{"took":435,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":28,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11483857","_score":19.257246,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : Complaint Regarding Equifax Data XXXX ( XXXX ) To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally file a complaint regarding the XXXX Equifax data XXXX, which exposed the sensitive personal information of approximately XXXX XXXX individuals, including XXXX XXXX XXXX. Upon reviewing XXXX online resources, I discovered that my information was impacted by this breach. \nThe breach, disclosed by Equifax in XX/XX/XXXX, led to the unlawful access of sensitive consumer data, including Social Security numbers, birthdates, addresses, and other critical personal information. Following this incident, the XXXX  Attorney General, XXXX XXXX, launched an investigation that resulted in a Final Judgment against Equifax on XX/XX/XXXX, as part of a {$600.00} XXXX multistate settlement. \nThe settlement included the following key requirements : XXXX. Consumer Fund : Equifax must pay {$300.00} million, with the potential to increase to {$420.00} million, into a Consumer Fund for affected individuals. \nXXXX. Data Security Program : Equifax must implement and maintain a comprehensive data security program to prevent future breaches and safeguard consumer data. \nXXXX. Consumer Assistance Process : Equifax must assist identity theft victims and support members of the armed forces and their families with credit issues. \nXXXX. State Payments : Equifax must pay {$170.00} million to the states.\n\nDespite these measures, I am concerned about the adequacy and accessibility of the restitution and resources provided to affected individuals like myself. I am seeking clarity and resolution regarding the following issues : The process and timeline for obtaining compensation or assistance through the Consumer Fund.\n\nSpecific details about Equifaxs data security measures implemented post-settlement to ensure such breaches do not recur. \nAssistance and support available to me as a victim of this breach to safeguard my identity and credit. \nAccounts that have great concern about on my credit report that I have know knowledge of that have dispute them alots of time with know results. \nBankruptcy : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Given the magnitude of the breach and the sensitivity of the compromised information, I believe additional oversight and accountability are critical to ensuring Equifax complies fully with the settlement terms and provides adequate support to affected consumers XXXX \nI kindly request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate my concerns and ensure that Equifax fulfills its obligations to consumers like me. \n\nI appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to your response. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-12T02:42:25.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"53216","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11483857","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-12T02:37:07.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Assistance and <em>support</em> available to me as a victim of this breach to safeguard my identity and <em>credit</em>. \nAccounts that have great concern about on my <em>credit</em> report that I have know knowledge of that have dispute them alots of time with know results."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[19.257246,"11483857"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11867610","_score":15.748908,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I am submitting this formal complaint regarding my ongoing dispute with Experian, referenced under case number XXXX. Experian has failed to conduct a proper investigation into my dispute and has engaged in delay tactics rather than addressing the issues raised. \n\nKey Issues with Experians Handling of My Dispute : Failure to Conduct a Meaningful Investigation : Experian has not properly investigated the disputed information on my credit report, despite receiving supporting documentation. \nDeflecting Consumer Complaints : Instead of directly addressing my complaint, Experian directed me to generic resources like their dispute center, rather than providing a substantive response. \nUnnecessary Requests for Repetitive Submissions : Experian has asked me to resubmit documents through their internal portal, even though I have already provided them via the CFPBs complaint system. \nUnjustified Delays : Experian has failed to provide a clear resolution timeline, keeping my dispute unresolved and negatively impacting my credit profile. \nParallels to CFPBs Recent Enforcement Action Against XXXX On XX/XX/year>, the CFPB ordered XXXX to pay a {$15.00} million penalty for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes and for reinserting previously deleted inaccuracies in consumer credit reports. The CFPB found that XXXX : Ignored consumer documents submitted with disputes. \nFailed to meaningfully investigate inaccurate credit reporting. \nAllowed previously removed errors to be reinserted into consumer credit files. \nProvided misleading or contradictory responses to consumers regarding dispute resolutions. \nExperian appears to be engaging in similar misconduct by failing to address my dispute appropriately and delaying resolution without justification. Given the CFPBs recent enforcement action against XXXX, I urge the Bureau to investigate Experians handling of my case and hold them accountable for non-compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-01T02:48:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"43230","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11867610","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-02-01T02:41:36.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Key Issues with Experians Handling of My Dispute : Failure to Conduct a Meaningful Investigation : Experian has not properly investigated the disputed information on my <em>credit</em> report, despite receiving <em>supporting</em> documentation. \nDeflecting Consumer Complaints : Instead of directly addressing my complaint, Experian directed me to generic <em>resources</em> like their dispute center, rather than providing a substantive response."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[15.748908,"11867610"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4918189","_score":13.824719,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Loan XXXX. Citi Mortgage XXXX is the subservicer. \nBoth of these banks are violating my rights. Committing fraud, lying, did not pay the taxes that were due for the year. Forced me into escrow stating XXXX XXXX will not allow a non Escrow account! My loan is not even XXXX XXXX owned. I would of never in a million years obtain a mortgages backed by this XXXX  bank who has millions of dollars in fines in e wry aspect of fraud from banking, mortgage, not paying escrow accounts. Sterling money out of ESCROW row accounts. Over charging interest, XXXX XXXX has escalated and is investigating fraud. The loan originating and never bought by XXXX or XXXX. My closing docs were hanged the day before closing to not provide my lender credit of {$5000.00} than fudged more numbers during the process of doing a seller credit which made not any sense. My ratios were XXXX XXXX guidelines and I do not have A XXXX XXXX XXXX which I have many emails supporting my claims. I did not want to be escrowed as I was concerned about the fraud Citi bestowed on millions of people. I did not want to close on this loan as fraud was clearly done making me by {$4500.00} of points to go from a 3 % to a 2.75 % the day before closing! Which took well over 60 days and kept delaying the closing. I was threatened that if I didnt close I was losing my {$10000.00} XXXX money from Citibank . I have many emails from my closing attorney that indicated that the closing documents were fudged and told by the loan closer who lied and then finally admitted the senior loan closer XXXX XXXX told her to change the numbers and if she did not the Jr loan closer would be fired. I have this on a recorded call from the JR loan closers cell phone. I have emails from XXXX XXXX stating she was only told what to do. Referring to the XXXX XXXX closet a d orders from senior loan closer. Basically took my {$5000.00} lender credit that could of went toward closing costs yet without my consent of XXXX a measly XXXX for close to {$4500.00} to {$4900.00} to cover there disgusting fraud. \nI called XXXX shortly after I closed telling them I will have financial difficultly paying this loan after making pay off my car and ZERO credit cards! Left me with XXXX! I was ignored! The loss mitigation documents were only received XXXX and have a signed notarized document from the mailman of 35 years! \n\nMy {$2000.00} from Citi bank that directly went in my bank account from my direct deposit has been stolen by Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX. I reported this for 16 days straight to Citi bank. Ignored. Money just gone in thin air. XXXX tracking number provided does not exist. These funds were suppose to go toward my Mortgage payment. Stolen. Where is the money. 18 days. \nHorrific fraud! XXXX XXXX was emailed the CEO! All of my complaints were ignored and this behavior is accepted. \n\nI borrowed the money for my first mortgage payment and paid on XXXX and if the stolen money is not provided I will be filing a chapter XXXX against my mortgage. I have hired an attorney and advised to file XXXX immediately! \n\nWhere is the money out of escrow to pay the taxes on the property! \n\nXXXX XXXX filed a FTC and actually called the FBI as they are shocked what is going on. \n\nAll the way around I have been abused, mentally, and have taken a unpaid leave of absence and being intimidated and threatened by this bank. \n\nI will not continue for this bank to steel my pay that was in my bank account and Stole it and. I where yo be found. Charging me late fees and have a personal vendetta against me. XXXX XXXX is getting there resources together to ensure this CEO is held accountable!","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-16T05:50:43.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"33401","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4918189","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2021-11-16T04:59:58.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My closing docs were hanged the day before closing to not provide my lender <em>credit</em> of {$5000.00} than fudged more numbers during the process of doing a seller <em>credit</em> which made not any sense. My ratios were XXXX XXXX guidelines and I do not have A XXXX XXXX XXXX which I have many emails <em>supporting</em> my claims. I did not want to be escrowed as I was concerned about the fraud Citi bestowed on <em>millions</em> of people."]},"sort":[13.824719,"4918189"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3904353","_score":11.152405,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I had a bankruptcy that was discharged on XX/XX/XXXX and subsequently on XX/XX/XXXX was misinformed that I would be able to refinance or have a equity line of credit for much needed maintenance to my residential home. I had endured several thousands of dollars of losses due to scammers which ultimately led to my bankruptcy and divorce settlements during the initial years of filing bankruptcy and today after being under the thoughts previously explained that I would be eligible for a loan to due to the two year period was completed. \nPrior to this date XXXX XXXX I have repeatedly tried to interpret the credit bureaus Trans Union and XXXX  which I have been a subscriber to their services for the past few years. I have asked them to explain to me why is it that after and prior to this time period that my credit scores are reflected as so low when they have not and did not today adjust my credit scores to reflect that my mortgage is and has been paid in a timely manner, and my automobile has been paid in a timely manner and that my utility bills and maintenance for for home has always been paid also in a timely manner is not reflected on my credit report that would show that my credit score would be much higher than its currently represented with my two small credit card balances and one small balance to a XXXX  account. I had four months ago several XXXX dollars in my bank account and due to my sons untimely death the end of XXXX had made a hard and overly expensive trip across country that drained my finances considerably enough so that prior to my departure I had over {$8000.00} in my bank account to purchase and new vehicle which sadly is gone due to the trip expenses and the funeral costs, for me this has been the second great family loss in the past three years and the second time this particular situation with a suitable bank account has transpired and secondly the past three years here in California we have had consecutive severe weather storms that had caused more than extensive damage to the property that had costs thousands and thousands of dollars worth or repairs, for the physical damages to the home and the pool equipment of the home. I would not be so upset than my bank has the documentation for all the terrible hardships financially that I have endured over the past several years they have the documentation for that, But my frustration with the credit reporting agencies is that despite maintaining my payments to my mortgage, auto, and having paid XXXX of dollars to contractors, maintenance personnel and the continous damage from bad weather does not reflect that on my credit reports. I have attempted to reach out these agencies in this regard that I do not think that its something special that I wish to have but that only they acknowledge that I have always paid my debts other than two years ago discharged bankruptcy the inclusive of the payments for my mortgage, auto and other utilities that take I make and have made over the past 17years and 6 months I have lived here. \nI find it hard to understand that multimillion dollar companies file bankruptcy for millions and now billions of dollars from XXXX XXXX to the Executive Offices and they walk away within a matter of a couple of months have thier business as usual of much better than it was prior to them losing those millions of dollars of the tax payers money and we pay that the average citizen why are they in such a bracket that they immediately have financial resources open to them and fairer credit reporting systems that we are not provided at least the honesty to provide that we are paying more than our fair share and the agencies we are paying to support us have us in such negative light that our pathetic credit request are denied stating that we do not have enough credit reported from our credit agencies to be able to have our credit approved rather its for a equity loan of credit to repair our homes or the finance and refinance mortgage for maintaining our homes that we live in. I just do not understand why we are not treated in the same vein as XXXX XXXX or the members of our Executive with multimillions of dollars in losses and within weeks it is business as usual and we are paying for this nonsense to be taken advantage of by our credit reporting agencies tilt on the average citizen that i have stated we make mistakes too, but those of us that pay everything on time and maintain severe financial difficulties for years are not allowed the same consideration at least be just and fair about what is documented in front of you and not hidden, just represent the truth of the math and that should not be a reason for being denied credit when your paying through the nose just to survive without anybody help! Just fairness in the reports period.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-10-17T06:33:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93307","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3904353","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2020-10-17T01:48:04.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["that we are not <em>provided</em> at least the honesty to provide that we are paying more than our fair share and the agencies we are paying to <em>support</em> us have us in such negative light that our pathetic <em>credit</em> request are denied stating that we do not have enough <em>credit</em> reported from our <em>credit</em> agencies to be able to have our <em>credit</em> approved rather its for a equity loan of <em>credit</em> to repair our homes or the finance and refinance mortgage for maintaining our homes that we live in."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting, <em>credit</em> repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Problem with a <em>credit</em> reporting company's investigation into an existing problem"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[11.152405,"3904353"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3904354","_score":11.122862,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I had a bankruptcy that was discharged on XX/XX/XXXX and subsequently on XX/XX/XXXX was misinformed that I would be able to refinance or have a equity line of credit for much needed maintenance to my residential home. I had endured several thousands of dollars of losses due to scammers which ultimately led to my bankruptcy and divorce settlements during the initial years of filing bankruptcy and today after being under the thoughts previously explained that I would be eligible for a loan to due to the two year period was completed.\n\nPrior to this date XXXX XXXX I have repeatedly tried to interpret the credit bureaus XXXX XXXX and Experian which I have been a subscriber to their services for the past few years. I have asked them to explain to me why is it that after and prior to this time period that my credit scores are reflected as so low when they have not and did not today adjust my credit scores to reflect that my mortgage is and has been paid in a timely manner, and my automobile has been paid in a timely manner and that my utility bills and maintenance for for home has always been paid also in a timely manner is not reflected on my credit report that would show that my credit score would be much higher than its currently represented with my two small credit card balances and one small balance to a XXXX account. I had four months ago several XXXX dollars in my bank account and due to my sons untimely death the end of XXXX had made a hard and overly expensive trip across country that drained my finances considerably enough so that prior to my departure I had over {$8000.00} in my bank account to purchase and new vehicle which sadly is gone due to the trip expenses and the funeral costs, for me this has been the second great family loss in the past three years and the second time this particular situation with a suitable bank  account has transpired and secondly the past three years here in California we have had consecutive severe weather storms that had caused more than extensive damage to the property that had costs thousands and thousands of dollars worth or repairs, for the physical damages to the home and the pool equipment of the home. I would not be so upset than my bank has the documentation for all the terrible hardships financially that I have endured over the past several years they have the documentation for that, But my frustration with the credit reporting agencies is that despite maintaining my payments to my mortgage, auto, and having paid  XXXX of dollars to contractors, maintenance personnel and the continous damage from bad weather does not reflect that on my credit reports. I have attempted to reach out these agencies in this regard that I do not think that its something special that I wish to have but that only they acknowledge that I have always paid my debts other than two years ago discharged bankruptcy the inclusive of the payments for my mortgage, auto and other utilities that take I make and have made over the past 17years and 6 months I have lived here. I find it hard to understand that multimillion dollar companies file\nbankruptcy for millions and now billions of dollars from XXXX XXXX to the Executive Offices and they walk away within a matter of a couple of months have thier business as usual of much better than it was prior to them losing those millions of dollars of the tax payers money and we pay that the average citizen why are they in such a bracket that they immediately have financial resources open to them and fairer credit reporting systems that we are not provided at least the honesty to provide that we are paying more than our fair share and the agencies we are paying to support us have us in such negative light that our pathetic credit request are denied stating that we do not have enough credit reported from our credit agencies to be able to have our credit approved rather its for a equity loan of credit to repair our homes or the finance and refinance mortgage for maintaining our homes that we live in. I just do not  understand why we are not treated in the same vein as XXXX XXXX or the members of our Executive with XXXX of XXXX  in losses and within weeks it is business as usual and we are paying for this nonsense to be taken advantage of by our credit reporting agencies tilt on the average citizen that i have stated we make mistakes too, but those of us that pay everything on time and maintain severe financial difficulties for years are not allowed the same consideration at least be just and fair about what is documented in front of you and not hidden, just represent the truth of the math and that should not be a reason for being denied credit when your paying through the nose just to survive without anybody help! Just fairness in the reports period.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-10-17T06:33:49.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93307","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3904354","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2020-10-17T02:33:46.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["that we are not <em>provided</em> at least the honesty to provide that we are paying more than our fair share and the agencies we are paying to <em>support</em> us have us in such negative light that our pathetic <em>credit</em> request are denied stating that we do not have enough <em>credit</em> reported from our <em>credit</em> agencies to be able to have our <em>credit</em> approved rather its for a equity loan of <em>credit</em> to repair our homes or the finance and refinance mortgage for maintaining our homes that we live in."