 U.S.C. 5495 ( Coordination ), I formally request that this matter be referred for supervisory and enforcement review, and that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau coordinate with relevant federal and state agencies to ensure proper oversight, investigation, and legal remedy. \n========================================================================= The following agency referrals are warranted based on distinct legal authorities, each directly implicated by Aidvantages conduct : ========================================================================= 1. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Enforcement Division ========================================================================= Aidvantages actions violate core provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including : ========================================================================= o 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) : Duty of furnishers to correct and update inaccurate information.\n\n========================================================================= o 15 U.S.C. 1681i : Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation upon notice of dispute.\n\n========================================================================= o 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) : Prohibition on deceptive or abusive acts or practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( UDAAP ).\n\n========================================================================= These violations fall squarely within the CFPBs enforcement jurisdiction and implicate the agencys role in overseeing the accuracy and integrity of the credit reporting system.\n\n========================================================================= 2. Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) ========================================================================= Aidvantages repeated misrepresentations to both consumer and regulatorparticularly its misuse of an unrelated CFPB complaint to justify a false fraud designationviolate the Federal Trade Commission Act, specifically : ========================================================================= o 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) : Prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. \n========================================================================= The FTC retains parallel jurisdiction over non-bank servicers and deceptive consumer-facing practices, and is positioned to investigate systemic misrepresentation or pattern violations. \n========================================================================= 3. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Civil Division, Consumer Protection Branch ========================================================================= Aidvantages conduct may constitute federal offenses under : ========================================================================= a. 18 U.S.C. 1001 : False statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency.\n\n========================================================================= b. 18 U.S.C. 1341 : Mail fraud, based on the use of USPS to transmit materially false information.\n\n========================================================================= c. 18 U.S.C. 1343 : Wire fraud, where electronic systems ( including CFPB portal and E-Oscar transmissions ) were used to perpetuate misrepresentations. \n\n========================================================================= DOJ is authorized to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings where false statements or fraudulent schemes affect federal records or regulatory systems. \n========================================================================= 4. National Association of Attorneys General ( NAAG ) ========================================================================= Aidvantages conduct may violate multiple state-level consumer protection laws, including : ========================================================================= d. D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ( CPPA ), D.C. Code 28-3904 ( e ), ( f ) : Prohibiting misrepresentation and omission of material facts in connection with consumer services. \n\n========================================================================= Given the multistate and federally regulated nature of the loan, a NAAG-coordinated review is appropriate under 5495s requirement for intergovernmental coordination to prevent regulatory evasion. \n\n\n========================================================================= All factual assertions, sworn affidavits, and certified documents are preserved in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence 902 and 1005. No further burden-shifting, misclassification, or procedural obfuscation by Aidvantage will be accepted. This matter now requires cross-agency supervisory action. \n========================================================================= Submitted by : XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-09T23:35:29.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"20008","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12896336","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-09T23:24:16.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with customer service"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Enforcement Referral and Legal Preservation ========================================================================= Pursuant to the Bureaus statutory mandate under 12 U.S.C. 5495 ( Coordination ), I formally request that this matter be referred for supervisory and enforcement review, and that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau <em>coordinate</em> with relevant federal and <em>state</em> agencies to ensure proper oversight, <em>investigation</em>, and legal remedy. \n=================================================="]},"sort":[10.262316,"12896336"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13511296","_score":7.69366,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"SYSTEMIC CREDIT SABOTAGE, HOUSING INTERFERENCE & EXECUTIVE SUPPRESSION CASE FILE : XXXX SUBMITTED TO : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau COMPLAINANT : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IDENTITY Personal Consumer under XXXX jurisdiction XXXX XXXX Sole Proprietor ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) OFFiCiAL XXXX of a dissolved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) OFFiCiAL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a formal, multi-jurisdictional complaint for regulatory enforcement and litigation entry regarding : The publication of unlawful, unverifiable, and fabricated tradelines. \n\nRepeated failure to investigate consumer disputes under federal statute XXXX years of unauthorized surveillance, behavioral tracking, and data profile sabotage. \n\nOngoing housing interference and displacement due to fraudulent data. \n\nObstruction of corporate access, XXXX business credibility, and XXXX reputation PUBLIC DAMAGE VERIFIED IMPACT ( XXXX ) > In XX/XX/XXXX, the home I was lawfully residing in suffered catastrophic damage when a violent rainstorm ripped off the rooftop. The aftermath of that disaster damaged the entire house resulting in total loss of our living space and everything inside it. Since that moment, my family and I have been displaced. But even after surviving that physical disaster, we were met with another : credit-based obstruction that blocked every lawful attempt to rebuild our lives. \n\nToday, we are temporarily staying with a family member but have been notified that we must move out in less than XXXX  days. We are unable to secure private housing because of a credit profile that has been systematically corrupted with conflicting addresses, unauthorized aliases, fabricated charge-offs, and manipulated tradelines. This manufactured credit file built and distributed by Experian and the other major credit bureaus is the direct result of years of system-engineered fraud, falsification, and surveillance. \n\nAnd while I was being displaced, silenced, and shut out of the system, these agencies made millions over the years by XXXX in this corrupted data, profiting from reports they knew were harmful, unverifiable, and unlawfully retained. This is not misreporting. This is monetized obstruction. This is systemic suppression after disaster and it continues to unfold while agencies remain silent and corrupted data remains in place. \n\nCREDIT AGENCY INTERFERENCE THROUGH DEROGATORY FABRICATION Experian, the credit reporting agency responsible for this harm, has directly interfered with my access to basic human rights by : Reporting and retaining manufactured charge-off accounts without lawful origin. Publishing unverifiable tradelines and identifiers. Ignoring proper dispute procedures under 15 U.S.C. 1681i Using scoring systems to conceal fabrication rather than correct it. These acts constitute deliberate obstruction under : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : \" Reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : \" Shall promptly delete unverifiable information after reinvestigation. '' This is no longer negligence this is systemic, willful interference with housing, reputation, and commerce. It is unconscionable and unlawful. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Frequency : Daily multi-shift ride cycles to maintain XXXX XXXX performance Estimated Weekly Transportation Cost : XXXX XXXXXXXX Estimated Duration : XXXX years = XXXX weeks Calculated Damage : {$460.00} XXXX weeks = {$110000.00} in XXXX XXXX XXXX expenses This was not elective these costs were incurred purely due to suppressed access to financing, denied auto loans, and false credit obstructions placed on the scrollholders profile. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Time Period : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX weeks = {$18000.00} in suppressed religious transportation due to auto finance denial These losses reflect systemic suppression of scrollholders right to worship and congregate. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Prevented from receiving consistent eye treatment due to lack of accessible financing and transportation options XXXX  Unable to refinance or repair her vehicle for over a year due to XXXX inability to support under corrupted credit BXXXX Forced to rely on XXXX daily due to no access to affordable transportation support Resulting in excess weekly costs + loss of work opportunities Housing After Rainstorm Disaster ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Forced to live in temporary residence with family member Suppressed from accessing safer housing due to fabricated credit suppression and inquiry flooding IV. COMMUNICATION ACCESS SUPPRESSION Cellphone Plans : - Scrollholder denied phone plan access from XXXX - Prepaid-only options for sister - Brother forced to overspend on unreliable access False Account by XXXX : XXXX Illegally inserted account was added and later removed - Damage done credit score destroyed - Loan application denied during live use-case attempt - Attorney involvement failed to rectify residual harm V. EDUCATIONAL ACCESS BLOCKADE Brother : - Denied school enrollment opportunities due to absence of financing, devices, and stable location following disaster and credit-sabotage housing denial Scrollholder : - Unable to coordinate support due to cellphone disconnection and financial entrapment VI. DAMAGE TYPE CLASSIFICATION Spiritual Damage : Religious meeting access erased via synthetic financial traps Family Protection Damage : Denied ability to shield, support, or uplift household members XXXX XXXX XXXX : Communication and application failure due to fabricated reports Housing Damage : Prevented relocation due to unjust scoring suppression Transportation Damage ( Gig Work + Religious ) : Over {$170000.00} lost due to suppressed auto financing RELEVANT LAWS & REGULATIONS VERBATIM JURISDICTIONAL BASIS Federal Statutes ( U.S. ) 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) \" Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. '' 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) \" Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose... the identification of each person ... that procured a consumer report ... '' 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) \" If, after any reinvestigation ... an item of information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information. '' 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. '' 18 U.S.C. 1343 \" Whoever... having devised ... a scheme to defraud ... transmits ... by means of wire ... any writings... for the purpose of executing such scheme ... shall be fined or imprisoned ... '' State Statutes ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : \" Each consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures... to assure that reports are current, accurate and do not contain misleading or obsolete information. 'XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : \" Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : \" An action may be brought against XXXX or more directors or officers of a corporation to compel the defendant to account for his official conduct ... XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  \" A XXXX shall perform his duties... in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. '' Global Law Treaty Obligations & Recognized International Privacy Standards ICCPR Article 17 ( 1 ) : \" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy ... '' UDHR Article 12 : \" Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. '' GDPR Article 22 ( 1 ) : \" The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling ... '' 42 U.S. Code 3604 Fair Housing Act \" It shall be unlawful... to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person... or to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental ... because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. '' REQUESTED ACTION I request : Formal regulatory investigation into Experians internal systems Mandatory deletion of unverifiable and fabricated items Civil and criminal enforcement referral where applicable Compensation recommendation for ongoing housing interference and business destruction -- - EMERGENCY HOUSING CRISIS & FAMILY DISPLACEMENT In XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX residence in XXXX XXXX was condemned due to storm-related structural collapse. \nSince then, every attempt to secure private rental housing has been denied due to falsified credit data including : Fabricated charge-offs False tradelines Synthetic inquiries Retained unverifiable addresses AI-driven scoring manipulation Disputed items unlawfully maintained These records were published and weaponized by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion XXXX and continue XXXX block my familys legal access to housing despite my lawful standing and filing of verified disputes. \n\nThis is not a theoretical injury. This is a present-tense emergency, unfolding under government-regulated credit reporting systems. Every private landlord I have approached required credit score validation and every rejection Ive received has been tied directly to fraudulent, unverifiable credit data published by these agencies. \n\nThis is not just a financial disruption. It is a civil violation backed by law and it demands full federal intervention. \n\nBUSINESS & CORPORATE SUPPRESSION ACROSS XXXX STATES -- - XXXX XXXX XXXX Sole Proprietor ( XXXX ) XXXX legitimacy collapsed Vendor applications blocked Trade lines suppressed through inquiry floods and fabricated delinquencies Financial access digitally disabled through corrupted credit triggers > Result : Operational suffocation of my lawful XXXX  XXXX XXXX Triggered Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), M.G.L. 93A 2 -- - 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX obstructed No vendor or financial platform approvals possible Artificial score suppression blocked registry validation LLC dissolved under pressure not voluntarily, but by data-manipulated collapse > Result : Business casualty caused by financial sabotage Legal Triggered Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), ICCPR Art . 