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting, <em>credit</em> repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Problem with a <em>credit</em> reporting company's investigation into an existing problem"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[11.122862,"3904354"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16549782","_score":10.673567,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"Issue Summary : On XX/XX/XXXX, I applied for a personal loan through USAAs government shutdown assistance program. The program was advertised as support for customers affected by the shutdown. However, my application triggered a hard credit inquiry, was denied, and negatively impacted my credit report. \n\nThis contradicts the advertised intent of assistance and has caused financial harm. I attempted to resolve the issue through USAAs customer service channels, but all efforts were ignored. \n\nDesired Resolution : I am requesting : A formal apology from USAA A review of their loan application process Removal or correction of the negative credit impact A written response within 14 days If unresolved, I intend to escalate this matter further.\n\nCC : Dear Bank Executive, I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding your recently advertised government shutdown loan program, which was promoted as a form of assistance for customers affected by the shutdown.\n\nYour marketing materials conveyed a spirit of generosity and support. However, when I applied for the loan on XX/XX/XXXX, I was subjected to a hard credit inquiry, which ultimately led to a rejection and a negative impact on my credit report. This outcome stands in stark contrast to the notion of assistance that your offer claimed to provide.\n\nI find this experience misleading and detrimental, especially given the vulnerable circumstances many customers are facing during the shutdown. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this matter through your customer service channels, I have received no response.\n\nI am requesting a formal apology and a review of your loan application process to ensure that future applicants are not misled or penalized for seeking help.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. \n\nXXXX XXXX Reference : XX/XX/XXXX UPDATE : USAA Delivers {$150.00} XXXX in Loans Within 48 Hours to Serve Members Impacted by Government Shutdown FOR THE MOST UP-TO-DATE DATA ON USAA SHUTDOWN ACTIVITY, VISIT USAA STORIES : LINK Association serves 45,000 members with no-interest loan and payment relief options as military payday approaches XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) In response to the ongoing government shutdown, USAA has provided {$150.00} XXXX in no-interest loans to approximately 45,000 members in just over 48 hours, helping to support military service members, their families, and federal employees ahead of potential gaps in pay. As part of its program, eligible members employed by impacted federal agencies, including active-duty military, can apply for a no-interest loan equal to one net paycheck, up to {$6000.00}. The loan, open to members who have received an eligible direct deposit into a USAA checking or savings account within 30 days prior to the beginning of the shutdown, features flexible repayment terms within 90 days, giving members room to manage finances during this period. Efforts like this are why we exist as an Association, to be there for our members when they need us most, said XXXX XXXX, President, USAA Federal Savings Bank. Delivering this level of support in under two days demonstrates our commitment to providing our members with peace of mind during this difficult time. Our team is currently processing loan applications at a very high rate per hour and we continue to stand ready to support our members. This is the value of membership. Additionally, USAA has processed tens of thousands of additional payment relief offers for banking and insurance products, from loan, credit card and insurance payment extensions to fee waivers. USAA also encourages service members to seek additional support through military aid societies. Since XXXX, USAA has contributed more than {$40.00} XXXX to these organizations to assist service members and their families in times of need. These funds help provide emergency financial aid, career and educational support, and other resources through organizations such as : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX can apply for a no-interest loan from USAA through the USAA app, usaa.com , or by phone, and approved funds are typically available within two business days, though most initial disbursements have been delivered in less than 24 hours. More information about USAAs financial assistance programs related to the government shutdown is available at usaa.com/relief. About USAA Founded in XXXX by a group of military officers, USAA is among the leading providers of insurance, banking and retirement solutions and serves 14 million members of the U.S. military, veterans who have honorably served and their families. Headquartered in XXXX XXXX, USAA has offices in eight U.S. cities and three overseas locations and employs more than 38,000 people worldwide. Each year, the company contributes to national and local nonprofits in support of military families and communities where employees live and work. For more information about USAA, follow us on XXXX, XXXX or XXXX ( @ USAA ), or visit usaa.com. USAA Federal Savings Bank Sign cropped USAA Federal Savings Bank Sign cropped Download USAA logo Privacy Site Map Site Terms Operating Companies","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-13T15:55:22.000Z","issue":"Getting a line of credit","sub_product":"Personal line of credit","zip_code":"27610","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16549782","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-10-13T15:35:45.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The program was advertised as <em>support</em> for customers affected by the shutdown. However, my application triggered a hard <em>credit</em> inquiry, was denied, and negatively impacted my <em>credit</em> report. \n\nThis contradicts the advertised intent of assistance and has caused financial harm. I attempted to resolve the issue through USAAs customer service channels, but all efforts were ignored."],"issue":["Getting a line of <em>credit</em>"],"sub_product":["Personal line of <em>credit</em>"]},"sort":[10.673567,"16549782"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13218409","_score":10.421126,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against TransUnion, LLC for persistent and unlawful furnishing of fraudulent information, despite multiple identity theft filings, FTC reports, supporting evidence, and disputes submitted by me over the course of multiple years.\n\nTheir actions violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), prior CFPB enforcement orders, and amount to willful negligence and systemic misconduct toward me as a consumer and identity theft victim.\n\nDetails of the Fraudulent Activity : Victim of Identity Theft since approximately early XXXX Multiple fraudulent accounts reported by TransUnion despite disputes, including : Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card XXXX XXXX via XXXX XXXX XXXX fraudulent collection XXXX XXXX fraudulent telecommunications account Multiple fraudulent hard inquiries listed, including inquiries by XXXX XXXX  Consolidated, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and others without my knowledge or consent Fraudulent addresses, such as listings from XXXX, TX, XXXX associated XXXX my profile Fraudulent employer information listed without my consent I submitted to TransUnion : Multiple FTC Identity Theft Reports Law enforcement reports and sworn affidavits Dispute letters under FCRA XXXX Notice of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, proving my personal identifying information was stolen and misused. \n\nDespite providing more than sufficient evidence under the FCRA to block, delete, and cease reporting fraudulent information, TransUnion has failed or refused to act lawfully.\n\nViolations of Federal Law by TransUnion : 1. FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ) : TransUnion is obligated to block reporting of information resulting from identity theft within four business days of receiving an identity theft report. \nDespite receiving my FTC Identity Theft Reports and supporting documentation, they continued to report fraudulent accounts and inquiries for months ( and years ) thereafter.\n\n2. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : Requires TransUnion to reinvestigate disputed information. Instead, my disputes were summarily closed or ignored, with no meaningful investigation performed.\n\n3. FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 6 ) : Furnishers and credit bureaus must not continue reporting fraudulent information after being notified by the consumer and provided proof. TransUnion knowingly allowed false tradelines and inquiries to persist, in reckless disregard of my rights.\n\n4. FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 2 ) and 1681b ( f ) : Unauthorized inquiries were placed on my credit report without permissible purpose. TransUnion had a duty to recognize the identity theft pattern and correct/remove these inquiries after notification. 5. CFPB Consent Orders & Enforcement Actio\nns : TransUnion has an established history of CFPB enforcement actions for deceptive practices and unlawful credit reporting, including : XXXX  CFPB Consent Order ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : TransUnion was fined millions for misrepresenting credit scores and failing to correct information after consumer disputes. \nXXXX CFPB Action Against TransUnion : TransUnion and its executives were again fined and penalized for violating the XXXX consent order, engaging in deceptive marketing, inadequate dispute handling, and failing to honor consumer rights under the FCRA. \n\nGiven these repeat offenses, it is clear that TransUnion operates with systemic disregard for consumer protection laws and continues to violate both the letter and spirit of the FCRA. \n\n\n\nHarm Suffered : As a direct result of TransUnions unlawful and negligent reporting : My credit scores have been significantly damaged I have been denied legitimate credit opportunities, including auto loans and personal financing I have incurred higher insurance costs and been offered predatory lending terms I have suffered mental anguish, financial harm, and extreme emotional distress I have been forced to spend substantial time, resources, and labor trying to correct their errors The ongoing false information severely impairs my financial life and violates my statutory rights under federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-28T04:40:55.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"89103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13218409","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-28T04:34:19.000Z","state":"NV","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":["CFPB Consent Orders & Enforcement Actio\nns : TransUnion has an established history of CFPB enforcement actions for deceptive practices and unlawful <em>credit</em> reporting, including : XXXX  CFPB Consent Order ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : TransUnion was fined <em>millions</em> for misrepresenting <em>credit</em> scores and failing to correct information after consumer disputes."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[10.421126,"13218409"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19932139","_score":10.342341,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Subject : NEW FORMAL COMPLAINT XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and MOHELA Failure to Validate Debt, Unlawful Credit Reporting, and Violations of FDCPA/FCRA Complaint ID : XXXX Amount of Debt : {$250.00} Product : Federal Student Loan ( FFELP ) Company Response Received : MOHELA responded on behalf of itself and XXXX  with a legally insufficient \" validation '' consisting only of a Master Promissory Note and payment history, explicitly refusing to provide chain of title. \nCOMPLAINT NARRATIVE I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX, LLC ( originator/owner ), XXXX  ( interim servicer ), and MOHELA ( current servicer ) for their collective failure to validate my federal student loan debt, their continued reporting of unvalidated debt to credit bureaus, and their violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nMy loans are Federal Family Education Loan Program ( FFELP ) XXXX loans originally disbursed by XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. I have an active Borrower Defense to Repayment application and have been confirmed by the Project on Predatory Student Lending ( PPSL ) as a \" Sweet Post-Class Applicant '' in the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX class action litigation. \n\nDespite multiple requests spanning months, none of these entities have provided legally sufficient validation of this debt. MOHELA 's recent response ( attached ) confirms the systemic failures. \nSECTION 1 : MOHELA 'S RESPONSE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND ADMITS CRITICAL FAILURES MOHELA 's response claims to have validated my debt by providing a Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) and payment history. This is legally insufficient for multiple reasons. \n\nA. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Precedent Establishes That MPNs Alone Are Not Validation The CFPB 's enforcement action against the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX directly addresses this situation. The CFPB alleged that the Trusts : \" Sued consumers for debts the Trusts could not prove were owed '' Filed lawsuits although they \" did not have or could not find the documentation necessary to prove either that they own the loans or that the consumer owed the debt '' The parallel to my case is exact. MOHELA and XXXX can not prove they own my loans or that I owe this specific debt. They have provided the original contract ( MPN ) but refuse to provide : Chain of title documentation Proof of assignment from XXXX XXXX to XXXX to any securitization trust The name of any trust holding my loans XXXX  numbers for securitized tranches The CFPB 's action required the Trusts to \" stop collecting on certain debts... where necessary documentation can not be located ''. The same standard must apply here. \n\nB. MOHELA 's Explicit Refusal to Provide Chain of Title Is an Admission MOHELA states : \" Except as required by law, we do not provide the chain of title in the ordinary course of business, and we will not be providing it to you here. '' This statement is legally significant because : Chain of title IS required by law when a debt is disputed under 15 U.S.C. 1692g The XXXX XXXX XXXX  case establishes that collecting without chain of title is unlawful Their refusal suggests the documentation either does not exist or would reveal defects C. \" Based on Information Available '' Confirms Incomplete Reporting MOHELA admits they are reporting my debt to credit bureaus \" based on the information available. '' This is not the same as having complete, accurate information. The CFPB has already determined that reporting based on incomplete documentation harms consumers. \nSECTION 2 : MOHELA 'S RESPONSE ADMITS XXXX OWNS THE LOANSDESTROYING NAVIENT 'S DEFLECTION MOHELA 's response states explicitly : \" MOHELA currently services your two XXXX owned Federal Family Education Loan Program ( FFELP ) XXXX Loans. '' This admission is critical : Implication Significance Navient is the legal owner MOHELA admits XXXX has standing and can be sued directly XXXX 's \" talk to MOHELA '' defense is false Navient can not hide behind a servicer when they own the debt XXXX is liable for validation failures As owner, XXXX is responsible for providing chain of title XXXX has repeatedly told me to \" deal with MOHELA. '' MOHELA now confirms XXXX owns the loans. This circular deflection must stop. \n\nFurthermore, XXXX was banned from servicing federal student loans in XX/XX/XXXX as part of a {$120.00} million CFPB settlement. This settlement acknowledged XXXX 's pattern of \" account mismanagement and inaccurate payment collections ''. The transfer to MOHELA was a direct result of this enforcement action, not an ordinary business decision. \nSECTION 3 : MOHELA 'S HISTORY OF SERVICING FAILURES MAKES THEIR RESPONSE SUSPECT Senator XXXX XXXX and XXXX other Senators sent a letter to XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX specifically warning about MOHELA 's unfitness to handle these loans. The letter stated that MOHELA is \" ill suited to facilitate the cancellation of these loans '' and noted that during the return to repayment, \" at least XXXX XXXX MOHELA borrowers were affected by servicing failures like backlogs, payment miscalculations, and late bills ''. \n\nThe Senators further warned : \" Given MOHELA 's failure to follow guidance on canceling predatory federal loans, it is hard to believe that it will behave any better in canceling similar private loans XXXX will transfer to them ''. \n\nThe Project on Predatory Student Lending ( PPSL ) which represents Sweet class membersendorsed this letter, stating that XXXX 's loans \" should be extinguished, not transferred ''. \n\nMOHELA 's response confirms these warnings were prescient. They are refusing to provide validation, ignoring my XXXX class status, and continuing to report unvalidated debt. \nSECTION 4 : THE DEBT HAS NEVER BEEN VALIDATED AND IS UNENFORCEABLE Under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, when a consumer disputes a debt, the debt collector must obtain verification and mail it to the consumer. Courts have consistently held that verification requires proof that the debt collector has the legal right to enforce the debt. \n\nWhat has NOT been provided : Required Element Status Chain of title from origination to present Explicitly refused Proof of assignment from XXXX XXXX to XXXX  Not provided Securitization documents ( trust name, Indenture Trustee ) Not provided XXXX  numbers for any securitized tranches Not provided Verification that \" D.O.G.E. '' data glitch errors were corrected Not addressed Acknowledgment of XXXX  class status Ignored What HAS been provided : Master Promissory Note ( original contract from XXXX ) Payment history ( shows payment application, not ownership ) The XXXX XXXX XXXX case establishes that without proof of ownership, collection activity is unlawful. The XXXX XXXX held that securitization trusts are \" covered persons '' subject to CFPB enforcement and can not avoid responsibility. \nSECTION 5 : MY XXXX  CLASS STATUS MAKES REPORTING INAPPROPRIATE I have been confirmed by PPSL as a \" XXXX  Post-Class Applicant. '' My Borrower Defense application is part of a federal class action settlement with court-ordered deadlines. \n\nPost-class applicants ( those who applied between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) were required to receive decisions by XX/XX/XXXX. The court rejected the Department of Education 's attempt to extend this deadline. \n\nLegal significance : My loans are under active federal adjudication The Department of Education has acknowledged these loans may qualify for discharge Reporting this debt as \" accurate '' during this review is premature and prejudicial MOHELA 's response completely ignores my Sweet status, despite my prior submissions documenting it. \nSECTION 6 : DAMAGES FROM YEARS OF CREDIT HARM The collective failures of XXXX, XXXX, and MOHELA have caused years of tangible harm : Harm Category Description Credit Scores Depressed scores due to reporting of unvalidated debt Housing Opportunities Difficulty securing rental housing Employment Potential adverse impact on job opportunities Interest Rates Higher rates on any credit obtained Emotional Distress Years of stress fighting unvalidated debt Time and Resources Countless hours spent on complaints and research The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX resulted in {$2.00} million in redress to harmed borrowers. A separate action against the Trusts and PHEAA required nearly {$3.00} million in redress and {$2.00} million in civil penalties. The same standards should apply here. \nRELIEF REQUESTED I respectfully request that the CFPB take the following actions : # Request 1 Investigate whether XXXX, XXXX, and MOHELA are collecting on debts they can not prove they own, in violation of the standards established in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Order Navient to provide full chain of title documentation, including all assignments from XXXX XXXX to XXXX to any securitization trusts 3 Order Navient to provide the name of any trust holding my loans, the XXXX  XXXX, and XXXX  numbers for any securitized tranches 4 Order all three entities to immediately cease all collection and credit reporting activities until full validation is provided 5 Order all three entities to delete all trade lines associated with this account from my credit reports if validation is not provided within 15 days 6 Order financial restitution for years of credit harm caused by reporting on unvalidated debt 7 Impose civil penalties for willful violations of the FDCPA and FCRA, consistent with the penalties imposed on the XXXX XXXX XXXX and PHEAA NOTICE OF INTENT TO PURSUE ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION As previously noticed, if this matter is not resolved through the CFPB, I will : Proceed with arbitration against XXXX under the arbitration clause in my promissory note. Case law establishes that XXXX 's arbitration clauses are enforceable and cover FCRA and FDCPA claims. \n\nFile complaints with the FTC and Nevada Attorney General. \n\nPursue a private right of action under the FDCPA and FCRA for damages, including emotional distress. \n\nThe XXXX v. Educational Credit Management Corporation case demonstrates that borrowers can and do pursue claims against student loan entities for improper reporting and collection activities. \nSUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED CERTIFICATION I certify that the information in this complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Without Prejudice | UCC 1-308","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-03T16:58:11.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"897XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19932139","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MOHELA","date_received":"2026-03-03T16:49:51.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A separate action against the Trusts and PHEAA required nearly {$3.00} <em>million</em> in redress and {$2.00} <em>million</em> in civil penalties. The same standards should apply here."]},"sort":[10.342341,"19932139"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3180846","_score":8.598148,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am an XXXX Veteran, I was lied to that my Tuition Assistance  would have take care of my education. Now I am stuck with this debt. The XXXX XXXX XXXX pressured me into a high expensive private loan ( 6 % ) telling me once my TA will come in that it would pay it off. He also encouraged me to apply for XXXX XXXX, which I never received any of that. I had never used my TA before with the XXXX and I didnt know how it worked. I didnt think the Staff Member would have lied to me and I believed this was true. Once the school started I was unable to request TA because it needed to be approved before I started and the Admissions started me quickly. XXXX XXXX College had high-pressured sales tactics to get students to enroll and remained enrolled. It is proven that XXXX XXXX also deceived and misled students about financial aid options, salary rates after graduation, the transfer of credits, and career placement assistance. I knew I didnt want to stop my education after career point. One of the most important things I asked was if my credits were going to be transferred to other schools so I can continue my education. They assured me that they were all transferable and later found out that no school took my credits to continue my education. After I finished the program there was another 100 % guarantee that there would be job placement. What this meant was me showing up and looking for jobs on their computers. No one guiding me through where to look. I had no experience just the XXXX XXXX  diploma. I finally found a job that wasnt in my program. I was lied to and now I was left with a big loan that TA was supposed to take care of. My personal life is still being affect by these student loans I am unable to pay for. I have defaulted on them numerous of time because I am unable to pay the loan of {$19000.00} back. In XXXX, XXXX XXXX was on local TV news, lamenting the demise of XXXX XXXX, which operated campuses in XXXX XXXX and XXXX, Texas, and XXXX, Oklahoma. Faced with findings by the XXXX Department of Education that XXXX XXXX had engaged in financial aid fraud and mismanagement, and with lawsuits filed by a growing number of his former students, XXXX told an interviewer, None of my salesmen have ever been accused of lying to students. \nStudent loans underwater Tuition and fees for XXXX XXXX 's medical assistant certificate program totaled {$19000.00}, according to financial aid documentation in the lawsuit. The interest rate for a roughly {$5900.00} in subsidized loans and {$4600.00} in subsidized loans was described to be 4 percent each. The bulk of the degree would stem from a XXXX XXXX estimated to be more than {$8800.00}. If the total loan package was {$10000.00} and the repayment term was 120 months, which is the standard, the student would pay {$13000.00} over 10 years. But each of the students said they owe {$21000.00} to {$30000.00} in loans, but didn't specify the interest rate. The entry-level salary for XXXX XXXX in the XXXX XXXX XXXX area is only {$21000.00}, according to the Texas Workforce Commission. For experienced workers, the average pay in the local region is {$32000.00}. \nFederal funds not accounted for The U.S. Department of Education confirmed that XXXX XXXX College has not paid credit balances for graduated students, which total {$420000.00} and that the school has not returned {>= $1,000,000} of XXXX  XXXX program funds wired to the school for students who had withdrawn from the college. After XXXX XXXX reported employee mismanagement, the federal agency changed the way it distributed funds to the college from a method that enabled the school to get payments in advance for students to a reimbursement process. In addition, it enacted more monitoring of the college 's financial accounts related to student funds. XXXX XXXX was offered the option to obtain a {$10.00} million letter of credit from a financial institution, or 25 percent of the federal funds it received, which would have enabled it to continue operating under stricter supervision. The company 's XXXX XXXX campus annual revenue was roughly {$20.00} million, but it had a profit margin of less than {$3.00} million each year, according to self-reported state records. The student attorneys in the first case are seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction to stop the school from altering existing documents, transferring money out of the business beyond ordinary transactions and moving assets. \nStudents missing money The students ' attorney XXXX XXXX, at XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX asserted that XXXX XXXX employees did not inform students that the college must release funds to students obtained through the XXXX XXXX programs, whether it was grants or loans. Beyond that, some students claimed the funds allotted to them were missing. \" Certain plaintiffs never received a penny of their XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX 's use of these funds remains unknown, '' XXXX said in the court documents. \" XXXX XXXX even went so far as to charge its own students for appointments with the financial aid office, taking further advantage of their students ' limited financial resources. '' XXXX & XXXX The attorneys allege that even after reporting its own employees misconduct to the U.S. Department of Education, the school continued to enroll new students up until XX/XX/XXXX. \" The defendants ' actions are deceptive, fraudulent and were clearly designed to keep the money flowing, '' XXXX argued. \" XXXX XXXX promised its students a bright future. Instead it breached its contract with plaintiffs, leaving a dark cloud over their future. '' Furthermore, the attorney claims that XXXX XXXX did not alert Texas authorities that it had been added to the U.S. Department of Education 's heightened cash monitoring list, such as the Texas XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nA former XXXX XXXX admissions employee, XXXX XXXX, complained to Texas authorities in XXXX that she was laid off after four and a half years after she raised concerns about misconduct at the school. ( XXXX provided me with a copy of the complaint that same year. ) Among the bad behavior XXXX alleged in her written complaint to the Texas Workforce Commission : that the school would input grades that did not exist to ensure the student had enough credits to validate collecting more money ; that XXXX XXXX is aware of the Federal Financial Aid Fraud that has taken place in the form of Admissions Reps. instructing students to electronically sign Parent Plus Loans for parents who would not sign ; that Fraudulent Tax Advisor Id Numbers were being used by Admissions to get students through the Federal Financial Aid process when they did not have the adequate documentation ; and that the school allowed enrolling mentally ill students who do not have support groups and whom Admissions had them randomly acquire numbers from phone books to get them through Financial Aid ( FA ) since the Financial Aid form has to have six support group numbers listed. \nXXXX complaint further claimed, In Admissions, we were trained about the sales practice of making a friend to get the students to trust us and then we were supposed to make them feel the pain of how lousy their lives were so that we could then get them to think XXXX XXXX could save them. We were trained that good sales reps. could make the prospective students cry. We were trained that once we broke them down, we could build them back up with the concept that we were there to change their meaningless lives .... If a student came in and completed FA but decided that they wanted to go home to think about it, team leads would be called to do their hard sales pitch. If they were not successful, the prospective student was then taken to the Director of Admissions to be even pressured further. The tactic of making them feel worthless was reiterated until they signed up for school. This was done to mentally ill prospects as well. \nThe XXXX complaint also alleged that the school concealed the felony convictions of new students to ensure their eligibility for financial aid. When one graduate complained to the school that she then couldnt get the job she sought because her felony conviction was deemed disqualifying, and then learned that a school official had apparently forged her signature on documents, she filed a police report. According to XXXX XXXX complaint, the school then covered that students loans in exchange for her dropping the charge. \nXXXX further claimed that XXXX XXXX hired its own graduates on campus to increase reported job placement rates ; but, As soon as those students are accounted for as being placed, they are laid off.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-03-15T16:40:24.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"77356","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3180846","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2019-03-15T16:31:53.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Fraudulent loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX was offered the option to obtain a {$10.00} <em>million</em> letter of <em>credit</em> from a financial institution, or 25 percent of the federal funds it received, which would have enabled it to continue operating under stricter supervision. The company 's XXXX XXXX campus annual revenue was roughly {$20.00} <em>million</em>, but it had a profit margin of less than {$3.00} <em>million</em> each year, according to self-reported state records."]},"sort":[8.598148,"3180846"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4735985","_score":8.284378,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX, To whom this may concern, I was just informed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) is the agency where my complaint against Wells Fargo Bank needs to be. I have already summitted my complaint to the State of Californias Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ( DFPI ), which I was then referred to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), which I was then referred to the ( CFPB ). I have provided my affidavit along with supporting documents that pertains to this matter. \nXX/XX/XXXX, I called Wells Fargo inquiring about additional Covid-19 help/assistance. I outlined and explained my situation transparently and in good faith, as I was anticipating issues of continued monetary aid, because it was impossible to get in contact with the State of Californias Unemployment Department ( EDD ). I explained that my only income i.e., unemployment assistance may be running out along with the Federal extensions. I was told to call back when I was not able to make payment. During that phone call, on a recorded line nothing was ever mentioned that Wells Fargo no longer offers payment deferments that was made available during XXXX, as that program ended XX/XX/XXXX, which I was just recently made aware of. \nXX/XX/XXXX, I was issued my last unemployment payment and Federal extension, see ( EXHIBIT, 1 ). The State of California unemployment system is a complete disaster. My benefits were cut off with no explanation, what so ever. I have made many attempts to contact ( EDD ), via phone and by email, to no avail to get a better understanding as to why? \nXX/XX/XXXX, I reached back out to Wells Fargo, as I was directed to in order to see what my options were regarding any Covid-19 resources and/or support. I was passed around from CSR to CSR on a recorded line explaining over and over my situation, finally I was transferred to a department that I thought was for Covid-19 assistance, it was not. I ended up in the collections department. I re-verified my account again. Immediately, I was asked if I can make the payment that was due which at that time I could not, I was in shock, as I was under the impression Wells Fargo was here to help in these unprecedented times. I told the collections agent that I was going to reach out to the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and the State of Californias Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ( DFPI ) and apparently my hot word comments triggered the collections agent to escalate this matter. XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email regarding the above, see ( EXHIBIT, 2 ) I received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, from XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX generated by XXXX XXXX, see ( EXHIBIT, 3A, 3B ). XX/XX/XXXX, I was deemed XXXX by my XXXX XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, I reached out to XXXX, I left a voicemail. Following day, XX/XX/XXXX, I made contact with XXXX. I outlined and summarized my situation on a recorded line again. I was told that Wells Fargo no longer offers any Covid-19 assistance as they did back in XXXX. I asked why didnt the CSR tell me that when I spoke to them back in XX/XX/XXXX, no answer, however I was offered to be transferred to the payment plan department , I declined, because I have no source of income, which is needed in order to be part of that program. It would have been a complete waste of time for both parties. I told her I wanted to escalate this matter to her immediate Supervisor. Same day, I received an email referencing the above phone conversation, see ( EXHIBIT, 4 ). \nI received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, from XXXX XXXX, with the Research and Remediation Analyst Executive Office, see ( EXHIBIT, 5A, 5B ). It states the same remedy and provided a Service Apology which is in my view is Wells Fargos indirect way of saying pay up regardless of your situation and that is highly unacceptable. In addition to that, it states Previous case We have confirmed a resolution was provided for previous case number XXXX ; in addition, we have attached a copy of the resolution for your review, there was no attached letter of resolution. I respectfully request that Wells Fargo provide that for my records. XX/XX/XXXX, a voice mail was left for me by XXXX from Wells Fargos Executive office. XX/XX/XXXX, I called XXXX back and left a voice mail at XXXX, no response. \nXX/XX/XXXX, I called back to follow up with XXXX, I entered her extension number XXXX, it was answered by XXXX on a recorded line. I outlined again my situation with him. He said there was no case notes or even knew who XXXX was? I was beyond aggravated and very agitated. I told XXXX to make a note to have somebody from the Executive office call me after XXXX ( PST ) same day, as I had prior engagements before then. I never received a call that day whatsoever. Same day, XX/XX/XXXX, I was instructed to resubmit a new claim for unemployment per the direction of ( EDD ), also at that time I filed for XXXX assistance, see ( EXHIBIT, 6A, 6B ). XX/XX/XXXX, I was notified by ( EDD ) that a request for an extension has been submitted, see ( EXHIBIT, 7 ), that was prompted by my email to ( EDD ) XX/XX/XXXX, requesting feedback about my cut off payments, see ( EXHIBIT, 8 ). \nXX/XX/XXXX, I reached back out to XXXX, because I had not received a return call that I set up with XXXX, as mentioned above. At that time XXXX mentioned that my case was closed. She informed me that a call was made that I requested XX/XX/XXXX, to the only number on my file XXXX, that call never took place, something is not adding up. I became very agitated and was not at all happy in regards to how Wells Fargo was handling this matter, so I requested to escalate this to her immediate supervisor. I was given XXXX XXXX name and XXXX. I was told either one of them would be contacting me within 24 to 48 hours. If I had not followed up with this matter it would still be sitting dormant, as I have not received any notifications via mail, email or via phone to date regarding a case closure. \nXX/XX/XXXX, I missed a call from XXXX, she left a voicemail prompting me to call back for further assistance. I was unable to take the call, as I was without my notes to discuss this matter. XX/XX/XXXX, I returned her call, I spoke with intake CSR XXXX on a recorded line and gave her specific instructions for XXXX to call me after XXXX ( MST ). It is obvious to me that XXXX did not look at the notes in the case. I missed her call, as she called me at XXXX ( MST ). It is beyond me, as to why Wells Fargo can not follow through with simple instructions to contact me at a specific time to remedy this matter. This was the second time I specifically dedicated a time for a call back and Wells Fargo failed miserably. I had to call back again, I spoke with another CSR and again reverified my account, as XXXX was in a meeting at that time. \nI was told that XXXX would call back in 30 minutes, she did. I outlined my situation again on a recorded line, only to be given the same answers that XXXX and XXXX had offered me, however I brought to her attention the information I found online that clearly states Helping you during these uncertain times, see ( EXHIBIT, 9 ). I do not see that being the case in this matter. I also found online regarding Loan and line of credit relief that Wells Fargo was offering on a case-by-case basis and other resources, see ( EXHIBITS, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D ). Exhibit, 10A, was printed on XX/XX/XXXX and Exhibits 10B, 10C, 10D, was printed on XX/XX/XXXX. This is 8 months after the deferment program had ended XX/XX/XXXX. That tells me that there is help/assistance available, but it appears its at Wells Fargos discretion which is no help to consumers like me in this particular situation. ( EXHIBIT, 11A, 11B ) are screen shots of my Wells Fargo app sign on page, it clearly states assistance, resources ( plural ) and support are available. Also, Wells Fargos on hold recording provides the same information. I find this to be very misleading and unethical, because it gives consumers a sense of hope that there are various outlets for help, when in fact there is only one resource for help which is a payment plan, something is not adding up. \nI was denied any other assistance, as I was again referred to the only resource for assistance, which is a payment plan, which in order to be part of that program you have to have verified income. I again outlined my financial situation and it appears to me it fell on deaf ears again. XXXX was no help whatsoever. During that conversation, I take full accountability for using vulgar language, due to this matter exacerbating/triggering my documented ( XXXX ) XXXX condition and I sincerely apologize about that. \nWells Fargo is on the threshold of a Law suit for mental anguish due to this matter, which I did inform XXXX. I feel that there are other alternatives that could be exercised, but Wells Fargo refuses to go there. I have made all my past payments on time and have been very forth coming and transparent regarding this matter from the beginning. I have been struggling and fighting to save my outstanding credit report for over the past year due to circumstances to no fault of mine and Wells Fargo refuses to recognize that. I am on the threshold of losing my outstanding credit rating and another vehicle, if I do not get any approved income from the State of California. \nI have no other alternative, but to get the ( DFPI ) and ( BBB ) involved to expose how this banking institution handles these matters. I have taken two other banking institutions to these authorities i.e. ; XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX within the last year and was very successful by showing a pattern of unethical business practices. I hope that Wells Fargo can see the bigger picture in order to remedy my situation. \nFinally, in my view the world paused completely on the onset of Covid-19, which created a bottle neck of issues later down the road for situations like this to no fault to the consumer. It is not fair to consumers to be treated like this to be bullied and forced into situations like this. In addition, today XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from Wells Fargo, asking me to update my income, in order to potentially increase my credit limit. Wells Fargo had the audacity to send this out to me and I feel very confident to millions of other consumers. I find that appalling and extremely unacceptable. That program in my view is designed to bury the consumer even more, see ( EXHIBIT, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 12E, 12F ) Wells Fargo has a tarnished past and this pattern of behavior is just another black eye for Wells Fargo. I can assure Wells Fargo I will be taking this matter to the media along with all the other unscrupulous businesses to expose what I have been dealing with for over the past year regardless of outcome, it all has been very well documented with all the outcomes in my favor. The ( DFPI ) has already provided me contacts for Attorneys at Law for this type of situation from my previous claim with XXXX XXXX. I will be heard and counted. \nCONCLUSION I respectfully request the ( DFPI ) to investigate this matter in its entirety to remedy this matter. The remedy I am seeking is full relief of my outstanding debt due to the extreme levels of emotional anguish. Wells Fargos adverse actions has caused me extreme adverse effects mentally. This remedy would be in lieu of a class action Lawsuit. I strongly feel I am not the only consumer that is faced with this situation. \nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-20T17:50:11.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your bill","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92692","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4735985","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2021-09-20T17:36:55.