17, UDHR Art. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filing buried before it could operate Public registry access suppressed Tier 1 banking denied Corporate executive profile labeled untrustworthy through manufactured data triggers > Result : XXXX decapitation Legal Triggered Violation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ; 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) -- - VERIFIED EXHIBITS XXXX -- - Exhibit A XXXX XXXX XXXX Reported as charged-off since XXXX No payments since then Still updated every month XXXX Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) -- - Exhibit B XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Listed as charge-off Marked sold or transferred No new creditor disclosed Tradeline unrecoverable and unverifiable > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) -- - Exhibit C XXXX XXXX XXXX Retained despite {$0.00} balances Simulated active behavior with no contractual use Used to score-profile my identity > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) -- - Exhibit D XXXX XXXX, CONSUMERINFO, EQUIFAX XXXX Over XXXX soft pulls in XXXX  months No consent Used to track, score, and profile my behavior > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( c ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX -- - Exhibit XXXX XXXX Suppression ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) EINs labeled high-risk Public access blocked Filing identities marked illegitimate via scoring > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX. XXXX APPLICABLE LAW CLAUSES XXXX CORNERS OF THE EARTH -- - XXXX FEDERAL LAW -- - 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy > Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Reinvestigation Correction or Deletion > If, after any reinvestigation ... an item of information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer... \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) Source Disclosure Obligation > Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer ... the sources of the information...\n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Duty of Furnishers to Report Accurately > A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( c ) ( 1 ) Soft Inquiries & Prescreening Restriction > A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if a firm offer of credit is made and the consumer has not opted out...\n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681n Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance > Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement... is liable for actual damages or statutory damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ... plus punitive damages and attorneys fees. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681o Civil Liability for Negligent Noncompliance > Any person who is negligent in failing to comply ... is liable for actual damages and attorneys fees.\n\n-- - 18 U.S.C. 1343 Wire Fraud > Whoever ... transmits ... any writing, signal, or sound by wire ... for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud ... shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years. \n\n-- - 18 U.S.C. 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft > Whoever knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person ... shall be sentenced to 2 years imprisonment...\n\n-- - 42 U.S. Code 3604 ( a ) ( d ) Fair Housing Act > It shall be unlawful... to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person... \nTo represent ... that any dwelling is not available ... when it is in fact available. \n\n-- - 12 U.S.C. 5531 UDAAP Enforcement > The Bureau shall take action to prevent a covered person from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice... \n\n-- - STATE LAW XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  > Each consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures... to assure that reports are current, accurate and do not contain misleading or obsolete information. \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fiduciary Duty > A director shall perform his duties... in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. \n\n-- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX > An action may be brought against one or more directors or officers of a corporation to compel the defendant to account for his official conduct... \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( applied ) > Obstructing lawful registry and XXXX business formation constitutes commercial interference. \n\n-- - TREATY-BASED GLOBAL LAW JURISDICTIONALLY RECOGNIZED -- - ICCPR Article 17 ( 1 ) Right to Privacy & Protection > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home... \n\n-- - UDHR Article 12 Reputational and Legal Protection > Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. \n\n-- - GDPR Article 22 ( 1 ) Protection from Automated Profiling > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing ... which produces legal effects concerning him or her. \n\nMULTI-AGENCY LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOTICE This scroll is being communicated simultaneously to the following enforcement agencies and government authorities as part of a synchronized strike deployment under Case File XXXX : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) State Attorneys General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection The Executive Office of the President ( The White House ) This complaint is filed under full lawful standing, verified injury, public record status, and XXXX identity. \nIt is not a grievance. It is a formal legal testimony based on documented injury and statutory enforcement failure. \n\nCALL FOR FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT UNDER U.S. LAW Under 12 U.S.C. 5511 and 5531 of the Dodd-Frank Act ( Title X ), I formally call upon the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and partner enforcement agencies to : Open a full-scale investigation into Experians pattern of suppression, surveillance, and manipulation Execute injunctive relief, civil penalties, and cease-and-desist authority Refer the matter to the Department of Justice, State Attorneys General, and HUD as appropriate These actions are not requests they are lawful expectations grounded in statute, jurisdiction, and public interest. \n\n-- - SCROLLHOLDER DECLARATION This complaint is submitted as part of an active litigation framework and is based on personal harm, corporate damage, and treaty-violating surveillance. I operate under XXXX jurisdiction and own multiple businesses domestically. I demand compliance under law. It is lawful testimony of economic sabotage, XXXX destruction, and generational obstruction committed by corrupted reporting systems that chose to fabricate harm instead of report truth. \n\nThis scroll is not written to restore what this system can never restore but to leave a permanent record : That I saw it. \nThat I survived it. \nThat I sealed it before every institution that failed to act in righteousness. \n\nLet it be known : No agency, no regulator, no governing body will be able to say : We didnt know. \n\nYou knew. \nAnd now you are recorded. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-15T08:58:14.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02302","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13511296","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-15T08:57:48.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Department</em> of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) U.S. <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> ( DOJ ) Federal Bureau of <em>Investigation</em> ( FBI ) <em>State</em> <em>Attorneys</em> General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection The Executive Office of the President ( The White House ) This complaint is filed under full lawful standing, verified injury, public record status, and XXXX identity. \nIt is not a grievance."]},"sort":[7.69366,"13511296"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13511221","_score":7.6878505,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"SYSTEMIC CREDIT SABOTAGE, HOUSING INTERFERENCE & EXECUTIVE SUPPRESSION CASE FILE : XXXX SUBMITTED TO : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau COMPLAINANT : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IDENTITY Personal Consumer under XXXX jurisdiction XXXX XXXX Sole Proprietor ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) OFFiCiAL XXXX of a dissolved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) OFFiCiAL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a formal, multi-jurisdictional complaint for regulatory enforcement and litigation entry regarding : The publication of unlawful, unverifiable, and fabricated tradelines. \n\nRepeated failure to investigate consumer disputes under federal statute XXXX years of unauthorized surveillance, behavioral tracking, and data profile sabotage. \n\nOngoing housing interference and displacement due to fraudulent data. \n\nObstruction of corporate access, XXXX business credibility, and XXXX reputation PUBLIC DAMAGE VERIFIED IMPACT ( XXXX ) > In XX/XX/XXXX, the home I was lawfully residing in suffered catastrophic damage when a violent rainstorm ripped off the rooftop. The aftermath of that disaster damaged the entire house resulting in total loss of our living space and everything inside it. Since that moment, my family and I have been displaced. But even after surviving that physical disaster, we were met with another : credit-based obstruction that blocked every lawful attempt to rebuild our lives. \n\nToday, we are temporarily staying with a family member but have been notified that we must move out in less than XXXX  days. We are unable to secure private housing because of a credit profile that has been systematically corrupted with conflicting addresses, unauthorized aliases, fabricated charge-offs, and manipulated tradelines. This manufactured credit file built and distributed by Experian and the other major credit bureaus is the direct result of years of system-engineered fraud, falsification, and surveillance. \n\nAnd while I was being displaced, silenced, and shut out of the system, these agencies made millions over the years by XXXX in this corrupted data, profiting from reports they knew were harmful, unverifiable, and unlawfully retained. This is not misreporting. This is monetized obstruction. This is systemic suppression after disaster and it continues to unfold while agencies remain silent and corrupted data remains in place. \n\nCREDIT AGENCY INTERFERENCE THROUGH DEROGATORY FABRICATION Experian, the credit reporting agency responsible for this harm, has directly interfered with my access to basic human rights by : Reporting and retaining manufactured charge-off accounts without lawful origin. Publishing unverifiable tradelines and identifiers. Ignoring proper dispute procedures under 15 U.S.C. 1681i Using scoring systems to conceal fabrication rather than correct it. These acts constitute deliberate obstruction under : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : \" Reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : \" Shall promptly delete unverifiable information after reinvestigation. '' This is no longer negligence this is systemic, willful interference with housing, reputation, and commerce. It is unconscionable and unlawful. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Frequency : Daily multi-shift ride cycles to maintain XXXX XXXX performance Estimated Weekly Transportation Cost : XXXX XXXXXXXX Estimated Duration : XXXX years = XXXX weeks Calculated Damage : {$460.00} XXXX weeks = {$110000.00} in XXXX XXXX XXXX expenses This was not elective these costs were incurred purely due to suppressed access to financing, denied auto loans, and false credit obstructions placed on the scrollholders profile. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Time Period : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX weeks = {$18000.00} in suppressed religious transportation due to auto finance denial These losses reflect systemic suppression of scrollholders right to worship and congregate. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Prevented from receiving consistent eye treatment due to lack of accessible financing and transportation options XXXX  Unable to refinance or repair her vehicle for over a year due to XXXX inability to support under corrupted credit BXXXX Forced to rely on XXXX daily due to no access to affordable transportation support Resulting in excess weekly costs + loss of work opportunities Housing After Rainstorm Disaster ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Forced to live in temporary residence with family member Suppressed from accessing safer housing due to fabricated credit suppression and inquiry flooding IV. COMMUNICATION ACCESS SUPPRESSION Cellphone Plans : - Scrollholder denied phone plan access from XXXX - Prepaid-only options for sister - Brother forced to overspend on unreliable access False Account by XXXX : XXXX Illegally inserted account was added and later removed - Damage done credit score destroyed - Loan application denied during live use-case attempt - Attorney involvement failed to rectify residual harm V. EDUCATIONAL ACCESS BLOCKADE Brother : - Denied school enrollment opportunities due to absence of financing, devices, and stable location following disaster and credit-sabotage housing denial Scrollholder : - Unable to coordinate support due to cellphone disconnection and financial entrapment VI. DAMAGE TYPE CLASSIFICATION Spiritual Damage : Religious meeting access erased via synthetic financial traps Family Protection Damage : Denied ability to shield, support, or uplift household members XXXX XXXX XXXX : Communication and application failure due to fabricated reports Housing Damage : Prevented relocation due to unjust scoring suppression Transportation Damage ( Gig Work + Religious ) : Over {$170000.00} lost due to suppressed auto financing RELEVANT LAWS & REGULATIONS VERBATIM JURISDICTIONAL BASIS Federal Statutes ( U.S. ) 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) \" Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. '' 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) \" Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose... the identification of each person ... that procured a consumer report ... '' 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) \" If, after any reinvestigation ... an item of information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information. '' 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. '' 18 U.S.C. 1343 \" Whoever... having devised ... a scheme to defraud ... transmits ... by means of wire ... any writings... for the purpose of executing such scheme ... shall be fined or imprisoned ... '' State Statutes ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : \" Each consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures... to assure that reports are current, accurate and do not contain misleading or obsolete information. 'XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : \" Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : \" An action may be brought against XXXX or more directors or officers of a corporation to compel the defendant to account for his official conduct ... XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  \" A XXXX shall perform his duties... in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. '' Global Law Treaty Obligations & Recognized International Privacy Standards ICCPR Article 17 ( 1 ) : \" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy ... '' UDHR Article 12 : \" Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. '' GDPR Article 22 ( 1 ) : \" The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling ... '' 42 U.S. Code 3604 Fair Housing Act \" It shall be unlawful... to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person... or to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental ... because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. '' REQUESTED ACTION I request : Formal regulatory investigation into Experians internal systems Mandatory deletion of unverifiable and fabricated items Civil and criminal enforcement referral where applicable Compensation recommendation for ongoing housing interference and business destruction -- - EMERGENCY HOUSING CRISIS & FAMILY DISPLACEMENT In XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX residence in XXXX XXXX was condemned due to storm-related structural collapse. \nSince then, every attempt to secure private rental housing has been denied due to falsified credit data including : Fabricated charge-offs False tradelines Synthetic inquiries Retained unverifiable addresses AI-driven scoring manipulation Disputed items unlawfully maintained These records were published and weaponized by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion XXXX and continue XXXX block my familys legal access to housing despite my lawful standing and filing of verified disputes. \n\nThis is not a theoretical injury. This is a present-tense emergency, unfolding under government-regulated credit reporting systems. Every private landlord I have approached required credit score validation and every rejection Ive received has been tied directly to fraudulent, unverifiable credit data published by these agencies. \n\nThis is not just a financial disruption. It is a civil violation backed by law and it demands full federal intervention. \n\nBUSINESS & CORPORATE SUPPRESSION ACROSS XXXX STATES -- - XXXX XXXX XXXX Sole Proprietor ( XXXX ) XXXX legitimacy collapsed Vendor applications blocked Trade lines suppressed through inquiry floods and fabricated delinquencies Financial access digitally disabled through corrupted credit triggers > Result : Operational suffocation of my lawful XXXX  XXXX XXXX Triggered Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), M.G.L. 93A 2 -- - 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX obstructed No vendor or financial platform approvals possible Artificial score suppression blocked registry validation LLC dissolved under pressure not voluntarily, but by data-manipulated collapse > Result : Business casualty caused by financial sabotage Legal Triggered Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), ICCPR Art . 17, UDHR Art. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filing buried before it could operate Public registry access suppressed Tier 1 banking denied Corporate executive profile labeled untrustworthy through manufactured data triggers > Result : XXXX decapitation Legal Triggered Violation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ; 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) -- - VERIFIED EXHIBITS XXXX -- - Exhibit A XXXX XXXX XXXX Reported as charged-off since XXXX No payments since then Still updated every month XXXX Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) -- - Exhibit B XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Listed as charge-off Marked sold or transferred No new creditor disclosed Tradeline unrecoverable and unverifiable > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) -- - Exhibit C XXXX XXXX XXXX Retained despite {$0.00} balances Simulated active behavior with no contractual use Used to score-profile my identity > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) -- - Exhibit D XXXX XXXX, CONSUMERINFO, EQUIFAX XXXX Over XXXX soft pulls in XXXX  months No consent Used to track, score, and profile my behavior > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( c ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX -- - Exhibit XXXX XXXX Suppression ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) EINs labeled high-risk Public access blocked Filing identities marked illegitimate via scoring > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX. XXXX APPLICABLE LAW CLAUSES XXXX CORNERS OF THE EARTH -- - XXXX FEDERAL LAW -- - 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy > Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Reinvestigation Correction or Deletion > If, after any reinvestigation ... an item of information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer... \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) Source Disclosure Obligation > Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer ... the sources of the information...\n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Duty of Furnishers to Report Accurately > A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( c ) ( 1 ) Soft Inquiries & Prescreening Restriction > A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if a firm offer of credit is made and the consumer has not opted out...\n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681n Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance > Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement... is liable for actual damages or statutory damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ... plus punitive damages and attorneys fees. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681o Civil Liability for Negligent Noncompliance > Any person who is negligent in failing to comply ... is liable for actual damages and attorneys fees.\n\n-- - 18 U.S.C. 1343 Wire Fraud > Whoever ... transmits ... any writing, signal, or sound by wire ... for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud ... shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years. \n\n-- - 18 U.S.C. 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft > Whoever knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person ... shall be sentenced to 2 years imprisonment...\n\n-- - 42 U.S. Code 3604 ( a ) ( d ) Fair Housing Act > It shall be unlawful... to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person... \nTo represent ... that any dwelling is not available ... when it is in fact available. \n\n-- - 12 U.S.C. 5531 UDAAP Enforcement > The Bureau shall take action to prevent a covered person from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice... \n\n-- - STATE LAW XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  > Each consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures... to assure that reports are current, accurate and do not contain misleading or obsolete information. \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fiduciary Duty > A director shall perform his duties... in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. \n\n-- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX > An action may be brought against one or more directors or officers of a corporation to compel the defendant to account for his official conduct... \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( applied ) > Obstructing lawful registry and XXXX business formation constitutes commercial interference. \n\n-- - TREATY-BASED GLOBAL LAW JURISDICTIONALLY RECOGNIZED -- - ICCPR Article 17 ( 1 ) Right to Privacy & Protection > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home... \n\n-- - UDHR Article 12 Reputational and Legal Protection > Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. \n\n-- - GDPR Article 22 ( 1 ) Protection from Automated Profiling > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing ... which produces legal effects concerning him or her. \n\nMULTI-AGENCY LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOTICE This scroll is being communicated simultaneously to the following enforcement agencies and government authorities as part of a synchronized strike deployment under Case File XXXX : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) State Attorneys General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection The Executive Office of the President ( The White House ) This complaint is filed under full lawful standing, verified injury, public record status, and XXXX identity. \nIt is not a grievance. It is a formal legal testimony based on documented injury and statutory enforcement failure. \n\nCALL FOR FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT UNDER U.S. LAW Under 12 U.S.C. 5511 and 5531 of the Dodd-Frank Act ( Title X ), I formally call upon the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and partner enforcement agencies to : Open a full-scale investigation into Experians pattern of suppression, surveillance, and manipulation Execute injunctive relief, civil penalties, and cease-and-desist authority Refer the matter to the Department of Justice, State Attorneys General, and HUD as appropriate These actions are not requests they are lawful expectations grounded in statute, jurisdiction, and public interest. \n\n-- - SCROLLHOLDER DECLARATION This complaint is submitted as part of an active litigation framework and is based on personal harm, corporate damage, and treaty-violating surveillance. I operate under XXXX jurisdiction and own multiple businesses domestically. I demand compliance under law. It is lawful testimony of economic sabotage, XXXX destruction, and generational obstruction committed by corrupted reporting systems that chose to fabricate harm instead of report truth. \n\nThis scroll is not written to restore what this system can never restore but to leave a permanent record : That I saw it. \nThat I survived it. \nThat I sealed it before every institution that failed to act in righteousness. \n\nLet it be known : No agency, no regulator, no governing body will be able to say : We didnt know. \n\nYou knew. \nAnd now you are recorded. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-15T08:58:15.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02302","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13511221","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-15T08:35:55.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Department</em> of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) U.S. <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> ( DOJ ) Federal Bureau of <em>Investigation</em> ( FBI ) <em>State</em> <em>Attorneys</em> General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection The Executive Office of the President ( The White House ) This complaint is filed under full lawful standing, verified injury, public record status, and XXXX identity. \nIt is not a grievance."]},"sort":[7.6878505,"13511221"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13511169","_score":7.684041,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"SYSTEMIC CREDIT SABOTAGE, HOUSING INTERFERENCE & EXECUTIVE SUPPRESSION CASE FILE : XXXX SUBMITTED TO : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau COMPLAINANT : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IDENTITY Personal Consumer under XXXX jurisdiction XXXX XXXX Sole Proprietor ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) OFFiCiAL XXXX of a dissolved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) OFFiCiAL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a formal, multi-jurisdictional complaint for regulatory enforcement and litigation entry regarding : The publication of unlawful, unverifiable, and fabricated tradelines. \n\nRepeated failure to investigate consumer disputes under federal statute XXXX years of unauthorized surveillance, behavioral tracking, and data profile sabotage. \n\nOngoing housing interference and displacement due to fraudulent data. \n\nObstruction of corporate access, XXXX business credibility, and XXXX reputation PUBLIC DAMAGE VERIFIED IMPACT ( XXXX ) > In XX/XX/XXXX, the home I was lawfully residing in suffered catastrophic damage when a violent rainstorm ripped off the rooftop. The aftermath of that disaster damaged the entire house resulting in total loss of our living space and everything inside it. Since that moment, my family and I have been displaced. But even after surviving that physical disaster, we were met with another : credit-based obstruction that blocked every lawful attempt to rebuild our lives. \n\nToday, we are temporarily staying with a family member but have been notified that we must move out in less than XXXX  days. We are unable to secure private housing because of a credit profile that has been systematically corrupted with conflicting addresses, unauthorized aliases, fabricated charge-offs, and manipulated tradelines. This manufactured credit file built and distributed by Experian and the other major credit bureaus is the direct result of years of system-engineered fraud, falsification, and surveillance. \n\nAnd while I was being displaced, silenced, and shut out of the system, these agencies made millions over the years by XXXX in this corrupted data, profiting from reports they knew were harmful, unverifiable, and unlawfully retained. This is not misreporting. This is monetized obstruction. This is systemic suppression after disaster and it continues to unfold while agencies remain silent and corrupted data remains in place. \n\nCREDIT AGENCY INTERFERENCE THROUGH DEROGATORY FABRICATION Experian, the credit reporting agency responsible for this harm, has directly interfered with my access to basic human rights by : Reporting and retaining manufactured charge-off accounts without lawful origin. Publishing unverifiable tradelines and identifiers. Ignoring proper dispute procedures under 15 U.S.C. 1681i Using scoring systems to conceal fabrication rather than correct it. These acts constitute deliberate obstruction under : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : \" Reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : \" Shall promptly delete unverifiable information after reinvestigation. '' This is no longer negligence this is systemic, willful interference with housing, reputation, and commerce. It is unconscionable and unlawful. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Frequency : Daily multi-shift ride cycles to maintain XXXX XXXX performance Estimated Weekly Transportation Cost : XXXX XXXXXXXX Estimated Duration : XXXX years = XXXX weeks Calculated Damage : {$460.00} XXXX weeks = {$110000.00} in XXXX XXXX XXXX expenses This was not elective these costs were incurred purely due to suppressed access to financing, denied auto loans, and false credit obstructions placed on the scrollholders profile. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Time Period : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX weeks = {$18000.00} in suppressed religious transportation due to auto finance denial These losses reflect systemic suppression of scrollholders right to worship and congregate. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Prevented from receiving consistent eye treatment due to lack of accessible financing and transportation options XXXX  Unable to refinance or repair her vehicle for over a year due to XXXX inability to support under corrupted credit BXXXX Forced to rely on XXXX daily due to no access to affordable transportation support Resulting in excess weekly costs + loss of work opportunities Housing After Rainstorm Disaster ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Forced to live in temporary residence with family member Suppressed from accessing safer housing due to fabricated credit suppression and inquiry flooding IV. COMMUNICATION ACCESS SUPPRESSION Cellphone Plans : - Scrollholder denied phone plan access from XXXX - Prepaid-only options for sister - Brother forced to overspend on unreliable access False Account by XXXX : XXXX Illegally inserted account was added and later removed - Damage done credit score destroyed - Loan application denied during live use-case attempt - Attorney involvement failed to rectify residual harm V. EDUCATIONAL ACCESS BLOCKADE Brother : - Denied school enrollment opportunities due to absence of financing, devices, and stable location following disaster and credit-sabotage housing denial Scrollholder : - Unable to coordinate support due to cellphone disconnection and financial entrapment VI. DAMAGE TYPE CLASSIFICATION Spiritual Damage : Religious meeting access erased via synthetic financial traps Family Protection Damage : Denied ability to shield, support, or uplift household members XXXX XXXX XXXX : Communication and application failure due to fabricated reports Housing Damage : Prevented relocation due to unjust scoring suppression Transportation Damage ( Gig Work + Religious ) : Over {$170000.00} lost due to suppressed auto financing RELEVANT LAWS & REGULATIONS VERBATIM JURISDICTIONAL BASIS Federal Statutes ( U.S. ) 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) \" Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. '' 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) \" Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose... the identification of each person ... that procured a consumer report ... '' 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) \" If, after any reinvestigation ... an item of information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information. '' 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. '' 18 U.S.C. 1343 \" Whoever... having devised ... a scheme to defraud ... transmits ... by means of wire ... any writings... for the purpose of executing such scheme ... shall be fined or imprisoned ... '' State Statutes ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : \" Each consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures... to assure that reports are current, accurate and do not contain misleading or obsolete information. 'XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : \" Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : \" An action may be brought against XXXX or more directors or officers of a corporation to compel the defendant to account for his official conduct ... XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  \" A XXXX shall perform his duties... in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. '' Global Law Treaty Obligations & Recognized International Privacy Standards ICCPR Article 17 ( 1 ) : \" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy ... '' UDHR Article 12 : \" Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. '' GDPR Article 22 ( 1 ) : \" The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling ... '' 42 U.S. Code 3604 Fair Housing Act \" It shall be unlawful... to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person... or to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental ... because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. '' REQUESTED ACTION I request : Formal regulatory investigation into Experians internal systems Mandatory deletion of unverifiable and fabricated items Civil and criminal enforcement referral where applicable Compensation recommendation for ongoing housing interference and business destruction -- - EMERGENCY HOUSING CRISIS & FAMILY DISPLACEMENT In XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX residence in XXXX XXXX was condemned due to storm-related structural collapse. \nSince then, every attempt to secure private rental housing has been denied due to falsified credit data including : Fabricated charge-offs False tradelines Synthetic inquiries Retained unverifiable addresses AI-driven scoring manipulation Disputed items unlawfully maintained These records were published and weaponized by Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion XXXX and continue XXXX block my familys legal access to housing despite my lawful standing and filing of verified disputes. \n\nThis is not a theoretical injury. This is a present-tense emergency, unfolding under government-regulated credit reporting systems. Every private landlord I have approached required credit score validation and every rejection Ive received has been tied directly to fraudulent, unverifiable credit data published by these agencies. \n\nThis is not just a financial disruption. It is a civil violation backed by law and it demands full federal intervention. \n\nBUSINESS & CORPORATE SUPPRESSION ACROSS XXXX STATES -- - XXXX XXXX XXXX Sole Proprietor ( XXXX ) XXXX legitimacy collapsed Vendor applications blocked Trade lines suppressed through inquiry floods and fabricated delinquencies Financial access digitally disabled through corrupted credit triggers > Result : Operational suffocation of my lawful XXXX  XXXX XXXX Triggered Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), M.G.L. 93A 2 -- - 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX obstructed No vendor or financial platform approvals possible Artificial score suppression blocked registry validation LLC dissolved under pressure not voluntarily, but by data-manipulated collapse > Result : Business casualty caused by financial sabotage Legal Triggered Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), ICCPR Art . 17, UDHR Art. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filing buried before it could operate Public registry access suppressed Tier 1 banking denied Corporate executive profile labeled untrustworthy through manufactured data triggers > Result : XXXX decapitation Legal Triggered Violation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ; 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) -- - VERIFIED EXHIBITS XXXX -- - Exhibit A XXXX XXXX XXXX Reported as charged-off since XXXX No payments since then Still updated every month XXXX Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) -- - Exhibit B XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Listed as charge-off Marked sold or transferred No new creditor disclosed Tradeline unrecoverable and unverifiable > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) -- - Exhibit C XXXX XXXX XXXX Retained despite {$0.00} balances Simulated active behavior with no contractual use Used to score-profile my identity > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) -- - Exhibit D XXXX XXXX, CONSUMERINFO, EQUIFAX XXXX Over XXXX soft pulls in XXXX  months No consent Used to track, score, and profile my behavior > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( c ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX -- - Exhibit XXXX XXXX Suppression ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) EINs labeled high-risk Public access blocked Filing identities marked illegitimate via scoring > Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX. XXXX APPLICABLE LAW CLAUSES XXXX CORNERS OF THE EARTH -- - XXXX FEDERAL LAW -- - 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy > Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Reinvestigation Correction or Deletion > If, after any reinvestigation ... an item of information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or can not be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer... \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) Source Disclosure Obligation > Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer ... the sources of the information...\n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Duty of Furnishers to Report Accurately > A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( c ) ( 1 ) Soft Inquiries & Prescreening Restriction > A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if a firm offer of credit is made and the consumer has not opted out...\n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681n Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance > Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement... is liable for actual damages or statutory damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ... plus punitive damages and attorneys fees. \n\n-- - 15 U.S.C. 1681o Civil Liability for Negligent Noncompliance > Any person who is negligent in failing to comply ... is liable for actual damages and attorneys fees.\n\n-- - 18 U.S.C. 1343 Wire Fraud > Whoever ... transmits ... any writing, signal, or sound by wire ... for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud ... shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years. \n\n-- - 18 U.S.C. 1028A Aggravated Identity Theft > Whoever knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person ... shall be sentenced to 2 years imprisonment...\n\n-- - 42 U.S. Code 3604 ( a ) ( d ) Fair Housing Act > It shall be unlawful... to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person... \nTo represent ... that any dwelling is not available ... when it is in fact available. \n\n-- - 12 U.S.C. 5531 UDAAP Enforcement > The Bureau shall take action to prevent a covered person from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice... \n\n-- - STATE LAW XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  > Each consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures... to assure that reports are current, accurate and do not contain misleading or obsolete information. \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fiduciary Duty > A director shall perform his duties... in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. \n\n-- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX > An action may be brought against one or more directors or officers of a corporation to compel the defendant to account for his official conduct... \n\n-- - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( applied ) > Obstructing lawful registry and XXXX business formation constitutes commercial interference. \n\n-- - TREATY-BASED GLOBAL LAW JURISDICTIONALLY RECOGNIZED -- - ICCPR Article 17 ( 1 ) Right to Privacy & Protection > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home... \n\n-- - UDHR Article 12 Reputational and Legal Protection > Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. \n\n-- - GDPR Article 22 ( 1 ) Protection from Automated Profiling > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing ... which produces legal effects concerning him or her. \n\nMULTI-AGENCY LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOTICE This scroll is being communicated simultaneously to the following enforcement agencies and government authorities as part of a synchronized strike deployment under Case File XXXX : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ) Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) State Attorneys General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection The Executive Office of the President ( The White House ) This complaint is filed under full lawful standing, verified injury, public record status, and XXXX identity. \nIt is not a grievance. It is a formal legal testimony based on documented injury and statutory enforcement failure. \n\nCALL FOR FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT UNDER U.S. LAW Under 12 U.S.C. 5511 and 5531 of the Dodd-Frank Act ( Title X ), I formally call upon the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and partner enforcement agencies to : Open a full-scale investigation into Experians pattern of suppression, surveillance, and manipulation Execute injunctive relief, civil penalties, and cease-and-desist authority Refer the matter to the Department of Justice, State Attorneys General, and HUD as appropriate These actions are not requests they are lawful expectations grounded in statute, jurisdiction, and public interest. \n\n-- - SCROLLHOLDER DECLARATION This complaint is submitted as part of an active litigation framework and is based on personal harm, corporate damage, and treaty-violating surveillance. I operate under XXXX jurisdiction and own multiple businesses domestically. I demand compliance under law. It is lawful testimony of economic sabotage, XXXX destruction, and generational obstruction committed by corrupted reporting systems that chose to fabricate harm instead of report truth. \n\nThis scroll is not written to restore what this system can never restore but to leave a permanent record : That I saw it. \nThat I survived it. \nThat I sealed it before every institution that failed to act in righteousness. \n\nLet it be known : No agency, no regulator, no governing body will be able to say : We didnt know. \n\nYou knew. \nAnd now you are recorded. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-15T08:58:14.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02302","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13511169","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-15T08:57:48.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Department</em> of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) U.S. <em>Department</em> of <em>Justice</em> ( DOJ ) Federal Bureau of <em>Investigation</em> ( FBI ) <em>State</em> <em>Attorneys</em> General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection The Executive Office of the President ( The White House ) This complaint is filed under full lawful standing, verified injury, public record status, and XXXX identity. \nIt is not a grievance."]},"sort":[7.684041,"13511169"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8276247","_score":4.6092052,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"5 USC 552a ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be I did not give written or verbal consent to disclose my non public private information to these credit reporting agencies. Disclosing my XXXX XXXX  Account starting with XXXX, XXXX XXXX Account starting with XXXX, XXXX  Account starting with XXXX. These credit reporting agencies are also in violation of the privacy act of 1974 Conditions of Disclosure to Third Parties The general rule under the Privacy Act is that an agency can not disclose a record contained in a system of records unless the individual to whom the record pertains gives prior written consent to the disclosure. There are twelve exceptions to this general rule. \n\nA. The No Disclosure without Consent Rule No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [ subject to 12 exceptions ]. 5 U.S.C. 552a ( b ). \n\nComment : Under the Privacy Acts disclosure provision, agencies generally are prohibited from disclosing records by any means of communication written, oral, electronic, or mechanical without the written consent of the individual, subject to twelve exceptions. \n\nFederal officials handling personal information are bound by the Privacy Act not to disclose any personal information and to take certain precautions to keep personal information confidential. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; see also, e.g., XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( noting that Privacy Act generally prohibits the federal government from disclosing personal information about an individual without the individuals consent ). \n\nA disclosure can be by any means of communication written, oral, electronic, or mechanical. See XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( concluding that an absolute policy of limiting the Acts coverage to information physically retrieved from a record would make little sense in terms of its underlying purpose and that Privacy Act forbids nonconsensual disclosure of records by any means of communication ) ; see also, e.g., XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( Numerous courts have held that the Privacy Act protects against improper oral disclosures. ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( rejecting argument that the [ Privacy Act ] only protects against the disclosure of a physical document that is contained in a system of records, and holding that damaging information... taken from a protected record and inserted into a new document, which was then disclosed without the plaintiffs consent, violated subsection ( b ) because the new document is also a protected record ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( The Privacy Act prohibits more than dissemination of records themselves, but also nonconsensual disclosure of any information that has been retrieved from a protected record ( quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ) ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( [ XXXX ] hile the term disclosure is not defined by the statute, it has been interpreted broadly ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citing XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( citing XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ). \n\nOMB guidelines, and some, but not all, courts have advised that disclosures can occur by either transferring a record or simply granting access to a record. \n\nFurther, a disclosure under the Privacy Act may be either the transfer of a record or the granting of access to a record. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. at XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), see also XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( interpreting disclosure under the Privacy Act liberally to include not only the physical disclosure of the records, but also the accessing of private records ). Regarding actionability, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has required that a record actually be retrieved. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( quoting XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, and holding that, to be actionable, a disclosure generally must be the result of someone having actually retrieved the record from that system of records ; the disclosure of information is not ordinarily a violation merely because the information happens to be contained in the records ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). But see XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) ( holding unauthorized access not actionable under Privacy Act, even though plaintiffs declaration provided support for conclusion that defendants employees individually improperly accessed plaintiffs private medical data ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ) ( [ A ] plaintiff can not establish a prima facie claim under the Privacy Act simply by showing that the agency official who disclosed a protected record should never have accessed the record in the first place. ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( dismissing claim of improper disclosure under subsection ( b ) in spite of evidence suggesting agencys employee had unauthorized access to plaintiffs personnel file, because agency had complied with all safeguards of Privacy Act, and had not acted intentionally or willfully to disclose, defined as to open up, to expose to view, or to make known,... especially to reveal in words ( citations omitted ) ). \n\nA disclosure of information from a non-record source does not violate the Privacy Acts disclosure provision. \n\nThe disclosure of information acquired from non-record sources such as observation, office emails, discussions with co-workers and the rumor mill does not violate the Privacy Act... even if the information disclosed is also contained in agency records. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. at XXXX ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( For a disclosure to be covered by section XXXX ( b ), there must have initially been a retrieval from the system of records which was at some point a source of the information. ( citations omitted ) ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( [ T ] he Privacy Act does not prohibit disclosure of information or knowledge obtained from other sources other than records ... .In particular, it does not prevent federal employees or officials from talking even gossiping about anything of which they have non-record-based knowledge. ( citations omitted ) ). \n\nFor further discussion of the meaning of disclosure of records, see the Definitions, Systems of Records and Disclosures under Subsection ( b ) section above. \n\nIn one case in which a plaintiff sought relief for alleged wrongful disclosure of items seized during the execution of a search warrant, the court found, Appellant has failed to show that evidence seized during a search conducted in a criminal investigation constitutes records that are contained in a system of records under the Privacy Act. Matter of XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), affd sub nom. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nPlaintiffs maintain the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure by an agency occurred. \n\nA plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure by the agency has occurred. See, e.g., XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ; XXXX v. United States, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; cf. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( holding that disclosure is not actionable because it identified [ plaintiff ] only by his first name and neither recipient knew who XXXX was ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( rejecting appellants contentions that mere transmission of the documents to a fax machine at which unauthorized persons might have viewed the documents constitutes a prohibited disclosure and that the possibility that a record might be revealed to unauthorized readers by negligent or reckless transmission is sufficient to constitute a prohibited disclosure under the Act ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( [ T ] he fact that [ a company ] somehow came into possession of documents that might have been included in plaintiffs personnel file... gives rise only to a metaphysical doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( ruling that district court grant of summary judgment was proper where no evidence was found that record was disclosed, and stating that burden is on the plaintiff at the summary judgment stage to come forward with specific evidence ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( where agency employee testified that, despite memorandum indicating otherwise, she had disclosed information only within agency, and where plaintiff responded that whether his file was reviewed by other individuals is question of fact he want [ ed ] decided by a fact finder, not an affidavit, finding such arguments misapprehend [ plaintiffs ] burden at the summary judgment stage ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ( holding that plaintiff can not prove disclosure violation where the only agency involved, the Postal Service, received rather than disclosed the information in question ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( dismissing claim and stating that plaintiffs conclusory allegations of unlawful disclosure, without identifying or describing who acted against XXXX or what the person did, is insufficient ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiffs fail [ XXXX ] to allege sufficient facts supporting that the FBI, as opposed to some other law enforcement body, disclosed [ one plaintiffs ] rap sheet on the Internet, where plaintiffs base [ d ] their allegation on... the mere fact that [ a particular Internet ] posting contained some expunged information ), reconsideration denied, No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiff failed to make out XXXX XXXX case under subsection ( b ) of Privacy Act because plaintiff alleged merely that records were accessible to other individuals in office, rather than that they were actually disclosed ); XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) ( finding that plaintiffs failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that XXXX disclosed protected information where plaintiffs did not have personal knowledge that [ the memorandum was disclosed ] and witnesses at trial denied disclosing or receiving memorandum ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( finding lack of evidence that disclosure occurred where plaintiff alleged that, among other things, file had been left in unsecured file cabinet ), affd per curiam, No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). But XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( finding plaintiffs complaint sufficient to survive summary judgment because he need not prove his case on the pleadings but rather must merely provide enough factual material to raise a reasonable inference, and thus a plausible claim, that the [ XXXX. for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] was the source of the disclosures ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX  XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiffs allegation of XXXX disclosure to unidentified government officials, who were unrelated to handling of plaintiffs case, was not unacceptably vague and need not include identities of alleged recipients for XXXX to understand Plaintiffs charge ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( ruling that plaintiff had stated claim for relief under Privacy Act where plaintiff pled that a member of [ agency ] management placed records referring and relating to her XXXX on a server accessible by other federal employees and members of the public ). \n\nDirect evidence that an agency disclosed a record is generally not required, but plaintiffs must produce more than mere speculation or conjecture. \n\nCircumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove an unauthorized disclosure occurred, although courts generally require corroborating evidence, rather than mere speculation or conjecture. Because plaintiffs can rarely produce direct evidence that the government has disclosed confidential information obtained from their private records, requiring such evidence would eviscerate the protections of the Privacy Act. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( citing Doe v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). \n\nAt least one court has held that there will be an adverse inference against an agency that destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiffs ability to prove that a disclosure occurred.\n\nOne district court has concluded that when an agency destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiffs ability to prove that a disclosure occurred, there will be an adverse inference against the agency. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that whether by use of the adverse inference or by a preponderance of the evidence standard, officials who inspected the folder found evidence that an inmate had tampered with it, and finding that disclosure occurred in violation of Privacy Act ), affd in part, revd in part & remanded, on other grounds, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \n\nMany, but not all, courts have held that a disclosure does not occur if the disclosure is to a person who was already aware of the information. \n\nMany, but not all, courts have held that a disclosure under the Privacy Act does not occur if the communication is to a person who is already aware of the information. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( finding no Privacy Act violation where agency disclosed same information in letter to journalist that plaintiff himself had previously provided to journalist ; plaintiff waiv [ ed ], in effect, his protection under the Privacy Act ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( XXXX  ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( finding no disclosure because by time agency posted statement on its web site, plaintiff had been quoted in newspaper saying he received letter of admonishment, another newspaper article had referred to letter, and plaintiff had testified before Congress regarding letter ; also finding no disclosure of report because at time agency provided link to report on its web site, the entire [ report ] had been the subject of a press release and news conference by a separate and independent agency... and had been released to the media by the same ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) ( defin [ ing ] the term disclose to mean the placing into the view of another information which was previously unknown ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( commenting that policy underlying Privacy Act protecting confidential information from disclosure not implicated by release of information health care provider had already received through patients California XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), affd, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( unpublished table decision ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX ), affd, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( unpublished table decision ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( mailing of agency decision affirming employees removal to his former attorney held not disclosure because attorney was familiar with facts of [ employees ] claim and no new information was disclosed to him ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( finding no evidence that disclosure could possibly have had an adverse effect on plaintiff where recipient had been privy to every event described in [ plaintiffs ] records at the time the event occurred ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( citing XXXX and expressing doubt as to whether disclosure at issue has presented any new information to those in the intelligence community ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( although finding disclosure to credit reporting service valid under routine use exception, concluding information disclosed was already in possession of recipient and other courts had held that Privacy Act is not violated in such cases ), affd, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( unpublished table decision ). \n\nHowever, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified that some disseminations of protected records to individuals with prior knowledge of their existence or contents are disclosures under the Privacy Act. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). In XXXX, the XXXX. XXXX held that the Justice Departments transmission of a Privacy Act-protected record to a former employee of the agency constituted a disclosure under the Privacy Act, even though the recipient had come into contact with the [ record ] in the course of his duties while an employee. Id. The courts review of the Privacy Acts purposes, legislative history, and integrated structure convince [ d it ] that Congress intended the term disclose to apply in virtually all instances to an agencys unauthorized transmission of a protected record, regardless of the recipients prior familiarity with it. Id. at XXXX. \n\nIn an earlier case, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the XXXX. XXXX had held that the release of a summary of individual child-support payments previously deducted from plaintiffs salary and sent directly to his ex-wife, who had requested it for use in pending litigation, was not an unlawful disclosure under the Privacy Act as she already knew what had been remitted to her. Id. at XXXX. In XXXX, the D.C. Circuit reconciled its opinion in XXXX by declin [ XXXX ] to extend XXXX beyond the limited factual circumstances that gave rise to it, 73 F.3d at 1112, 1124 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports U.S. Code ( a ) In general Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : ( 1 ) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury, or a subpoena issued in accordance with section 5318 of title 31 or section 3486 of title 18. \n( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.\n\n15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information U.S. Code Notes ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law. \n( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) 15 U.S. Code 6804 - Rulemaking U.S. Code ( a ) Regulatory authority ( 1 ) Rulemaking ( A ) In general Except as provided in subparagraph ( C ), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the Securities and Exchange Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their respective jurisdiction under section 6805 of this title ( and notwithstanding subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ] ), except that the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection shall not have authority to prescribe regulations with respect to the standards under section 6801 of this title.\n\n( B ) CFTC The Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under section 7b2 of title 7.\n\n( C ) Federal Trade Commission authority Notwithstanding the authority of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection under subparagraph ( A ), the Federal Trade Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to any financial institution that is a person described in section 1029 ( a ) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5519 ( a ) ].