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company won't work with you while you're going through financial hardship"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In addition, today XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from Wells Fargo, asking me to update my income, in order to potentially increase my <em>credit</em> limit. Wells Fargo had the audacity to send this out to me and I feel very confident to <em>millions</em> of other consumers. I find that appalling and extremely unacceptable."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card or prepaid card"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"sub_issue":["<em>Credit</em> card company won't work with you while you're going through financial hardship"]},"sort":[8.284378,"4735985"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14808172","_score":8.085344,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, submit this formal complaint against Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian for their continued and willful violations of federal consumer protection laws under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). These violations include the unlawful reinsertion of previously deleted accounts without proper notification, failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, failure to investigate disputes within the mandated time frame, failure to provide verification details upon request, and failure to validate debt prior to reporting. \n\nBackground & Violations My credit reports contain fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries that the Bureaus have failed to properly investigate and address despite multiple disputes and supporting documentation. Additionally, these Bureaus have removed fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries only to reinsert them without proper validation, constituting an egregious violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) and ( b ).\n\nFurthermore, I sent a certified dispute letter to all three credit bureaus requesting verification details, including contracts, signatures, and all relevant documentation for these accounts. Despite more than 15 days passing, I have not received any response or documentation from any of the bureaus, which constitutes an additional violation of federal consumer protection laws, specifically : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Failure to investigate disputes within the required 30-day period.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : Failure to provide notice and certification before reinserting previously deleted information. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( 4 ) : Failure to provide verification of debt, including original contracts and signatures, upon request.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) : Failure to provide specific details on dispute findings.\n\nRelated Lawsuits & CFPB Actions The CFPB has actively taken enforcement actions against the credit bureaus for similar violations, further demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance. These legal precedents reinforce the validity of my complaint : Experian Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a lawsuit against Experian for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes regarding credit report inaccuracies. The lawsuit alleged that Experian allowed erroneous information to reappear on reports, impacting consumers ' credit, employment, and housing access. The CFPB seeks to halt Experian 's misconduct, provide redress, and impose penalties.\n\nTransUnion Settlement ( October 2023 ) : The CFPB, alongside the FTC, reached a {$15.00} million settlement with TransUnion and its subsidiary, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions , Inc., for failing to ensure the accuracy of tenant screening reports. The agency charged that TransUnions inaccuracy potentially hindered consumers ' ability to secure housing. TransUnion agreed to pay {$11.00} million in restitution and a {$4.00} million civil penalty and implement enhanced accuracy measures. \nEquifax Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a major lawsuit against Equifax for repeated violations of the FCRA and deceptive practices that misled consumers regarding credit report accuracy. The lawsuit highlighted that Equifax knowingly reported incorrect information, failed to correct disputes in a timely manner, and continued to allow erroneous reinsertion of previously deleted data without proper consumer notification. The CFPB is seeking financial penalties, injunctive relief, and systemic reforms to prevent future violations. \nThese actions underscore the CFPBs commitment to enforcing the FCRA and ensuring that consumer reporting agencies uphold their obligations. My case mirrors these past violations, and I urge the CFPB to take similar action against Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. \nFraudulent Accounts & Unauthorized Reinsertions Disputed Account Details and Demands XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Account Number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violations of Law : FCRA : 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1681g, 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 1681c ( a ) FDCPA : 1692g ( a ), 1692g ( b ), 1692e ( 8 ), 1692d GLBA : 6801 ( b ), 6802 ( a ) Metro 2 : Format violations and inaccurate payment history FDUTPA : 501.204 ( 1 ), 501.203 ( 3 ) ( c ), 501.976 ( 11 ) DEMAND : IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND PERMANENT BLOCKING of this tradeline under FCRA 1681c-2. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX ORIGINAL CREDITOR : XXXX XXXX ) Account Number : XXXX * * Violations of Law : FCRA : 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1681g, 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 1681c ( a ) FDCPA : 1692g ( a ), 1692g ( b ), 1692e ( 8 ), 1692d GLBA : 6801 ( b ), 6802 ( a ) Metro 2 : Format violations and inaccurate payment history FDUTPA : 501.204 ( 1 ), 501.203 ( 3 ) ( c ), 501.976 ( 11 ) DEMAND : IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND PERMANENT BLOCKING of this tradeline under FCRA 1681c-2 . \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issues : Charged-off status, discrepancies, lack of proper notification Violations : o FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy o FCRA 1681i ( a ) : Failure to properly reinvestigate disputed information o FCRA 1681g : Failure to disclose verification records o FCRA 1681b : Lack of permissible purpose o FDCPA 1692g : Failure to validate debt within 5 days o FDCPA 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt status o FDUTPA 501.204 : Unfair and deceptive reporting practices Request : REMOVE AND BLOCK ALL THE LATE PAYMENTS IMMEDIATELY. \nUnauthorized Inquiries ( Remove Immediately ) Entities : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issue : Conducted without written authorization or permissible purpose Violations : o FCRA 1681b : Lack of permissible purpose o FDUTPA 501.204 : Deceptive inquiry practices Incorrect Names, Addresses, and Employers : Incorrect Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL Incorrect Employers XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NOT PROVIDED, XXXX XXXX Violations : o FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure accuracy o FDUTPA 501.204 : Misrepresentation through false data Request : REMOVE ALL INACCURATE PERSONAL DATA IMMEDIATELY. \nDemands for Resolution Immediate Removal and Blockage : Remove and block all fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries from my credit file across all three bureaus.\n\nEnsure that these accounts and inquiries are not reinserted without proper validation as required under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\nWritten Confirmation : Provide written confirmation of the removal of these accounts and inquiries along with updated copies of my credit reports.\n\nThorough Investigation : Conduct a full investigation into how these fraudulent accounts and inquiries were recorded without my consent. \nProvide findings in writing, including all requested verification details, such as contracts and signatures. \nCompliance with Identity Theft Protections : Implement fraud alerts and provide me with identity theft resources as mandated under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( e ).\n\nThe continued noncompliance by Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian has caused significant financial harm and distress. The reinsertion of fraudulent accounts and inquiries without proper validation exacerbates these violations. Given the CFPBs history of legal action against these credit bureaus for similar misconduct, I urge immediate enforcement action to ensure compliance with federal law and provide appropriate remedies under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o for willful and negligent violations. \nYour intervention is necessary to ensure these Bureaus are held accountable and that my credit report is permanently corrected.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-22T15:58:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33543","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14808172","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-22T15:58:11.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnion agreed to pay {$11.00} <em>million</em> in restitution and a {$4.00} <em>million</em> civil penalty and implement enhanced accuracy measures. \nEquifax Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a major lawsuit against Equifax for repeated violations of the FCRA and deceptive practices that misled consumers regarding <em>credit</em> report accuracy."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[8.085344,"14808172"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4761342","_score":8.071185,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, My issue is with the app / crypto platform \" Crypto.com '' a trading / storage platform for assets such as XXXX XXXX XXXX  and the like ( \" Company '' ). \n\nIn XXXX of XXXX my account was disabled and my assets \" frozen '' ( or transferred to ) the Company without any explanation or reasoning. When I tried to figure out what the issue was, I was simply told \" we are allowed to do this because it is in the terms and conditions and we have determined you \" breached the contract '' ''. For the last year and half plus, I have been trying in every possible way to remedy the situation, including attempts to solve the issue that caused the problems ( they would never confirm exactly what it was, but I had believed it was due to their taking of massive transaction fees using a variety of \" entities '' that were never fully disclosed, thus prompting me to shut down my checking account for fears that someone had hacked my account and would continue to take large sums ). To simply state \" you have breached '' and then take the money / assets from my account without any explanation is not something that you can validate simply by including the desired action ( here, taking assets without any information / reason ) in a extremely long / arduous terms and conditions provision.\n\nUltimately, they have continued to repeat the same lines and state that they are well within their rights to steal my assets without providing any legitimate reasoning. While a company like Company can say that \" terms and conditions '' are fully binding, I know that one can not have their assets frozen or confiscated without due process ( or at the least, full and complete explanation of what was breached ) in the US and I believe that since they are incorporated in XXXX, they feel they are outside of US laws/ regulation. However, Company is very much doing business ( and has employees/ offices - recently bringing in a high profile music executive based in XXXX XXXX XXXX to handle their NFT partnerships ) in the U.S. and targets U.S. consumers via online ads, partnerships ( see their joint credit card with VISA released recently and available to US applicants ). \n\nWhen Company shut down my account and \" froze '' my assets, my digital currency was valued at roughly {$4000.00}. Of course, with the rise in prices of XXXX XXXX  and digital currencies/ assets over the last year and a half, that number could be well over {$6000.00} at this point ( one in particular was a good bet with an increase of over 200 % in a matter of months back in XXXX - XXXX XXXX  ) and given the rise in certain assets, in the future, this could be wildly profitable - something I would miss out on completely. I am doing my best to scour my emails for details of each transaction so I can get a more definitive amount / number of \" coins '' ( so to speak ) but based on my knowledge of my account to date, that is a reasonable estimate ( if not on the low side ). \n\nI have tried to be reasonable and even offered to simply have my assets transferred to my new wallet and then they could do what they wish with my account but I continue to get the same answer. \n\nWhile I understand that crypto currencies and the marketplace is with it's risks, the Company is one of the biggest players in the industry and makes hundreds of millions off of people like myself ( based in the US and all over the world ), so it was supposed to be safe and secure ( they actually make that a big part of their advertising - that they are the \" safe and secure '' platform for trading and storing crypto ).\n\nI am very concerned that this has probably happened to a lot of people like myself and it is extremely frustrating to feel like you have zero recourse, hence my desire to submit this formal complaint and put it on record. Hopefully this will put a stop to their fraudulent activities and their believe that theft is OK, so long as it is included in their \" terms and conditions ''. I am not some extremely wealthy partner of theirs or trader who has the resources to sue/ bring suit against someone like Company, and it is clear they know that or else I believe they would never have included the language they have in their signup \" contract ''.\n\nI have all of the correspondence back and forth between myself and various members of their support team and am happy to provide any additional documents that may be required. In the meantime, I have provided two specific emails where they said they were shutting me out and where they re-reference the specific part of their terms and conditions that they believe gives them the ability to do what they are doing without recourse. \n\nThank you again for your time in assessing my complaint and I will look forward to hearing from someone soon.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-28T21:19:46.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"37207","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4761342","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Foris DAX, Inc.","date_received":"2021-09-28T20:37:53.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am not some extremely wealthy partner of theirs or trader who has the <em>resources</em> to sue/ bring suit against someone like Company, and it is clear they know that or else I believe they would never have included the language they have in their signup \" contract ''.\n\nI have all of the correspondence back and forth between myself and various members of their <em>support</em> team and am happy to provide any additional documents that may be required."]},"sort":[8.071185,"4761342"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14808173","_score":8.066445,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, submit this formal complaint against Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian for their continued and willful violations of federal consumer protection laws under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). These violations include the unlawful reinsertion of previously deleted accounts without proper notification, failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, failure to investigate disputes within the mandated time frame, failure to provide verification details upon request, and failure to validate debt prior to reporting. \n\nBackground & Violations My credit reports contain fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries that the Bureaus have failed to properly investigate and address despite multiple disputes and supporting documentation. Additionally, these Bureaus have removed fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries only to reinsert them without proper validation, constituting an egregious violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) and ( b ).\n\nFurthermore, I sent a certified dispute letter to all three credit bureaus requesting verification details, including contracts, signatures, and all relevant documentation for these accounts. Despite more than 15 days passing, I have not received any response or documentation from any of the bureaus, which constitutes an additional violation of federal consumer protection laws, specifically : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Failure to investigate disputes within the required 30-day period.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : Failure to provide notice and certification before reinserting previously deleted information. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( 4 ) : Failure to provide verification of debt, including original contracts and signatures, upon request.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) : Failure to provide specific details on dispute findings.\n\nRelated Lawsuits & CFPB Actions The CFPB has actively taken enforcement actions against the credit bureaus for similar violations, further demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance. These legal precedents reinforce the validity of my complaint : Experian Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a lawsuit against Experian for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes regarding credit report inaccuracies. The lawsuit alleged that Experian allowed erroneous information to reappear on reports, impacting consumers ' credit, employment, and housing access. The CFPB seeks to halt Experian 's misconduct, provide redress, and impose penalties.\n\nTransUnion Settlement ( October 2023 ) : The CFPB, alongside the FTC, reached a {$15.00} million settlement with TransUnion and its subsidiary, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions , Inc., for failing to ensure the accuracy of tenant screening reports. The agency charged that TransUnions inaccuracy potentially hindered consumers ' ability to secure housing. TransUnion agreed to pay {$11.00} million in restitution and a {$4.00} million civil penalty and implement enhanced accuracy measures. \nEquifax Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a major lawsuit against Equifax for repeated violations of the FCRA and deceptive practices that misled consumers regarding credit report accuracy. The lawsuit highlighted that Equifax knowingly reported incorrect information, failed to correct disputes in a timely manner, and continued to allow erroneous reinsertion of previously deleted data without proper consumer notification. The CFPB is seeking financial penalties, injunctive relief, and systemic reforms to prevent future violations. \nThese actions underscore the CFPBs commitment to enforcing the FCRA and ensuring that consumer reporting agencies uphold their obligations. My case mirrors these past violations, and I urge the CFPB to take similar action against Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. \nFraudulent Accounts & Unauthorized Reinsertions Disputed Account Details and Demands XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Account Number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violations of Law : FCRA : 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1681g, 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 1681c ( a ) FDCPA : 1692g ( a ), 1692g ( b ), 1692e ( 8 ), 1692d GLBA : 6801 ( b ), 6802 ( a ) Metro 2 : Format violations and inaccurate payment history FDUTPA : 501.204 ( 1 ), 501.203 ( 3 ) ( c ), 501.976 ( 11 ) DEMAND : IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND PERMANENT BLOCKING of this tradeline under FCRA 1681c-2. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX ORIGINAL CREDITOR : XXXX XXXX ) Account Number : XXXX * * Violations of Law : FCRA : 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1681g, 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 1681c ( a ) FDCPA : 1692g ( a ), 1692g ( b ), 1692e ( 8 ), 1692d GLBA : 6801 ( b ), 6802 ( a ) Metro 2 : Format violations and inaccurate payment history FDUTPA : 501.204 ( 1 ), 501.203 ( 3 ) ( c ), 501.976 ( 11 ) DEMAND : IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND PERMANENT BLOCKING of this tradeline under FCRA 1681c-2 . \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issues : Charged-off status, discrepancies, lack of proper notification Violations : o FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy o FCRA 1681i ( a ) : Failure to properly reinvestigate disputed information o FCRA 1681g : Failure to disclose verification records o FCRA 1681b : Lack of permissible purpose o FDCPA 1692g : Failure to validate debt within 5 days o FDCPA 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt status o FDUTPA 501.204 : Unfair and deceptive reporting practices Request : REMOVE AND BLOCK ALL THE LATE PAYMENTS IMMEDIATELY. \nUnauthorized Inquiries ( Remove Immediately ) Entities : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issue : Conducted without written authorization or permissible purpose Violations : o FCRA 1681b : Lack of permissible purpose o FDUTPA 501.204 : Deceptive inquiry practices Incorrect Names, Addresses, and Employers : Incorrect Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL Incorrect Employers XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NOT PROVIDED, XXXX XXXX Violations : o FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure accuracy o FDUTPA 501.204 : Misrepresentation through false data Request : REMOVE ALL INACCURATE PERSONAL DATA IMMEDIATELY. \nDemands for Resolution Immediate Removal and Blockage : Remove and block all fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries from my credit file across all three bureaus.\n\nEnsure that these accounts and inquiries are not reinserted without proper validation as required under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\nWritten Confirmation : Provide written confirmation of the removal of these accounts and inquiries along with updated copies of my credit reports.\n\nThorough Investigation : Conduct a full investigation into how these fraudulent accounts and inquiries were recorded without my consent. \nProvide findings in writing, including all requested verification details, such as contracts and signatures. \nCompliance with Identity Theft Protections : Implement fraud alerts and provide me with identity theft resources as mandated under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( e ).\n\nThe continued noncompliance by Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian has caused significant financial harm and distress. The reinsertion of fraudulent accounts and inquiries without proper validation exacerbates these violations. Given the CFPBs history of legal action against these credit bureaus for similar misconduct, I urge immediate enforcement action to ensure compliance with federal law and provide appropriate remedies under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o for willful and negligent violations. \nYour intervention is necessary to ensure these Bureaus are held accountable and that my credit report is permanently corrected.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-22T15:58:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33543","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14808173","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-22T15:58:11.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnion agreed to pay {$11.00} <em>million</em> in restitution and a {$4.00} <em>million</em> civil penalty and implement enhanced accuracy measures. \nEquifax Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a major lawsuit against Equifax for repeated violations of the FCRA and deceptive practices that misled consumers regarding <em>credit</em> report accuracy."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[8.066445,"14808173"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14807146","_score":8.0607605,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, submit this formal complaint against Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian for their continued and willful violations of federal consumer protection laws under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). These violations include the unlawful reinsertion of previously deleted accounts without proper notification, failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, failure to investigate disputes within the mandated time frame, failure to provide verification details upon request, and failure to validate debt prior to reporting. \n\nBackground & Violations My credit reports contain fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries that the Bureaus have failed to properly investigate and address despite multiple disputes and supporting documentation. Additionally, these Bureaus have removed fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries only to reinsert them without proper validation, constituting an egregious violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) and ( b ).\n\nFurthermore, I sent a certified dispute letter to all three credit bureaus requesting verification details, including contracts, signatures, and all relevant documentation for these accounts. Despite more than 15 days passing, I have not received any response or documentation from any of the bureaus, which constitutes an additional violation of federal consumer protection laws, specifically : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Failure to investigate disputes within the required 30-day period.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : Failure to provide notice and certification before reinserting previously deleted information. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( 4 ) : Failure to provide verification of debt, including original contracts and signatures, upon request.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) : Failure to provide specific details on dispute findings.\n\nRelated Lawsuits & CFPB Actions The CFPB has actively taken enforcement actions against the credit bureaus for similar violations, further demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance. These legal precedents reinforce the validity of my complaint : Experian Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a lawsuit against Experian for failing to properly investigate consumer disputes regarding credit report inaccuracies. The lawsuit alleged that Experian allowed erroneous information to reappear on reports, impacting consumers ' credit, employment, and housing access. The CFPB seeks to halt Experian 's misconduct, provide redress, and impose penalties.\n\nTransUnion Settlement ( October 2023 ) : The CFPB, alongside the FTC, reached a {$15.00} million settlement with TransUnion and its subsidiary, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions , Inc., for failing to ensure the accuracy of tenant screening reports. The agency charged that TransUnions inaccuracy potentially hindered consumers ' ability to secure housing. TransUnion agreed to pay {$11.00} million in restitution and a {$4.00} million civil penalty and implement enhanced accuracy measures. \nEquifax Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a major lawsuit against Equifax for repeated violations of the FCRA and deceptive practices that misled consumers regarding credit report accuracy. The lawsuit highlighted that Equifax knowingly reported incorrect information, failed to correct disputes in a timely manner, and continued to allow erroneous reinsertion of previously deleted data without proper consumer notification. The CFPB is seeking financial penalties, injunctive relief, and systemic reforms to prevent future violations. \nThese actions underscore the CFPBs commitment to enforcing the FCRA and ensuring that consumer reporting agencies uphold their obligations. My case mirrors these past violations, and I urge the CFPB to take similar action against Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. \nFraudulent Accounts & Unauthorized Reinsertions Disputed Account Details and Demands XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Account Number : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Violations of Law : FCRA : 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1681g, 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 1681c ( a ) FDCPA : 1692g ( a ), 1692g ( b ), 1692e ( 8 ), 1692d GLBA : 6801 ( b ), 6802 ( a ) Metro 2 : Format violations and inaccurate payment history FDUTPA : 501.204 ( 1 ), 501.203 ( 3 ) ( c ), 501.976 ( 11 ) DEMAND : IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND PERMANENT BLOCKING of this tradeline under FCRA 1681c-2. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX ORIGINAL CREDITOR : XXXX XXXX ) Account Number : XXXX * * Violations of Law : FCRA : 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1681g, 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), 1681c ( a ) FDCPA : 1692g ( a ), 1692g ( b ), 1692e ( 8 ), 1692d GLBA : 6801 ( b ), 6802 ( a ) Metro 2 : Format violations and inaccurate payment history FDUTPA : 501.204 ( 1 ), 501.203 ( 3 ) ( c ), 501.976 ( 11 ) DEMAND : IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND PERMANENT BLOCKING of this tradeline under FCRA 1681c-2 . \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issues : Charged-off status, discrepancies, lack of proper notification Violations : o FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy o FCRA 1681i ( a ) : Failure to properly reinvestigate disputed information o FCRA 1681g : Failure to disclose verification records o FCRA 1681b : Lack of permissible purpose o FDCPA 1692g : Failure to validate debt within 5 days o FDCPA 1692e : Misrepresentation of debt status o FDUTPA 501.204 : Unfair and deceptive reporting practices Request : REMOVE AND BLOCK ALL THE LATE PAYMENTS IMMEDIATELY. \nUnauthorized Inquiries ( Remove Immediately ) Entities : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Issue : Conducted without written authorization or permissible purpose Violations : o FCRA 1681b : Lack of permissible purpose o FDUTPA 501.204 : Deceptive inquiry practices Incorrect Names, Addresses, and Employers : Incorrect Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL Incorrect Employers XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NOT PROVIDED, XXXX XXXX Violations : o FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failure to ensure accuracy o FDUTPA 501.204 : Misrepresentation through false data Request : REMOVE ALL INACCURATE PERSONAL DATA IMMEDIATELY. \nDemands for Resolution Immediate Removal and Blockage : Remove and block all fraudulent accounts and unauthorized inquiries from my credit file across all three bureaus.\n\nEnsure that these accounts and inquiries are not reinserted without proper validation as required under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\nWritten Confirmation : Provide written confirmation of the removal of these accounts and inquiries along with updated copies of my credit reports.\n\nThorough Investigation : Conduct a full investigation into how these fraudulent accounts and inquiries were recorded without my consent. \nProvide findings in writing, including all requested verification details, such as contracts and signatures. \nCompliance with Identity Theft Protections : Implement fraud alerts and provide me with identity theft resources as mandated under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( e ).\n\nThe continued noncompliance by Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian has caused significant financial harm and distress. The reinsertion of fraudulent accounts and inquiries without proper validation exacerbates these violations. Given the CFPBs history of legal action against these credit bureaus for similar misconduct, I urge immediate enforcement action to ensure compliance with federal law and provide appropriate remedies under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o for willful and negligent violations. \nYour intervention is necessary to ensure these Bureaus are held accountable and that my credit report is permanently corrected.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-22T15:58:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33543","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14807146","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-22T15:50:18.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnion agreed to pay {$11.00} <em>million</em> in restitution and a {$4.00} <em>million</em> civil penalty and implement enhanced accuracy measures. \nEquifax Lawsuit ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : The CFPB filed a major lawsuit against Equifax for repeated violations of the FCRA and deceptive practices that misled consumers regarding <em>credit</em> report accuracy."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[8.0607605,"14807146"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5324427","_score":6.631792,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tx XXXX Re : Dispute of Violations of the CARES Act Legal Department, This credit dispute is being submitted as a notification of creditors who are in violation of the CARES Act during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The accounts that are being disputed, are either in violation of the CARES Act or do not belong to me. Policy states...\n\nStatement on Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V in Light of the CARES Act The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( Bureau ) recognizes the serious impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the financial well-being of many consumers and on the operations of many supervised entities, including actors in the consumer reporting system, and the challenges of this unique and rapidly evolving situation. Last Friday, on XX/XX/XXXX, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ( \" CARES Act '' ), which provides critical emergency assistance to consumers and businesses affected by COVID-19 and includes provisions addressing consumer reporting requirements.\n\nConsumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains credit, insurance, and housing, at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has an enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 million consumers in the United States who have credit files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers. The continued operation of the consumer reporting system will play a critical role in the functioning of the consumer financial services market, promoting fair and efficient access to credit and benefiting consumers and creditors alike. The Bureau understands that the current crisis impacts the financial well-being of consumers and poses operational challenges for consumer reporting agencies and furnishers, including staffing challenges, that could temporarily impede their ability to timely comply with their statutory and regulatory consumer reporting obligation.\n\nThe Bureau is therefore issuing this policy statement ( Policy Statement ) to highlight furnishers ' responsibilities under the CARES Act and inform consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of the Bureau 's flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Regulation V. The Bureau intends to consider the circumstances that entities face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and entities ' good faith efforts to comply with their statutory and regulatory obligations as soon as possible. The Bureau believes that this .flexibility will help furnishers and consumer reporting agencies to manage the challenges the current crisis poses. It also will enable consumers, as well as lenders, insurers, employers and other consumer report users, to maintain confidence in the consumer reporting system. \n\nBelow are examples of the flexibility the Bureau intends to provide in the consumer reporting system.\n\nFurnishing Consumer Information Impacted by COVID-19 : The Bureau reiterates its prior guidance encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers and other customers affected by COVID-19 to meet their financial needs. While companies generally are not legally obligated to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, the Bureau encourages them to continue furnishing information despite the current crisis. Furnishers ' providing accurate information to consumer reporting agencies produces substantial benefits for consumers, users of consumer reports, and the economy. \n\nThe CARES Act, a section of which amends the FCRA, generally requires furnishers to report as current certain credit obligations for which furnishers make payment accommodations to consumers affected by COVID-19 who have sought such accommodations from their lenders.1 The Bureau expects furnishers to comply with the CARES Act and will work with furnishers as needed to help them do so.\n\nMany furnishers are or will be offering consumers affected by COVID-19 various forms of payment flexibility, including allowing consumers to defer or skip payments, as required by the CARES Act or voluntarily. Such payment accommodations will avoid the reporting of delinquencies resulting from the effects of COVID-19. The Bureau supports furnishers ' voluntary efforts to provide payment relief, and it does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies that accurately reflects the payment relief measures they are employing. \n\nDisputes : The FCRA generally requires that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers investigate disputes within 30 days of receipt of the consumer 's dispute. The 30-day period may be extended to 45 days if the consumer provides additional information that is relevant to the investigation during the 30- day period.\n\nThe Bureau is aware that some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may face significant operational disruptions that pose challenges for them in investigating consumer disputes. For example, some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may experience significant reductions in staff, difficulty intaking disputes, or lack of access to necessary information, 1 Coronavin1s Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. o. 116-136, 4201 ( 2020 ) ( stating that, with certain exception, \" if a furnisher makes an accommodation with respect to 1 or more payments on a credit obligation or account of a consumer, and the consumer makes the payments or is not required to make 1 or more payments pursuant to the accommodation, the furnisher shall- ( 1 ) report the credit obligation or account as current; or ( 11 ) if the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the accommodation- ( aa ) maintain the delinquent status during the period in which the accommodation is in effect; and ( bb ) if the consumer brings the credit obligation or account current during the period described in item ( aa ), report the credit obligation or account as current \" ). In addition, section 3513 of the CARES Act addresses the furnishing of certain student loans for which payments are suspended.\n\nrendering them unable to investigate consumer reporting disputes within the timeframes the FCRA requires. Furnishers include a wide variety of businesses that vary in size and sophistication and can range from small retailers to exceptionally large financial services firms, each of which will face unique challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In evaluating compliance with the FCRA as a result of the pandemic, the Bureau will consider a consumer reporting agency 's or furnisher 's individual circumstances and does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against a consumer reporting agency or furnisher making good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible, even if dispute investigations take longer than the statutory timeframe.\n\nThe Bureau reminds furnishers and consumer reporting agencies that they may take advantage of statutory and regulatory provisions that eliminate the obligation to investigate disputes submitted by credit repair organizations and disputes they reasonably determine to be frivolous or irrelevant. The Bureau will consider the significant current constraints on furnisher and consumer reporting agency time, information, and other resources in assessing if such a determination is reasonable. \nTherefore, these below-disputed accounts must be deleted CREDITOR ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment The CFPBs website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore, has more information about the FCRA, including publications for business and the full text of the FCRA.\n\nCitations for FCRA sections in the U.S. Code, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : I have provided all the above-listed items within this package. Therefore, I expect these listed accounts to be deleted and blocked within four ( 4 ) business days. This is clearly an identity theft issue. I am also entitled to receive a free copy of my credit report, so I am requesting a free credit report and that all these accounts, public records items, and inquiries be permanently blocked and deleted. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-15T18:09:43.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"19103","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5324427","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2022-03-15T17:58:59.