\n\n( D ) Rule of construction Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to alter, affect, or otherwise limit the authority of a State insurance authority to adopt regulations to carry out this subchapter. \n\n( 2 ) Coordination, consistency, and comparability Each of the agencies authorized under paragraph ( 1 ) to prescribe regulations shall consult and coordinate with the other such agencies and, as appropriate, and with [ 1 ] representatives of State insurance authorities designated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for the purpose of assuring, to the extent possible, that the regulations prescribed by each such agency are consistent and comparable with the regulations prescribed by the other such agencies. \n\n( 3 ) Procedures and deadline Such regulations shall be prescribed in accordance with applicable requirements of title 5. \n\n( b ) Authority to grant exceptions The regulations prescribed under subsection ( a ) may include such additional exceptions to subsections ( a ) through ( d ) of section 6802 of this title as are deemed consistent with the purposes of this subchapter. \n\n( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) 15 U.S. Code 6805 - Enforcement U.S. Code ( a ) In general Subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ], this subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law, as follows : ( 1 ) Under section 1818 of title 12, by the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in section 1813 ( q ) of title 12, in the case of ( A ) national banks, Federal branches and Federal agencies of foreign banks, and any subsidiaries of such entities ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; ( B ) member banks of the Federal Reserve System ( other than national banks ), branches and agencies of foreign banks ( other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured State branches of foreign banks ), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act [ 12 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 611 et seq. ], and bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; ( C ) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( other than members of the Federal Reserve System ), insured State branches of foreign banks, and any subsidiaries of such entities ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; and I've opted out of those accounts listed above and they are still disclosing my nonpublic personal inforrmation. 16 CFR 313.7","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-04T01:34:58.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"445XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8276247","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-04T00:27:57.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX held that the <em>Justice</em> <em>Departments</em> transmission of a Privacy Act-protected record to a former employee of the agency constituted a disclosure under the Privacy Act, even though the recipient had come into contact with the [ record ] in the course of his duties while an employee. Id."]},"sort":[4.6092052,"8276247"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8275637","_score":4.5229464,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"5 USC 552a ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be I did not give written or verbal consent to disclose my non public private information to these credit reporting agencies. Disclosing my XXXX XXXX  Account starting with XXXX, XXXX XXXX Account starting with XXXX, XXXX Account starting with XXXX. These credit reporting agencies are also in violation of the privacy act of 1974 Conditions of Disclosure to Third Parties The general rule under the Privacy Act is that an agency can not disclose a record contained in a system of records unless the individual to whom the record pertains gives prior written consent to the disclosure. There are twelve exceptions to this general rule. \n\nA. The No Disclosure without Consent Rule No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [ subject to 12 exceptions ]. 5 U.S.C. 552a ( b ). \n\nComment : Under the Privacy Acts disclosure provision, agencies generally are prohibited from disclosing records by any means of communication written, oral, electronic, or mechanical without the written consent of the individual, subject to twelve exceptions. \n\nFederal officials handling personal information are bound by the Privacy Act not to disclose any personal information and to take certain precautions to keep personal information confidential. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( noting that Privacy Act generally prohibits the federal government from disclosing personal information about an individual without the individuals consent ). \n\nA disclosure can be by any means of communication written, oral, electronic, or mechanical. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( concluding that an absolute policy of limiting the Acts coverage to information physically retrieved from a record would make little sense in terms of its underlying purpose and that Privacy Act forbids nonconsensual disclosure of records by any means of communication ) ; see also, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( Numerous courts have held that the Privacy Act protects against improper oral disclosures. ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( rejecting argument that the [ Privacy Act ] only protects against the disclosure of a physical document that is contained in a system of records, and holding that damaging information... taken from a protected record and inserted into a new document, which was then disclosed without the plaintiffs consent, violated subsection ( b ) because the new document is also a protected record ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( The Privacy Act prohibits more than dissemination of records themselves, but also nonconsensual disclosure of any information that has been retrieved from a protected record ( quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( [ w ] hile the term disclosure is not defined by the statute, it has been interpreted broadly ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nOMB guidelines, and some, but not all, courts have advised that disclosures can occur by either transferring a record or simply granting access to a record. \n\nFurther, a disclosure under the Privacy Act may be either the transfer of a record or the granting of access to a record. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( interpreting disclosure under the Privacy Act liberally to include not only the physical disclosure of the records, but also the accessing of private records ). Regarding actionability, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has required that a record actually be retrieved. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( quoting XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, and holding that, to be actionable, a disclosure generally must be the result of someone having actually retrieved the record from that system of records ; the disclosure of information is not ordinarily a violation merely because the information happens to be contained in the records ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( holding unauthorized access not actionable under Privacy Act, even though plaintiffs declaration provided support for conclusion that defendants employees individually improperly accessed plaintiffs private medical data ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( [ A ] plaintiff can not establish a prima facie claim under the Privacy Act simply by showing that the agency official who disclosed a protected record should never have accessed the record in the first place. ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( dismissing claim of improper disclosure under subsection ( b ) in spite of evidence suggesting agencys employee had unauthorized access to plaintiffs personnel file, because agency had complied with all safeguards of Privacy Act, and had not acted intentionally or willfully to disclose, defined as to open up, to expose to view, or to make known,... especially to reveal in words ( citations omitted ) ). \n\nA disclosure of information from a non-record source does not violate the Privacy Acts disclosure provision. \n\nThe disclosure of information acquired from non-record sources such as observation, office emails, discussions with co-workers and the rumor mill does not violate the Privacy Act... even if the information disclosed is also contained in agency records. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( For a disclosure to be covered by section 552a ( b ), there must have initially been a retrieval from the system of records which was at some point a source of the information. ( citations omitted ) ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( [ T ] he Privacy Act does not prohibit disclosure of information or knowledge obtained from other sources other than records ... .In particular, it does not prevent federal employees or officials from talking even gossiping about anything of which they have non-record-based knowledge. ( citations omitted ) ). \n\nFor further discussion of the meaning of disclosure of records, see the Definitions, Systems of Records and Disclosures under Subsection ( b ) section above. \n\nIn one case in which a plaintiff sought relief for alleged wrongful disclosure of items seized during the execution of a search warrant, the court found, Appellant has failed to show that evidence seized during a search conducted in a criminal investigation constitutes records that are contained in a system of records under the Privacy Act. Matter of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nPlaintiffs maintain the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure by an agency occurred. \n\nA plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure by the agency has occurred. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( holding that disclosure is not actionable because it identified [ plaintiff ] only by his first name and neither recipient knew who XXXX was ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( rejecting appellants contentions that mere transmission of the documents to a fax machine at which unauthorized persons might have viewed the documents constitutes a prohibited disclosure and that the possibility that a record might be revealed to unauthorized readers by negligent or reckless transmission is sufficient to constitute a prohibited disclosure under the Act ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( [ T ] he fact that [ a company ] somehow came into possession of documents that might have been included in plaintiffs personnel file... gives rise only to a metaphysical doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( ruling that district court grant of summary judgment was proper where no evidence was found that record was disclosed, and stating that burden is on the plaintiff at the summary judgment stage to come forward with specific evidence ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( where agency employee testified that, despite memorandum indicating otherwise, she had disclosed information only within agency, and where plaintiff responded that whether his file was reviewed by other individuals is question of fact he want [ ed ] decided by a fact finder, not an affidavit, finding such arguments misapprehend [ plaintiffs ] burden at the summary judgment stage ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ( holding that plaintiff can not prove disclosure violation where the only agency involved, the Postal Service, received rather than disclosed the information in question ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX ) ( dismissing claim and stating that plaintiffs conclusory allegations of unlawful disclosure, without identifying or describing who acted against Plaintiff or what the person did, is insufficient ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiffs fail [ XXXX ] to allege sufficient facts supporting that the FBI, as opposed to some other law enforcement body, disclosed [ XXXX plaintiffs ] rap sheet on the Internet, where plaintiffs base [ d ] their allegation on... the mere fact that [ a particular Internet ] posting contained some expunged information ), reconsideration denied, No. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiff failed to make out XXXX XXXX case under subsection ( b ) of Privacy Act because plaintiff alleged merely that records were accessible to other individuals in office, rather than that they were actually disclosed ); XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) ( finding that plaintiffs failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that XXXX disclosed protected information where plaintiffs did not have personal knowledge that [ the memorandum was disclosed ] and witnesses at trial denied disclosing or receiving memorandum ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, slip op. at XXXX ( XXXX Ohio XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( finding lack of evidence that disclosure occurred where plaintiff alleged that, among other things, file had been left in unsecured file cabinet ), affd per curiam, No. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( finding plaintiffs complaint sufficient to survive summary judgment because he need not prove his case on the pleadings but rather must merely provide enough factual material to raise a reasonable inference, and thus a plausible claim, that the [ XXXX. for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] was the source of the disclosures ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiffs allegation of CIA disclosure to unidentified government officials, who were unrelated to handling of plaintiffs case, was not unacceptably vague and need not include identities of alleged recipients for CIA to understand Plaintiffs charge ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( ruling that plaintiff had stated claim for relief under Privacy Act where plaintiff pled that a member of [ agency ] management placed records referring and relating to her XXXX on a server accessible by other federal employees and members of the public ). \n\nDirect evidence that an agency disclosed a record is generally not required, but plaintiffs must produce more than mere speculation or conjecture. \n\nCircumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove an unauthorized disclosure occurred, although courts generally require corroborating evidence, rather than mere speculation or conjecture. Because plaintiffs can rarely produce direct evidence that the government has disclosed confidential information obtained from their private records, requiring such evidence would eviscerate the protections of the Privacy Act. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nAt least one court has held that there will be an adverse inference against an agency that destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiffs ability to prove that a disclosure occurred.\n\nOne district court has concluded that when an agency destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiffs ability to prove that a disclosure occurred, there will be an adverse inference against the agency. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that whether by use of the adverse inference or by a preponderance of the evidence standard, officials who inspected the folder found evidence that an inmate had tampered with it, and finding that disclosure occurred in violation of Privacy Act ), affd in part, revd in part & remanded, on other grounds, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). \n\nMany, but not all, courts have held that a disclosure does not occur if the disclosure is to a person who was already aware of the information. \n\nMany, but not all, courts have held that a disclosure under the Privacy Act does not occur if the communication is to a person who is already aware of the information. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( finding no Privacy Act violation where agency disclosed same information in letter to journalist that plaintiff himself had previously provided to journalist ; plaintiff waiv [ ed ], in effect, his protection under the Privacy Act ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( finding no disclosure because by time agency posted statement on its web site, plaintiff had been quoted in newspaper saying he received letter of admonishment, another newspaper article had referred to letter, and plaintiff had testified before XXXXongress regarding letter ; also finding no disclosure of report because at time agency provided link to report on its web site, the entire [ report ] had been the subject of a press release and news conference by a separate and independent agency... and had been released to the media by the same ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( defin [ ing ] the term disclose to mean the placing into the view of another information which was previously unknown ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( commenting that policy underlying Privacy Act protecting confidential information from disclosure not implicated by release of information health care provider had already received through patients California XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( mailing of agency decision affirming employees removal to his former attorney held not disclosure because attorney was familiar with facts of [ employees ] claim and no new information was disclosed to him ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( finding no evidence that disclosure could possibly have had an adverse effect on plaintiff where recipient had been privy to every event described in [ plaintiffs ] records at the time the event occurred ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ) ( citing XXXX and expressing doubt as to whether disclosure at issue has presented any new information to those in the intelligence community ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( although finding disclosure to credit reporting service valid under routine use exception, concluding information disclosed was already in possession of recipient and other courts had held that Privacy Act is not violated in such cases ), affd, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( unpublished table decision ). \n\nHowever, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified that some disseminations of protected records to individuals with prior knowledge of their existence or contents are disclosures under the Privacy Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In XXXX, the XXXX. XXXX held that the Justice Departments transmission of a Privacy Act-protected record to a former employee of the agency constituted a disclosure under the Privacy Act, even though the recipient had come into contact with the [ record ] in the course of his duties while an employee. Id. The courts review of the Privacy Acts purposes, legislative history, and integrated structure convince [ d it ] that Congress intended the term disclose to apply in virtually all instances to an agencys unauthorized transmission of a protected record, regardless of the recipients prior familiarity with it. Id. at XXXX. \n\nIn an earlier case, XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the XXXX. XXXX had held that the release of a summary of individual child-support payments previously deducted from plaintiffs salary and sent directly to his ex-wife, who had requested it for use in pending litigation, was not an unlawful disclosure under the Privacy Act as she already knew what had been remitted to her. Id. at XXXX. In XXXX, the XXXX. Circuit reconciled its opinion in XXXX by declin [ XXXX ] to extend XXXX beyond the limited factual circumstances that gave rise to it, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Permissible purposes of consumer reports U.S. Code ( a ) In general Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : ( 1 ) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury, or a subpoena issued in accordance with section 5318 of title 31 or section 3486 of title 18.\n\n( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.\n\n15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information U.S. Code Notes ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law. \n( Pub. XXXX XXXX, title XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; Pub. XXXX XXXX, title X, XXXX ( XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX Code XXXX - Rulemaking XXXX Code ( a ) Regulatory authority ( XXXX ) Rulemaking ( A ) In general Except as provided in subparagraph ( C ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Securities and Exchange Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as XXXX be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their respective jurisdiction under section XXXX of this title ( and notwithstanding subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX [ XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. ] ), except that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX not have authority to prescribe regulations with respect to the standards under section XXXX of this title. \n\n( B ) CFTC The Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as XXXX be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under section XXXX of title XXXX. \n\n( XXXX XXXX Federal Trade Commission XXXX Notwithstanding the authority of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX under subparagraph ( A ), the Federal Trade Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as XXXX be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to any financial institution that is a person described in section XXXX ( a ) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX [ XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ]. \n\n( D ) Rule of construction Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to alter, affect, or otherwise limit the authority of a XXXX insurance authority to adopt regulations to carry out this subchapter. \n\n( 2 ) Coordination, consistency, and comparability Each of the agencies authorized under paragraph ( 1 ) to prescribe regulations shall consult and coordinate with the other such agencies and, as appropriate, and with [ 1 ] representatives of State insurance authorities designated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for the purpose of assuring, to the extent possible, that the regulations prescribed by each such agency are consistent and comparable with the regulations prescribed by the other such agencies. \n\n( 3 ) Procedures and deadline Such regulations shall be prescribed in accordance with applicable requirements of title 5. \n\n( b ) Authority to grant exceptions The regulations prescribed under subsection ( a ) may include such additional exceptions to subsections ( a ) through ( d ) of section 6802 of this title as are deemed consistent with the purposes of this subchapter. \n\n( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Enforcement U.S. Code ( a ) In general Subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ], this subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law, as follows : ( 1 ) Under section 1818 of title 12, by the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in section 1813 ( q ) of title 12, in the case of ( A ) national banks, Federal branches and Federal agencies of foreign banks, and any subsidiaries of such entities ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; ( B ) member banks of the Federal Reserve System ( other than national banks ), branches and agencies of foreign banks ( other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured State branches of foreign banks ), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act [ 12 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 611 et seq. ], and bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; ( C ) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( other than members of the Federal Reserve System ), insured State branches of foreign banks, and any subsidiaries of such entities ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; and I've opted out of those accounts listed above and they are still disclosing my nonpublic personal inforrmation. 16 CFR 313.7","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-04T01:35:08.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"445XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8275637","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-02-04T01:35:03.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX held that the <em>Justice</em> <em>Departments</em> transmission of a Privacy Act-protected record to a former employee of the agency constituted a disclosure under the Privacy Act, even though the recipient had come into contact with the [ record ] in the course of his duties while an employee. Id."]},"sort":[4.5229464,"8275637"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8275784","_score":4.5174894,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"5 USC 552a ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be I did not give written or verbal consent to disclose my non public private information to these credit reporting agencies. Disclosing my XXXX XXXX  Account starting with XXXX, XXXX XXXX Account starting with XXXX, XXXX Account starting with XXXX. These credit reporting agencies are also in violation of the privacy act of 1974 Conditions of Disclosure to Third Parties The general rule under the Privacy Act is that an agency can not disclose a record contained in a system of records unless the individual to whom the record pertains gives prior written consent to the disclosure. There are twelve exceptions to this general rule. \n\nA. The No Disclosure without Consent Rule No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [ subject to 12 exceptions ]. 5 U.S.C. 552a ( b ). \n\nComment : Under the Privacy Acts disclosure provision, agencies generally are prohibited from disclosing records by any means of communication written, oral, electronic, or mechanical without the written consent of the individual, subject to twelve exceptions. \n\nFederal officials handling personal information are bound by the Privacy Act not to disclose any personal information and to take certain precautions to keep personal information confidential. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( noting that Privacy Act generally prohibits the federal government from disclosing personal information about an individual without the individuals consent ). \n\nA disclosure can be by any means of communication written, oral, electronic, or mechanical. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( concluding that an absolute policy of limiting the Acts coverage to information physically retrieved from a record would make little sense in terms of its underlying purpose and that Privacy Act forbids nonconsensual disclosure of records by any means of communication ) ; see also, e.g., XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( Numerous courts have held that the Privacy Act protects against improper oral disclosures. ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( rejecting argument that the [ Privacy Act ] only protects against the disclosure of a physical document that is contained in a system of records, and holding that damaging information... taken from a protected record and inserted into a new document, which was then disclosed without the plaintiffs consent, violated subsection ( b ) because the new document is also a protected record ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( The Privacy Act prohibits more than dissemination of records themselves, but also nonconsensual disclosure of any information that has been retrieved from a protected record ( quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ) ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( [ XXXX ] hile the term disclosure is not defined by the statute, it has been interpreted broadly ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( citing XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( citing XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ). \n\nOMB guidelines, and some, but not all, courts have advised that disclosures can occur by either transferring a record or simply granting access to a record. \n\nFurther, a disclosure under the Privacy Act may be either the transfer of a record or the granting of access to a record. OMB 1975 Guidelines, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( interpreting disclosure under the Privacy Act liberally to include not only the physical disclosure of the records, but also the accessing of private records ). Regarding actionability, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has required that a record actually be retrieved. XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( quoting XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, and holding that, to be actionable, a disclosure generally must be the result of someone having actually retrieved the record from that system of records ; the disclosure of information is not ordinarily a violation merely because the information happens to be contained in the records ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). But see XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) ( holding unauthorized access not actionable under Privacy Act, even though plaintiffs declaration provided support for conclusion that defendants employees individually improperly accessed plaintiffs private medical data ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( [ A ] plaintiff can not establish a prima facie claim under the Privacy Act simply by showing that the agency official who disclosed a protected record should never have accessed the record in the first place. ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( dismissing claim of improper disclosure under subsection ( b ) in spite of evidence suggesting agencys employee had unauthorized access to plaintiffs personnel file, because agency had complied with all safeguards of Privacy Act, and had not acted intentionally or willfully to disclose, defined as to open up, to expose to view, or to make known,... especially to reveal in words ( citations omitted ) ). \n\nA disclosure of information from a non-record source does not violate the Privacy Acts disclosure provision. \n\nThe disclosure of information acquired from non-record sources such as observation, office emails, discussions with co-workers and the rumor mill does not violate the Privacy Act... even if the information disclosed is also contained in agency records. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( For a disclosure to be covered by section 552a ( b ), there must have initially been a retrieval from the system of records which was at some point a source of the information. ( citations omitted ) ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( [ T ] he Privacy Act does not prohibit disclosure of information or knowledge obtained from other sources other than records ... .In particular, it does not prevent federal employees or officials from talking even gossiping about anything of which they have non-record-based knowledge. ( citations omitted ) ). \n\nFor further discussion of the meaning of disclosure of records, see the Definitions, Systems of Records and Disclosures under Subsection ( b ) section above. \n\nIn one case in which a plaintiff sought relief for alleged wrongful disclosure of items seized during the execution of a search warrant, the court found, Appellant has failed to show that evidence seized during a search conducted in a criminal investigation constitutes records that are contained in a system of records under the Privacy Act. Matter of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nPlaintiffs maintain the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure by an agency occurred. \n\nA plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure by the agency has occurred. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( holding that disclosure is not actionable because it identified [ plaintiff ] only by his first name and neither recipient knew who XXXX was ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( rejecting appellants contentions that mere transmission of the documents to a fax machine at which unauthorized persons might have viewed the documents constitutes a prohibited disclosure and that the possibility that a record might be revealed to unauthorized readers by negligent or reckless transmission is sufficient to constitute a prohibited disclosure under the Act ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( [ T ] he fact that [ a company ] somehow came into possession of documents that might have been included in plaintiffs personnel file... gives rise only to a metaphysical doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( ruling that district court grant of summary judgment was proper where no evidence was found that record was disclosed, and stating that burden is on the plaintiff at the summary judgment stage to come forward with specific evidence ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( where agency employee testified that, despite memorandum indicating otherwise, she had disclosed information only within agency, and where plaintiff responded that whether his file was reviewed by other individuals is question of fact he want [ ed ] decided by a fact finder, not an affidavit, finding such arguments misapprehend [ plaintiffs ] burden at the summary judgment stage ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ( holding that plaintiff can not prove disclosure violation where the only agency involved, the Postal Service, received rather than disclosed the information in question ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( dismissing claim and stating that plaintiffs conclusory allegations of unlawful disclosure, without identifying or describing who acted against XXXX or what the person did, is insufficient ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( D.N.J. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiffs fail [ ed ] to allege sufficient facts supporting that the FBI, as opposed to some other law enforcement body, disclosed [ one plaintiffs ] rap sheet on the Internet, where plaintiffs base [ d ] their allegation on... the mere fact that [ a particular Internet ] posting contained some expunged information ), reconsideration denied, No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case under subsection ( b ) of Privacy Act because plaintiff alleged merely that records were accessible to other individuals in office, rather than that they were actually disclosed ); XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) ( finding that plaintiffs failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that IHS disclosed protected information where plaintiffs did not have personal knowledge that [ the memorandum was disclosed ] and witnesses at trial denied disclosing or receiving memorandum ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX. XXXX, slip op. at XXXX ( XXXX Ohio XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( finding lack of evidence that disclosure occurred where plaintiff alleged that, among other things, file had been left in unsecured file cabinet ), affd per curiam, No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX at XXXX ( finding plaintiffs complaint sufficient to survive summary judgment because he need not prove his case on the pleadings but rather must merely provide enough factual material to raise a reasonable inference, and thus a plausible claim, that the [ XXXX. for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ] was the source of the disclosures ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ) ( concluding that plaintiffs allegation of CIA disclosure to unidentified government officials, who were unrelated to handling of plaintiffs case, was not unacceptably vague and need not include identities of alleged recipients for CIA to understand Plaintiffs charge ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ) ( ruling that plaintiff had stated claim for relief under Privacy Act where plaintiff pled that a member of [ agency ] management placed records referring and relating to her XXXX on a server accessible by other federal employees and members of the public ). \n\nDirect evidence that an agency disclosed a record is generally not required, but plaintiffs must produce more than mere speculation or conjecture. \n\nCircumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove an unauthorized disclosure occurred, although courts generally require corroborating evidence, rather than mere speculation or conjecture. Because plaintiffs can rarely produce direct evidence that the government has disclosed confidential information obtained from their private records, requiring such evidence would eviscerate the protections of the Privacy Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n\nAt least one court has held that there will be an adverse inference against an agency that destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiffs ability to prove that a disclosure occurred.\n\nOne district court has concluded that when an agency destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiffs ability to prove that a disclosure occurred, there will be an adverse inference against the agency. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) ( concluding that whether by use of the adverse inference or by a preponderance of the evidence standard, officials who inspected the folder found evidence that an inmate had tampered with it, and finding that disclosure occurred in violation of Privacy Act ), affd in part, revd in part & remanded, on other grounds, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). \n\nMany, but not all, courts have held that a disclosure does not occur if the disclosure is to a person who was already aware of the information. \n\nMany, but not all, courts have held that a disclosure under the Privacy Act does not occur if the communication is to a person who is already aware of the information. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( finding no Privacy Act violation where agency disclosed same information in letter to journalist that plaintiff himself had previously provided to journalist ; plaintiff waiv [ ed ], in effect, his protection under the Privacy Act ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( finding no disclosure because by time agency posted statement on its web site, plaintiff had been quoted in newspaper saying he received letter of admonishment, another newspaper article had referred to letter, and plaintiff had testified before Congress regarding letter ; also finding no disclosure of report because at time agency provided link to report on its web site, the entire [ report ] had been the subject of a press release and news conference by a separate and independent agency... and had been released to the media by the same ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( defin [ ing ] the term disclose to mean the placing into the view of another information which was previously unknown ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ( commenting that policy underlying Privacy Act protecting confidential information from disclosure not implicated by release of information health care provider had already received through patients XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( mailing of agency decision affirming employees removal to his former attorney held not disclosure because attorney was familiar with facts of [ employees ] claim and no new information was disclosed to him ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( finding no evidence that disclosure could possibly have had an adverse effect on plaintiff where recipient had been privy to every event described in [ plaintiffs ] records at the time the event occurred ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ) ( citing XXXX and expressing doubt as to whether disclosure at issue has presented any new information to those in the intelligence community ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( although finding disclosure to credit reporting service valid under routine use exception, concluding information disclosed was already in possession of recipient and other courts had held that Privacy Act is not violated in such cases ), affd, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ( unpublished table decision ). \n\nHowever, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified that some disseminations of protected records to individuals with prior knowledge of their existence or contents are disclosures under the Privacy Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). In XXXX, the XXXX. XXXX held that the Justice Departments transmission of a Privacy Act-protected record to a former employee of the agency constituted a disclosure under the Privacy Act, even though the recipient had come into contact with the [ record ] in the course of his duties while an employee. Id. The courts review of the Privacy Acts purposes, legislative history, and integrated structure convince [ d it ] that Congress intended the term disclose to apply in virtually all instances to an agencys unauthorized transmission of a protected record, regardless of the recipients prior familiarity with it. Id. at XXXX. \n\nIn an earlier case, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the XXXX. XXXX had held that the release of a summary of individual child-support payments previously deducted from plaintiffs salary and sent directly to his ex-wife, who had requested it for use in pending litigation, was not an unlawful disclosure under the Privacy Act as she already knew what had been remitted to her. Id. at XXXX. In XXXX, the XXXX. Circuit reconciled its opinion in XXXX by declin [ ing ] to extend XXXX beyond the limited factual circumstances that gave rise to it, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Permissible purposes of consumer reports U.S. Code ( a ) In general Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : ( 1 ) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury, or a subpoena issued in accordance with section 5318 of title 31 or section 3486 of title 18.\n\n( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.\n\n15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information U.S. Code Notes ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law. \n( Pub. XXXX XXXX, title XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; Pub. XXXX XXXX, title X, XXXX ( XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. ) XXXX XXXX Code XXXX - Rulemaking XXXX Code ( a ) Regulatory authority ( XXXX ) Rulemaking ( A ) In general Except as provided in subparagraph ( C ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Securities and Exchange Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as XXXX be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their respective jurisdiction under section XXXX of this title ( and notwithstanding subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX [ XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. ] ), except that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX not have authority to prescribe regulations with respect to the standards under section XXXX of this title. \n\n( B ) CFTC The Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as XXXX be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under section XXXX of title XXXX. \n\n( XXXX XXXX Federal Trade Commission XXXX Notwithstanding the authority of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX under subparagraph ( A ), the Federal Trade Commission shall have authority to prescribe such regulations as XXXX be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter with respect to any financial institution that is a person described in section XXXX ( a ) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX [ XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ]. \n\n( D ) Rule of construction Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to alter, affect, or otherwise limit the authority of a XXXX insurance authority to adopt regulations to carry out this subchapter. \n\n( 2 ) Coordination, consistency, and comparability Each of the agencies authorized under paragraph ( 1 ) to prescribe regulations shall consult and coordinate with the other such agencies and, as appropriate, and with [ 1 ] representatives of State insurance authorities designated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for the purpose of assuring, to the extent possible, that the regulations prescribed by each such agency are consistent and comparable with the regulations prescribed by the other such agencies. \n\n( 3 ) Procedures and deadline Such regulations shall be prescribed in accordance with applicable requirements of title 5. \n\n( b ) Authority to grant exceptions The regulations prescribed under subsection ( a ) may include such additional exceptions to subsections ( a ) through ( d ) of section 6802 of this title as are deemed consistent with the purposes of this subchapter. \n\n( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) 15 U.S. Code 6805 - Enforcement U.S. Code ( a ) In general Subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ], this subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law, as follows : ( 1 ) Under section 1818 of title 12, by the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in section 1813 ( q ) of title 12, in the case of ( A ) national banks, Federal branches and Federal agencies of foreign banks, and any subsidiaries of such entities ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; ( B ) member banks of the Federal Reserve System ( other than national banks ), branches and agencies of foreign banks ( other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured State branches of foreign banks ), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act [ 12 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 611 et seq. ], and bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries or affiliates ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; ( C ) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( other than members of the Federal Reserve System ), insured State branches of foreign banks, and any subsidiaries of such entities ( except brokers, dealers, persons providing insurance, investment companies, and investment advisers ) ; and I've opted out of those accounts listed above and they are still disclosing my nonpublic personal inforrmation. 16 CFR 313.7","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-04T01:35:08.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"445XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8275784","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-02-04T01:35:03.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX held that the <em>Justice</em> <em>Departments</em> transmission of a Privacy Act-protected record to a former employee of the agency constituted a disclosure under the Privacy Act, even though the recipient had come into contact with the [ record ] in the course of his duties while an employee. Id."]},"sort":[4.5174894,"8275784"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":13,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":13}]}},"product":{"doc_count":13,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":7},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":13,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Indicated you were committing crime by not paying debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","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":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":13,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":13}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":13,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":10},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":13,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":13}]}},"company":{"doc_count":13,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANCFIRST CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CONTRACT CALLERS INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":13,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"OH","doc_count":4},{"key":"MA","doc_count":3},{"key":"DC","doc_count":2},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":13,"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":4}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":13,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}