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Personal information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains <em>credit</em>, insurance, and housing, at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has an enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 <em>million</em> consumers in the United States who have <em>credit</em> files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting, <em>credit</em> repair services, or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[6.631792,"5324427"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17189737","_score":5.5693526,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this statement to report inaccurate and unvalidated information that continues to appear on my credit report despite repeated efforts to obtain verification. The account in question is a collection account reported by XXXX, listed as a charge-off or collection in the approximate amount of {$880.00}. This account is appearing as a derogatory item on my credit reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. I believe its reporting and continued verification violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The following explains the full background, chronology of events, actions I have taken, the responses I have received, and the ongoing harm caused by the companies failure to comply with federal law. \n\n1. Discovery of the Problem During a routine credit review in late XXXX, I obtained updated copies of my credit reports from all three major credit bureaus. In those reports I observed a negative account reported by XXXX. It appeared as a third-party collection or charge-off, allegedly derived from an account originally owed to another creditor. The entry did not include a contract, account-opening date, or original creditor information that would allow me to confirm its authenticity. \n\nBecause I maintain careful financial records and have no knowledge of owing any outstanding balance to XXXX or its alleged predecessor, I immediately grew concerned about the accuracy of this entry. Beyond the absence of supporting data, the account also displayed inconsistencies between the bureaus : balances differed, date opened fields were incomplete, and some agencies listed the status as collection while another listed it as charge-off. These inconsistencies suggested that the data furnished might be incomplete, outdated, or entirely unverified. \n\n2. Initial Actions Taken To resolve the matter lawfully, I exercised my consumer rights. In XX/XX/XXXX, I sent written disputes by certified mail to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, clearly identifying the XXXX account and specifying that I was requesting a full validation and procedural investigation. In each letter I requested that the bureau : Identify the specific method of verification used to confirm the XXXX account ; Provide copies of the original documents supplied by the furnisher to authorize the reporting ; State the date, system, or data source relied upon for verification ; Clarify whether the information was verified through e-OSCAR, manual review, or third-party exchange ; Provide any documentation proving data transfer, validation source, and chain of custody ; and Explain the legal authority under which they continue reporting an account not supported by original documentation. \n\nEach dispute letter cited my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and requested removal of unverifiable information within the 30-day statutory period. Every letter was mailed certified with return receipt. Delivery confirmations show all three bureaus received the disputes within one week of mailing. \n\nSimultaneously, I sent a separate debt validation request directly to XXXX under FDCPA 809 ( b ). That letter explicitly stated that this was not a refusal to pay, but a lawful demand for validation. I requested : The name and address of the original creditor ; An itemized statement of all amounts claimed ; A copy of the signed agreement creating the obligation ; and Documentation proving that XXXX has legal ownership or assignment rights to collect and report the debt. \n\nI requested that all collection and reporting activities cease until the debt was validated as required by federal law. \n\n3. Responses Received Within approximately three weeks, each credit bureau responded with form letters. Each letter stated in nearly identical language that the disputed information has been verified as accurate and will remain on your credit file. None of the responses explained how the verification was conducted, who performed it, or what documentation was reviewed. In short, they failed to provide the procedural description guaranteed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \n\nI later learned that most disputes are processed through an automated system known as e-OSCAR. If that system was used in my case, my detailed written dispute was likely reduced to a numeric code transmitted electronically to XXXX. The furnisher then would have electronically confirmed the data without ever producing documentation. This process, by design, can not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation because it does not involve actual review of the underlying records. \n\nAs for XXXX, the company never produced a single piece of documentation validating the alleged debt. I received no copy of a contract, billing statement, or assignment of ownership. The company did not even acknowledge receipt of my validation request. Nevertheless, it continued to report the account monthly to the credit bureaus, in direct violation of FDCPA 809 ( b ).\n\n4. Violations of Federal Law The actions ( and inactions ) described above violate multiple sections of federal law designed to protect consumers. Specifically : FCRA 607 ( b ) requires credit bureaus to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. Continuing to publish unverified data is inconsistent with that duty. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) obligates a bureau to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation once a dispute is received. Simply echoing the furnishers response without review of documentation fails that standard.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) grants the consumer the right to a detailed description of the reinvestigation procedure. No bureau complied.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) requires furnishers to investigate disputed information and correct or delete it if inaccurate or unverifiable. XXXX did neither. \n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) states that a debt collector must cease all collection activityincluding credit reportinguntil it mails the requested validation to the consumer. XXXX continued reporting regardless. \n\nBy failing to validate or delete the information, both the bureaus and XXXX have violated these statutory requirements. \n\n5. Impact on Me as a Consumer The continued presence of this derogatory entry has caused significant and measurable harm. Modern scoring models treat collections as major derogatory events, so this account has depressed my credit scores across all bureaus. Because of it, I have faced higher interest rates and less favorable terms on credit products. Beyond quantifiable losses, there is also reputational damage and emotional distress from being unfairly represented as delinquent. \n\nI take my credit obligations seriously and maintain a record of timely payment. Having an invalid collection reported undermines years of responsible financial behavior. It has forced me to spend time, effort, and expense sending letters, tracking certified mail receipts, and researching consumer law to defend my rightsall to correct an error that should never have persisted if the parties had complied with the law. \n\n6. Continued Non-Compliance Months after the initial disputes, the XXXX account continues to appear. It remains coded as collection/charge-off with a balance around {$880.00}. Each month it updates as a current derogatory item, signaling active delinquency to lenders. The bureaus have ignored subsequent follow-up letters and have refused to remove the information. \n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted within the 30-day investigation period. Yet, despite no proof being produced, the item remains. This demonstrates a systemic failure of the reinvestigation process. \n\nXXXX. Broader Concerns About Verification Practices This situation exposes a broader issue affecting millions of consumers. Automated systems such as e-OSCAR prioritize speed and cost over accuracy. When a consumer provides detailed documentary evidence, those specifics are often reduced to a simple dispute code like 001 not his/hers. The furnisher then merely checks a box affirming the accounts accuracy, and the bureau deems the matter verified. No one reviews contracts, statements, or communications. This process undermines Congresss intent in enacting the FCRAthat consumers be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge inaccurate data. \n\nMy experience exemplifies this systemic flaw. Despite a legitimate and specific request for documentation, I received only automated responses. The companies rely on technology to process human rights, and the result is predictable : accuracy suffers and consumers are left defenseless. \n\n8. Why the Account Is Likely Unverifiable Beyond the lack of documentation, several indicators suggest that the XXXX account can not be legitimately verified : No Original Creditor Information : None of the bureaus list the origin of the debt or the date the account was created. \n\nNo Payment History : There are no records showing missed payments or charge-off activity typical of valid accounts. \n\nInconsistent Data Across Bureaus : Differences in reported balances and dates show that each bureau received conflicting information.\n\nAge of the Debt : Based on other records, any alleged obligation would now be beyond the statute of limitations for collection in my state.\n\nAbsence of Consumer Contact : I have never received billing statements, notices, or correspondence from XXXX prior to this reporting. \n\nThese facts collectively suggest that the account is either erroneous or based on incomplete data purchased from another entity without supporting documents. \n\n9. Ongoing Efforts to Resolve the Issue Since the initial disputes, I have continued to act in good faith. I have retained all correspondence, return receipts, and credit report copies showing the progression of events. I also made follow-up requests for the method of verification as allowed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). None were honored. Each company has had ample opportunity to comply yet failed to do so. \n\nMy intention has never been to avoid a legitimate debt but to ensure that what appears on my credit file is accurate, complete, and verifiable. Accuracy is the foundation of the credit reporting system, and consumers should not bear the burden of proving a negative when furnishers can not prove a positive. \n\n10. The Harm of Inaccurate Reporting The practical consequences of inaccurate data are profound. Credit reports influence nearly every aspect of modern lifefrom interest rates and insurance premiums to employment opportunities and housing approvals. When unverified information is allowed to persist, it creates a false financial identity that follows the consumer indefinitely. It undermines the integrity of the credit reporting industry itself.\n\nIn my case, lenders have specifically cited collection account reported as a reason for adverse action. This means the continued reporting of this unvalidated debt directly translates into tangible financial harm. The law recognizes this harm, which is why FCRA 602 ( a ) explicitly states that unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. \n\n11. My Requested Corrective Actions I have requested, and continue to request, that the following corrective actions be taken : Full procedural description of the method used to verify the account ; Copies of original documents proving the debts validity and assignment ; Immediate deletion of the account if documentation can not be produced ; Written confirmation from each bureau showing the correction ; and Notification to any third parties that received the inaccurate data. \n\nTo date, none of these have been provided. \n\n12. Why CFPB Intervention Is Needed Individual consumers lack the leverage to compel large data companies to comply voluntarily. The CFPB exists precisely to oversee such compliance. My case illustrates how the system can fail an ordinary consumer even when they follow every correct procedure. Intervention by the Bureau can ensure that the laws requirements are observed and that the bureaus and furnishers are held accountable for negligent verification practices. \n\nThe issue extends beyond my individual situation. When one consumers dispute is ignored, it signals to data furnishers that expediency outweighs accuracy. Enforcement and oversight are therefore essential not only for personal redress but also for systemic reform. \n\n13. Documentation Available I possess copies of : My dispute and validation letters ; Certified mail receipts and delivery confirmations ; The credit reports showing the disputed account ; and The boilerplate responses from each bureau. \n\nThese documents substantiate my claims and show clear procedural non-compliance. I am prepared to provide them to CFPB investigators upon request. \n\n14. Legal Basis for Deletion Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted from the consumers file. Verification means confirmation based on reasonable evidence, not mere repetition of data from the same furnisher. Without documentary proofsuch as a signed contract, payment records, or assignmentthere is nothing to verify. \n\nSimilarly, FDCPA 809 ( b ) requires that if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days, the collector must cease collection activity until it mails validation. Reporting to a credit bureau is a form of collection activity because it exerts pressure on the consumer to pay. Therefore, continuing to report after a validation request but before providing proof constitutes a continuing violation of law. \n\nThe only legally compliant remedy for unverified information is deletion. This outcome would align with the intent of Congress and the purpose of both statutesto ensure that consumers are not harmed by inaccurate or unsupported data. \n\n15. Desired Outcome Ultimately, I seek restoration of accuracy and fairness to my credit history. Specifically, I request : Deletion of the XXXX account from all credit bureaus unless full original documentation is provided ; Written explanation from each bureau describing the reinvestigation process ; Confirmation that XXXX has ceased reporting until validation is completed ; Assurance that the deleted information will not be reinserted without proper certification ; and Monitoring by the CFPB to ensure compliance. \n\nThese are reasonable requests consistent with federal consumer protection law. \n\n16. Broader Significance While this complaint concerns a single account, it reflects a systemic issue affecting the integrity of consumer credit reporting. Many consumers experience similar problems but lack the knowledge or resources to pursue them. If a company can report data without proof and maintain it after a lawful dispute, the entire framework of consumer credit loses reliability. \n\nAddressing my case would therefore contribute to a fairer system for everyone. Requiring furnishers to maintain documentation, and requiring bureaus to conduct genuine investigations, would uphold the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure accuracy, fairness, and privacy in credit reporting. \n\n17. Conclusion To summarize, I discovered an inaccurate XXXX collection account on my credit reports. I lawfully disputed the item and requested validation and procedural investigation. The credit bureaus responded with automated, non-substantive letters, and the furnisher provided no proof of debt ownership or authorization. Despite these failures, the account remains on my reports. The actions of the bureaus and XXXX violate multiple provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA, cause ongoing financial harm, and undermine the accuracy of the credit reporting system. \n\nI am therefore requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intervene to enforce compliance, compel production of documentation, and ensure deletion of unverifiable information. I ask that the companies involved be required to adopt improved procedures, provide written confirmation of corrective action, and be held accountable for violations of law. \n\nMy intent is not to evade a legitimate obligation but to ensure that every entry on my credit file is supported by verifiable evidence. Accuracy and transparency are fundamental to fair credit reporting. I have fulfilled my duties as a consumer by disputing properly and providing documentation ; the responsibility to maintain lawful reporting now rests with the companies that profit from the exchange of my personal financial information. \n\nThank you for your consideration and for taking the time to review this matter. I trust that the CFPB will act to ensure compliance, protect consumer rights, and uphold the fairness and integrity of the credit reporting system.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T18:56:58.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17189737","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-12T18:29:23.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>credit</em> bureaus responded with automated, non-substantive letters, and the furnisher <em>provided</em> no proof of debt ownership or authorization. Despite these failures, the account remains on my reports. The actions of the bureaus and XXXX violate multiple provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA, cause ongoing financial harm, and undermine the accuracy of the <em>credit</em> reporting system."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[5.5693526,"17189737"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17189688","_score":5.5693526,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this statement to report inaccurate and unvalidated information that continues to appear on my credit report despite repeated efforts to obtain verification. The account in question is a collection account reported by XXXX, listed as a charge-off or collection in the approximate amount of {$880.00}. This account is appearing as a derogatory item on my credit reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. I believe its reporting and continued verification violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The following explains the full background, chronology of events, actions I have taken, the responses I have received, and the ongoing harm caused by the companies failure to comply with federal law. \n\n1. Discovery of the Problem During a routine credit review in late XXXX, I obtained updated copies of my credit reports from all three major credit bureaus. In those reports I observed a negative account reported by XXXX. It appeared as a third-party collection or charge-off, allegedly derived from an account originally owed to another creditor. The entry did not include a contract, account-opening date, or original creditor information that would allow me to confirm its authenticity. \n\nBecause I maintain careful financial records and have no knowledge of owing any outstanding balance to XXXX or its alleged predecessor, I immediately grew concerned about the accuracy of this entry. Beyond the absence of supporting data, the account also displayed inconsistencies between the bureaus : balances differed, date opened fields were incomplete, and some agencies listed the status as collection while another listed it as charge-off. These inconsistencies suggested that the data furnished might be incomplete, outdated, or entirely unverified. \n\n2. Initial Actions Taken To resolve the matter lawfully, I exercised my consumer rights. In XX/XX/XXXX, I sent written disputes by certified mail to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, clearly identifying the XXXX account and specifying that I was requesting a full validation and procedural investigation. In each letter I requested that the bureau : Identify the specific method of verification used to confirm the XXXX account ; Provide copies of the original documents supplied by the furnisher to authorize the reporting ; State the date, system, or data source relied upon for verification ; Clarify whether the information was verified through e-OSCAR, manual review, or third-party exchange ; Provide any documentation proving data transfer, validation source, and chain of custody ; and Explain the legal authority under which they continue reporting an account not supported by original documentation. \n\nEach dispute letter cited my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and requested removal of unverifiable information within the 30-day statutory period. Every letter was mailed certified with return receipt. Delivery confirmations show all three bureaus received the disputes within one week of mailing. \n\nSimultaneously, I sent a separate debt validation request directly to XXXX under FDCPA 809 ( b ). That letter explicitly stated that this was not a refusal to pay, but a lawful demand for validation. I requested : The name and address of the original creditor ; An itemized statement of all amounts claimed ; A copy of the signed agreement creating the obligation ; and Documentation proving that XXXX has legal ownership or assignment rights to collect and report the debt. \n\nI requested that all collection and reporting activities cease until the debt was validated as required by federal law. \n\n3. Responses Received Within approximately three weeks, each credit bureau responded with form letters. Each letter stated in nearly identical language that the disputed information has been verified as accurate and will remain on your credit file. None of the responses explained how the verification was conducted, who performed it, or what documentation was reviewed. In short, they failed to provide the procedural description guaranteed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \n\nI later learned that most disputes are processed through an automated system known as e-OSCAR. If that system was used in my case, my detailed written dispute was likely reduced to a numeric code transmitted electronically to XXXX. The furnisher then would have electronically confirmed the data without ever producing documentation. This process, by design, can not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation because it does not involve actual review of the underlying records. \n\nAs for XXXX, the company never produced a single piece of documentation validating the alleged debt. I received no copy of a contract, billing statement, or assignment of ownership. The company did not even acknowledge receipt of my validation request. Nevertheless, it continued to report the account monthly to the credit bureaus, in direct violation of FDCPA 809 ( b ).\n\n4. Violations of Federal Law The actions ( and inactions ) described above violate multiple sections of federal law designed to protect consumers. Specifically : FCRA 607 ( b ) requires credit bureaus to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. Continuing to publish unverified data is inconsistent with that duty. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) obligates a bureau to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation once a dispute is received. Simply echoing the furnishers response without review of documentation fails that standard.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) grants the consumer the right to a detailed description of the reinvestigation procedure. No bureau complied.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) requires furnishers to investigate disputed information and correct or delete it if inaccurate or unverifiable. XXXX did neither. \n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) states that a debt collector must cease all collection activityincluding credit reportinguntil it mails the requested validation to the consumer. XXXX continued reporting regardless. \n\nBy failing to validate or delete the information, both the bureaus and XXXX have violated these statutory requirements. \n\n5. Impact on Me as a Consumer The continued presence of this derogatory entry has caused significant and measurable harm. Modern scoring models treat collections as major derogatory events, so this account has depressed my credit scores across all bureaus. Because of it, I have faced higher interest rates and less favorable terms on credit products. Beyond quantifiable losses, there is also reputational damage and emotional distress from being unfairly represented as delinquent. \n\nI take my credit obligations seriously and maintain a record of timely payment. Having an invalid collection reported undermines years of responsible financial behavior. It has forced me to spend time, effort, and expense sending letters, tracking certified mail receipts, and researching consumer law to defend my rightsall to correct an error that should never have persisted if the parties had complied with the law. \n\n6. Continued Non-Compliance Months after the initial disputes, the XXXX account continues to appear. It remains coded as collection/charge-off with a balance around {$880.00}. Each month it updates as a current derogatory item, signaling active delinquency to lenders. The bureaus have ignored subsequent follow-up letters and have refused to remove the information. \n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted within the 30-day investigation period. Yet, despite no proof being produced, the item remains. This demonstrates a systemic failure of the reinvestigation process. \n\nXXXX. Broader Concerns About Verification Practices This situation exposes a broader issue affecting millions of consumers. Automated systems such as e-OSCAR prioritize speed and cost over accuracy. When a consumer provides detailed documentary evidence, those specifics are often reduced to a simple dispute code like 001 not his/hers. The furnisher then merely checks a box affirming the accounts accuracy, and the bureau deems the matter verified. No one reviews contracts, statements, or communications. This process undermines Congresss intent in enacting the FCRAthat consumers be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge inaccurate data. \n\nMy experience exemplifies this systemic flaw. Despite a legitimate and specific request for documentation, I received only automated responses. The companies rely on technology to process human rights, and the result is predictable : accuracy suffers and consumers are left defenseless. \n\n8. Why the Account Is Likely Unverifiable Beyond the lack of documentation, several indicators suggest that the XXXX account can not be legitimately verified : No Original Creditor Information : None of the bureaus list the origin of the debt or the date the account was created. \n\nNo Payment History : There are no records showing missed payments or charge-off activity typical of valid accounts. \n\nInconsistent Data Across Bureaus : Differences in reported balances and dates show that each bureau received conflicting information.\n\nAge of the Debt : Based on other records, any alleged obligation would now be beyond the statute of limitations for collection in my state.\n\nAbsence of Consumer Contact : I have never received billing statements, notices, or correspondence from XXXX prior to this reporting. \n\nThese facts collectively suggest that the account is either erroneous or based on incomplete data purchased from another entity without supporting documents. \n\n9. Ongoing Efforts to Resolve the Issue Since the initial disputes, I have continued to act in good faith. I have retained all correspondence, return receipts, and credit report copies showing the progression of events. I also made follow-up requests for the method of verification as allowed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). None were honored. Each company has had ample opportunity to comply yet failed to do so. \n\nMy intention has never been to avoid a legitimate debt but to ensure that what appears on my credit file is accurate, complete, and verifiable. Accuracy is the foundation of the credit reporting system, and consumers should not bear the burden of proving a negative when furnishers can not prove a positive. \n\n10. The Harm of Inaccurate Reporting The practical consequences of inaccurate data are profound. Credit reports influence nearly every aspect of modern lifefrom interest rates and insurance premiums to employment opportunities and housing approvals. When unverified information is allowed to persist, it creates a false financial identity that follows the consumer indefinitely. It undermines the integrity of the credit reporting industry itself.\n\nIn my case, lenders have specifically cited collection account reported as a reason for adverse action. This means the continued reporting of this unvalidated debt directly translates into tangible financial harm. The law recognizes this harm, which is why FCRA 602 ( a ) explicitly states that unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. \n\n11. My Requested Corrective Actions I have requested, and continue to request, that the following corrective actions be taken : Full procedural description of the method used to verify the account ; Copies of original documents proving the debts validity and assignment ; Immediate deletion of the account if documentation can not be produced ; Written confirmation from each bureau showing the correction ; and Notification to any third parties that received the inaccurate data. \n\nTo date, none of these have been provided. \n\n12. Why CFPB Intervention Is Needed Individual consumers lack the leverage to compel large data companies to comply voluntarily. The CFPB exists precisely to oversee such compliance. My case illustrates how the system can fail an ordinary consumer even when they follow every correct procedure. Intervention by the Bureau can ensure that the laws requirements are observed and that the bureaus and furnishers are held accountable for negligent verification practices. \n\nThe issue extends beyond my individual situation. When one consumers dispute is ignored, it signals to data furnishers that expediency outweighs accuracy. Enforcement and oversight are therefore essential not only for personal redress but also for systemic reform. \n\n13. Documentation Available I possess copies of : My dispute and validation letters ; Certified mail receipts and delivery confirmations ; The credit reports showing the disputed account ; and The boilerplate responses from each bureau. \n\nThese documents substantiate my claims and show clear procedural non-compliance. I am prepared to provide them to CFPB investigators upon request. \n\n14. Legal Basis for Deletion Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted from the consumers file. Verification means confirmation based on reasonable evidence, not mere repetition of data from the same furnisher. Without documentary proofsuch as a signed contract, payment records, or assignmentthere is nothing to verify. \n\nSimilarly, FDCPA 809 ( b ) requires that if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days, the collector must cease collection activity until it mails validation. Reporting to a credit bureau is a form of collection activity because it exerts pressure on the consumer to pay. Therefore, continuing to report after a validation request but before providing proof constitutes a continuing violation of law. \n\nThe only legally compliant remedy for unverified information is deletion. This outcome would align with the intent of Congress and the purpose of both statutesto ensure that consumers are not harmed by inaccurate or unsupported data. \n\n15. Desired Outcome Ultimately, I seek restoration of accuracy and fairness to my credit history. Specifically, I request : Deletion of the XXXX account from all credit bureaus unless full original documentation is provided ; Written explanation from each bureau describing the reinvestigation process ; Confirmation that XXXX has ceased reporting until validation is completed ; Assurance that the deleted information will not be reinserted without proper certification ; and Monitoring by the CFPB to ensure compliance. \n\nThese are reasonable requests consistent with federal consumer protection law. \n\n16. Broader Significance While this complaint concerns a single account, it reflects a systemic issue affecting the integrity of consumer credit reporting. Many consumers experience similar problems but lack the knowledge or resources to pursue them. If a company can report data without proof and maintain it after a lawful dispute, the entire framework of consumer credit loses reliability. \n\nAddressing my case would therefore contribute to a fairer system for everyone. Requiring furnishers to maintain documentation, and requiring bureaus to conduct genuine investigations, would uphold the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure accuracy, fairness, and privacy in credit reporting. \n\n17. Conclusion To summarize, I discovered an inaccurate XXXX collection account on my credit reports. I lawfully disputed the item and requested validation and procedural investigation. The credit bureaus responded with automated, non-substantive letters, and the furnisher provided no proof of debt ownership or authorization. Despite these failures, the account remains on my reports. The actions of the bureaus and XXXX violate multiple provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA, cause ongoing financial harm, and undermine the accuracy of the credit reporting system. \n\nI am therefore requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intervene to enforce compliance, compel production of documentation, and ensure deletion of unverifiable information. I ask that the companies involved be required to adopt improved procedures, provide written confirmation of corrective action, and be held accountable for violations of law. \n\nMy intent is not to evade a legitimate obligation but to ensure that every entry on my credit file is supported by verifiable evidence. Accuracy and transparency are fundamental to fair credit reporting. I have fulfilled my duties as a consumer by disputing properly and providing documentation ; the responsibility to maintain lawful reporting now rests with the companies that profit from the exchange of my personal financial information. \n\nThank you for your consideration and for taking the time to review this matter. I trust that the CFPB will act to ensure compliance, protect consumer rights, and uphold the fairness and integrity of the credit reporting system.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T18:56:57.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17189688","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-12T18:56:29.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>credit</em> bureaus responded with automated, non-substantive letters, and the furnisher <em>provided</em> no proof of debt ownership or authorization. Despite these failures, the account remains on my reports. The actions of the bureaus and XXXX violate multiple provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA, cause ongoing financial harm, and undermine the accuracy of the <em>credit</em> reporting system."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[5.5693526,"17189688"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17189687","_score":5.5603037,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this statement to report inaccurate and unvalidated information that continues to appear on my credit report despite repeated efforts to obtain verification. The account in question is a collection account reported by XXXX, listed as a charge-off or collection in the approximate amount of {$880.00}. This account is appearing as a derogatory item on my credit reports from TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. I believe its reporting and continued verification violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The following explains the full background, chronology of events, actions I have taken, the responses I have received, and the ongoing harm caused by the companies failure to comply with federal law. \n\n1. Discovery of the Problem During a routine credit review in late XXXX, I obtained updated copies of my credit reports from all three major credit bureaus. In those reports I observed a negative account reported by XXXX. It appeared as a third-party collection or charge-off, allegedly derived from an account originally owed to another creditor. The entry did not include a contract, account-opening date, or original creditor information that would allow me to confirm its authenticity. \n\nBecause I maintain careful financial records and have no knowledge of owing any outstanding balance to XXXX or its alleged predecessor, I immediately grew concerned about the accuracy of this entry. Beyond the absence of supporting data, the account also displayed inconsistencies between the bureaus : balances differed, date opened fields were incomplete, and some agencies listed the status as collection while another listed it as charge-off. These inconsistencies suggested that the data furnished might be incomplete, outdated, or entirely unverified. \n\n2. Initial Actions Taken To resolve the matter lawfully, I exercised my consumer rights. In XX/XX/XXXX, I sent written disputes by certified mail to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax, clearly identifying the XXXX account and specifying that I was requesting a full validation and procedural investigation. In each letter I requested that the bureau : Identify the specific method of verification used to confirm the XXXX account ; Provide copies of the original documents supplied by the furnisher to authorize the reporting ; State the date, system, or data source relied upon for verification ; Clarify whether the information was verified through e-OSCAR, manual review, or third-party exchange ; Provide any documentation proving data transfer, validation source, and chain of custody ; and Explain the legal authority under which they continue reporting an account not supported by original documentation. \n\nEach dispute letter cited my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and requested removal of unverifiable information within the 30-day statutory period. Every letter was mailed certified with return receipt. Delivery confirmations show all three bureaus received the disputes within one week of mailing. \n\nSimultaneously, I sent a separate debt validation request directly to XXXX under FDCPA 809 ( b ). That letter explicitly stated that this was not a refusal to pay, but a lawful demand for validation. I requested : The name and address of the original creditor ; An itemized statement of all amounts claimed ; A copy of the signed agreement creating the obligation ; and Documentation proving that XXXX has legal ownership or assignment rights to collect and report the debt. \n\nI requested that all collection and reporting activities cease until the debt was validated as required by federal law. \n\n3. Responses Received Within approximately three weeks, each credit bureau responded with form letters. Each letter stated in nearly identical language that the disputed information has been verified as accurate and will remain on your credit file. None of the responses explained how the verification was conducted, who performed it, or what documentation was reviewed. In short, they failed to provide the procedural description guaranteed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). \n\nI later learned that most disputes are processed through an automated system known as e-OSCAR. If that system was used in my case, my detailed written dispute was likely reduced to a numeric code transmitted electronically to XXXX. The furnisher then would have electronically confirmed the data without ever producing documentation. This process, by design, can not constitute a reasonable reinvestigation because it does not involve actual review of the underlying records. \n\nAs for XXXX, the company never produced a single piece of documentation validating the alleged debt. I received no copy of a contract, billing statement, or assignment of ownership. The company did not even acknowledge receipt of my validation request. Nevertheless, it continued to report the account monthly to the credit bureaus, in direct violation of FDCPA 809 ( b ).\n\n4. Violations of Federal Law The actions ( and inactions ) described above violate multiple sections of federal law designed to protect consumers. Specifically : FCRA 607 ( b ) requires credit bureaus to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. Continuing to publish unverified data is inconsistent with that duty. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) obligates a bureau to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation once a dispute is received. Simply echoing the furnishers response without review of documentation fails that standard.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) grants the consumer the right to a detailed description of the reinvestigation procedure. No bureau complied.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) requires furnishers to investigate disputed information and correct or delete it if inaccurate or unverifiable. XXXX did neither. \n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) states that a debt collector must cease all collection activityincluding credit reportinguntil it mails the requested validation to the consumer. XXXX continued reporting regardless. \n\nBy failing to validate or delete the information, both the bureaus and XXXX have violated these statutory requirements. \n\n5. Impact on Me as a Consumer The continued presence of this derogatory entry has caused significant and measurable harm. Modern scoring models treat collections as major derogatory events, so this account has depressed my credit scores across all bureaus. Because of it, I have faced higher interest rates and less favorable terms on credit products. Beyond quantifiable losses, there is also reputational damage and emotional distress from being unfairly represented as delinquent. \n\nI take my credit obligations seriously and maintain a record of timely payment. Having an invalid collection reported undermines years of responsible financial behavior. It has forced me to spend time, effort, and expense sending letters, tracking certified mail receipts, and researching consumer law to defend my rightsall to correct an error that should never have persisted if the parties had complied with the law. \n\n6. Continued Non-Compliance Months after the initial disputes, the XXXX account continues to appear. It remains coded as collection/charge-off with a balance around {$880.00}. Each month it updates as a current derogatory item, signaling active delinquency to lenders. The bureaus have ignored subsequent follow-up letters and have refused to remove the information. \n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted within the 30-day investigation period. Yet, despite no proof being produced, the item remains. This demonstrates a systemic failure of the reinvestigation process. \n\nXXXX. Broader Concerns About Verification Practices This situation exposes a broader issue affecting millions of consumers. Automated systems such as e-OSCAR prioritize speed and cost over accuracy. When a consumer provides detailed documentary evidence, those specifics are often reduced to a simple dispute code like 001 not his/hers. The furnisher then merely checks a box affirming the accounts accuracy, and the bureau deems the matter verified. No one reviews contracts, statements, or communications. This process undermines Congresss intent in enacting the FCRAthat consumers be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge inaccurate data. \n\nMy experience exemplifies this systemic flaw. Despite a legitimate and specific request for documentation, I received only automated responses. The companies rely on technology to process human rights, and the result is predictable : accuracy suffers and consumers are left defenseless. \n\n8. Why the Account Is Likely Unverifiable Beyond the lack of documentation, several indicators suggest that the XXXX account can not be legitimately verified : No Original Creditor Information : None of the bureaus list the origin of the debt or the date the account was created. \n\nNo Payment History : There are no records showing missed payments or charge-off activity typical of valid accounts. \n\nInconsistent Data Across Bureaus : Differences in reported balances and dates show that each bureau received conflicting information.\n\nAge of the Debt : Based on other records, any alleged obligation would now be beyond the statute of limitations for collection in my state.\n\nAbsence of Consumer Contact : I have never received billing statements, notices, or correspondence from XXXX prior to this reporting. \n\nThese facts collectively suggest that the account is either erroneous or based on incomplete data purchased from another entity without supporting documents. \n\n9. Ongoing Efforts to Resolve the Issue Since the initial disputes, I have continued to act in good faith. I have retained all correspondence, return receipts, and credit report copies showing the progression of events. I also made follow-up requests for the method of verification as allowed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). None were honored. Each company has had ample opportunity to comply yet failed to do so. \n\nMy intention has never been to avoid a legitimate debt but to ensure that what appears on my credit file is accurate, complete, and verifiable. Accuracy is the foundation of the credit reporting system, and consumers should not bear the burden of proving a negative when furnishers can not prove a positive. \n\n10. The Harm of Inaccurate Reporting The practical consequences of inaccurate data are profound. Credit reports influence nearly every aspect of modern lifefrom interest rates and insurance premiums to employment opportunities and housing approvals. When unverified information is allowed to persist, it creates a false financial identity that follows the consumer indefinitely. It undermines the integrity of the credit reporting industry itself.\n\nIn my case, lenders have specifically cited collection account reported as a reason for adverse action. This means the continued reporting of this unvalidated debt directly translates into tangible financial harm. The law recognizes this harm, which is why FCRA 602 ( a ) explicitly states that unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. \n\n11. My Requested Corrective Actions I have requested, and continue to request, that the following corrective actions be taken : Full procedural description of the method used to verify the account ; Copies of original documents proving the debts validity and assignment ; Immediate deletion of the account if documentation can not be produced ; Written confirmation from each bureau showing the correction ; and Notification to any third parties that received the inaccurate data. \n\nTo date, none of these have been provided. \n\n12. Why CFPB Intervention Is Needed Individual consumers lack the leverage to compel large data companies to comply voluntarily. The CFPB exists precisely to oversee such compliance. My case illustrates how the system can fail an ordinary consumer even when they follow every correct procedure. Intervention by the Bureau can ensure that the laws requirements are observed and that the bureaus and furnishers are held accountable for negligent verification practices. \n\nThe issue extends beyond my individual situation. When one consumers dispute is ignored, it signals to data furnishers that expediency outweighs accuracy. Enforcement and oversight are therefore essential not only for personal redress but also for systemic reform. \n\n13. Documentation Available I possess copies of : My dispute and validation letters ; Certified mail receipts and delivery confirmations ; The credit reports showing the disputed account ; and The boilerplate responses from each bureau. \n\nThese documents substantiate my claims and show clear procedural non-compliance. I am prepared to provide them to CFPB investigators upon request. \n\n14. Legal Basis for Deletion Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted from the consumers file. Verification means confirmation based on reasonable evidence, not mere repetition of data from the same furnisher. Without documentary proofsuch as a signed contract, payment records, or assignmentthere is nothing to verify. \n\nSimilarly, FDCPA 809 ( b ) requires that if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days, the collector must cease collection activity until it mails validation. Reporting to a credit bureau is a form of collection activity because it exerts pressure on the consumer to pay. Therefore, continuing to report after a validation request but before providing proof constitutes a continuing violation of law. \n\nThe only legally compliant remedy for unverified information is deletion. This outcome would align with the intent of Congress and the purpose of both statutesto ensure that consumers are not harmed by inaccurate or unsupported data. \n\n15. Desired Outcome Ultimately, I seek restoration of accuracy and fairness to my credit history. Specifically, I request : Deletion of the XXXX account from all credit bureaus unless full original documentation is provided ; Written explanation from each bureau describing the reinvestigation process ; Confirmation that XXXX has ceased reporting until validation is completed ; Assurance that the deleted information will not be reinserted without proper certification ; and Monitoring by the CFPB to ensure compliance. \n\nThese are reasonable requests consistent with federal consumer protection law. \n\n16. Broader Significance While this complaint concerns a single account, it reflects a systemic issue affecting the integrity of consumer credit reporting. Many consumers experience similar problems but lack the knowledge or resources to pursue them. If a company can report data without proof and maintain it after a lawful dispute, the entire framework of consumer credit loses reliability. \n\nAddressing my case would therefore contribute to a fairer system for everyone. Requiring furnishers to maintain documentation, and requiring bureaus to conduct genuine investigations, would uphold the statutory purpose of the FCRAto ensure accuracy, fairness, and privacy in credit reporting. \n\n17. Conclusion To summarize, I discovered an inaccurate XXXX collection account on my credit reports. I lawfully disputed the item and requested validation and procedural investigation. The credit bureaus responded with automated, non-substantive letters, and the furnisher provided no proof of debt ownership or authorization. Despite these failures, the account remains on my reports. The actions of the bureaus and XXXX violate multiple provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA, cause ongoing financial harm, and undermine the accuracy of the credit reporting system. \n\nI am therefore requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intervene to enforce compliance, compel production of documentation, and ensure deletion of unverifiable information. I ask that the companies involved be required to adopt improved procedures, provide written confirmation of corrective action, and be held accountable for violations of law. \n\nMy intent is not to evade a legitimate obligation but to ensure that every entry on my credit file is supported by verifiable evidence. Accuracy and transparency are fundamental to fair credit reporting. I have fulfilled my duties as a consumer by disputing properly and providing documentation ; the responsibility to maintain lawful reporting now rests with the companies that profit from the exchange of my personal financial information. \n\nThank you for your consideration and for taking the time to review this matter. I trust that the CFPB will act to ensure compliance, protect consumer rights, and uphold the fairness and integrity of the credit reporting system.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T18:56:59.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17189687","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-12T18:56:29.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>credit</em> bureaus responded with automated, non-substantive letters, and the furnisher <em>provided</em> no proof of debt ownership or authorization. Despite these failures, the account remains on my reports. The actions of the bureaus and XXXX violate multiple provisions of the FCRA and FDCPA, cause ongoing financial harm, and undermine the accuracy of the <em>credit</em> reporting system."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[5.5603037,"17189687"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14307495","_score":4.2935805,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 1 of 40 Page ID # :1 XXXX XXXX, Mass. Bar No. XXXX ( Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending ) Email : XXXX CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Phone : XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, Cal. Bar No. XXXX Email : XXXX CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number : XXXX COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, REDRESS, DISGORGEMENT, AND CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES ACTION SEEKING NATIONWIDE RELIEF INTRODUCTION 1. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( Bureau ) brings this action against Experian Information Solutions , Inc. ( Experian or the Company ) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau, Plaintiff, vs.\n\nExperian Information Solutions , Inc., Defendant. \nCOMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 2 of 40 Page ID # :2 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( a ) ( b ), 5564, and 5565. This action alleges that Experian violated both Acts by failing to reasonably reinvestigate consumer disputes challenging the accuracy or completeness of information in consumer reports, including by failing to forward all relevant information to furnishers, failing to provide adequate or accurate notice to consumers of the outcome of their disputes, and failing to utilize reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information in consumers files.\n\n2. Experian is one of the largest consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) in the country. A primary aspect of its business is collecting and organizing data on most adult Americans to generate consumer reports, consumer file disclosures, and credit scores that reflect consumers credit activity and history. As Experian acknowledges, its consumer reporting services play an integral part in the financial lives of millions of people.\n\n3. This is because Experian sells its consumer reports to creditors and businesses who are evaluating whether to offer a consumer various products, services, and opportunities, such as a loan, a job, or housing.\n\n4. Information reflected in consumer reports is provided to CRAs by data furnishers, such as banks, credit card companies, or debt collectors, and other sources. Errors in consumer reports can be significant for consumers, resulting in the denial of credit, employment, or housing, or being offered less favorable credit terms.\n\n5. Recognizing the serious consequences borne by consumers when their consumer reports contain inaccurate information, Congress enacted the FCRA in 1970 to, in part, [ e ] nsure that consumer reporting agencies [ like Experian ] COMPLAINT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 3 of 40 Page ID # :3 exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( 4 ).\n\n6. The FCRA demands that CRAs use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information contained in consumer reports, 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), and provides a mechanism for consumers to dispute any incomplete or inaccurate information in their report. 15 U.S.C. 1681i.\n\n7. When a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of information in their consumer report, the FCRA requires Experian to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the disputed information and report the results of the reinvestigation to the consumer, all within certain timelines. 15 U.S.C.\n\n1681i ( a ). At the conclusion of the reinvestigation, Experian must modify or delete any item of information found to be inaccurate or incomplete, or that it could not verify. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ). For any information deleted as a result of a dispute, the FCRA imposes specific obligations on Experian that must be satisfied before that information may be reinserted into a consumers file. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ).\n\n8. Despite its obligations under the FCRA, Experian fails consumers who dispute information in their consumer reports at every stage of the dispute process.\n\n9. First, Experians faulty intake procedures fail to accurately convey all relevant information regarding the dispute to the original furnisher of the disputed information, and, at times, Experian simply fails to provide furnishers with consumer-submitted documentation that supports the dispute.\n\nCOMPLAINT 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 4 of 40 Page ID # :4 10. Second, Experian uncritically accepts the original furnishers response to the disputed information, even when that response was improbable or illogical on its face or when Experian has other information in its possession that alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the furnisher might be unreliable.\n\n11. Third, at the conclusion of its reinvestigation, Experian sends consumers notices that fail to inform them of the reinvestigation results, and instead provides information that is confusing, ambiguous, incorrect, and internally inconsistent.\n\n12. Additionally, Experians problematic dispute resolution processes have resulted in several other issues, including Experians outright failure to reinvestigate a significant number of disputes within the timeline required by the FCRA, its ongoing refusal to reinvestigate hard inquiry disputes, and its routine failure to ensure that previously deleted tradelines are not improperly reinserted into a consumers file.\n\n13. Experians faulty dispute intake procedures and failure to provide furnishers with consumer-submitted documentation, uncritical deference to furnishers response to the disputed information, and failure to inform consumers of the results of reinvestigations also violate the CFPAs prohibition on unfair acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ( 1 ).\n\n14. Experians failures are an abdication of its obligations under the FCRA and the CFPA, and the Bureau brings this action to rectify these failings and impose civil money penalties.\n\nCOMPLAINT 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 5 of 40 Page ID # :5 XXXX XXXX. XXXX  is proper in this district because the Defendant resides and does business in this district. 12 U.S.C. 5564 ( f ).\n\nPARTIES 16. The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States created by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5491 ( a ). The Bureau has independent litigating authority and is authorized to initiate civil actions in federal district court to secure appropriate relief for violations of Federal consumer financial law, 12 U.S.C.\n\n5564 ( a ) - ( b ) and 5565, including the FCRA and the CFPA, 12 U.S.C.\n\n5481 ( 12 ) ( F ) and ( 14 ).\n\n17. Experian is a nationwide consumer reporting agency with its North American Headquarters in XXXX XXXX, California. At all times material to this Complaint, Experian transacted business in this district and nationwide. \n18. Experian collects, analyzes, maintains, or provides consumer report information or other account information, including information related to the credit history of consumers. This information is used or expected to be used in connection with any decision regarding the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service. These products or services are consumer financial products or services covered by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 5 ) and ( 15 ) ( A ) ( ix ).\n\n19. Further, Experian offers consumer reports, consumer file disclosures and credit scores, which are consumer financial products or services because they are or relate to consumer reports or other account information, including information relating to the credit history of consumers that Experian collects and maintains about a consumers account. Experian offers or provides these financial COMPLAINT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 6 of 40 Page ID # :6 products and services to consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and delivers, offers, and provides them in connection with consumer financial products or services such as consumer credit. These products or services are therefore consumer financial products or services covered by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 5 ) and ( 15 ) ( A ) ( ix ).\n\n20. Because Experian engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service, Experian is a covered person under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 6 ).\n\n21. Experian is a consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA.\n\nSee 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). Experian compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis as that term is defined in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( p ).\n\nExperian is therefore subject to the FCRA.\n\nBACKGROUND 22. The FCRA imposes a variety of obligations on CRAs like Experian to ensure that they report accurate information in consumer reports.\n\n23. A core obligation is that if a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information in their consumer report, the CRA must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is accurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).\n\n24. Within five business days of receiving the dispute, the CRA must provide notice of the dispute to the furnisher of the disputed information. A furnisher is any entity that provides financial information about a consumer to a CRA, such as a bank, credit card company, or debt collector. The notice to the COMPLAINT 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 7 of 40 Page ID # :7 furnisher must include all relevant information received by the CRA regarding the dispute. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\n25. The CRA must complete the reinvestigation within 30 days after the dispute is received unless an extension is sought. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).\n\n26. After the reinvestigation, the CRA must provide the consumer written notice of the results of the reinvestigation no later than five business days after its completion. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ).\n\n27. The FCRA further requires that the furnisher maintain reasonable procedures to prevent the reinsertion of previously deleted information, notify consumers within five business days if previously deleted information was reinserted, and ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports. 15 U.S.C.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), ( C ), 1681e ( b ).\n\ne-OSCAR and the ACDV Process 28. When a CRA receives a consumer dispute, the primary way information about the dispute is communicated to furnishers is on a web-based platform called e-OSCAR. Information about the disputed information is transmitted over the e-OSCAR platform via an Automated Credit Dispute Verification form ( ACDV ).\n\n29. The ACDV is a one-page form that contains identifying information about the consumer such as name, address, social security , and date of birth. The ACDV also reflects the disputed account ( also known as a tradeline ) as it is currently reported. The ACDV provides limited information about the consumers dispute, including a three-digit dispute code that indicates the basis of the dispute. There is sometimes a short free-form description of the dispute, based on COMPLAINT 7 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 8 of 40 Page ID # :8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 information provided by the consumer. The ACDV may also have other relevant information attached to it, including consumer-submitted documentation supporting the dispute.\n\n30. Below is a reproduction of an Experian ACDV : 31. After the furnisher reviews the information provided in and attached to the ACDV, it returns the ACDV to the CRA, indicating with a two-digit response code whether the disputed information is accurate or should be modified or deleted.\n\n32. The ACDV is typically the only way CRAs and furnishers communicate during a reinvestigation.\n\nCOMPLAINT 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 9 of 40 Page ID # :9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Experian Fails to Adequately Convey All Relevant Information to Furnishers 33. Consumers who identify inaccurate or incomplete information in their Experian consumer report can submit disputes to Experian by mail, over the telephone, or electronically through Experians website ( its Online Dispute Center ) or mobile application. Experian typically processes over a million consumer disputes per month.\n\n34. When submitting a dispute, consumers can, and frequently do, support their disputes by submitting relevant documentation, such as bank statements, canceled checks, or settlement agreements, among other things. Consumers can submit supporting documents via mail or electronically.\n\n35. For disputes accompanied by consumer-submitted documentation, Experians policies require that its agents determine whether the documents are sufficiently conclusive for Experian to make the change requested by the consumer. Experian refers to this as making an internal update.\n\n36. Experian resolves a minority of disputes via an internal update. If Experian does not make an internal update, it prepares an ACDV to transmit to the furnisher through e-OSCAR. Experians policy directs its agents to attach any consumer-submitted documentation that contains additional relevant information to the ACDV, although in some cases its agents fail to do so.\n\n37. The dispute codes included in the ACDV are integral to the dispute resolution process. As explained above, dispute codes are used by Experian to communicate the underlying basis of the dispute to the furnisher.\n\nCOMPLAINT 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 10 of 40 Page ID # :10 38. Because Experian relies on the ACDV to communicate with furnishers about consumer disputes, it is important that Experians selected dispute code accurately conveys the basis of the dispute to the furnisher. But Experian routinely sends dispute codes to furnishers that mischaracterize or fail to convey highly relevant information about consumers disputes.\n\n39. Many of these failures stem from Experians Online Dispute Center.\n\nWhen consumers submit a dispute on the Online Dispute Center, they select a dispute description from a prepopulated list to categorize the nature of their dispute, which Experian then translates into a formal e-OSCAR dispute code that it inputs into the ACDV. Experians Online Dispute Center presents consumers with a significantly smaller set of dispute descriptions than Experian uses when consumers have submitted mail and telephone disputes. On the Online Dispute Center, for example, there are no dispute descriptions that correspond to formal e- OSCAR codes for account settled, date of first delinquency disputed, paid by insurance, consumer stated company will delete, and consumer stated company will change.\n\n40. As an illustration, Experians Online Dispute Center instructs consumers to select a dispute description of Account paid in full if consumers believe [ they ] have paid the account in full or that it was paid in settlement. A separate dispute description for account settled is not available to consumers on the Online Dispute Center, even though it would more precisely describe the nature of the dispute.\n\n41. When Experian then notifies the furnisher about these disputes via an ACDV, it translates the dispute description selected by the consumer to the formal COMPLAINT 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 11 of 40 Page ID # :11 e-OSCAR dispute code indicating that the consumer is disputing the accounts status ( i.e., whether the lender or creditor considers the account current or in collections ), even though a separate, more precise e-OSCAR dispute code exists that would indicate to the furnisher that the consumer is claiming the disputed account has been settled. Indeed, Experian makes no use of the e-OSCAR settlement dispute code for disputes received through the Online Dispute Center.\n\n42. This is just one example of how furnishers receive either a mischaracterization or a less precise description of the basis for disputes submitted via the Online Dispute Center.\n\n43. Other failures stem from Experians frequent use of an inaccurate or confusing dispute code when processing disputes submitted via telephone or mail.\n\nFor example, when a consumer lodges a dispute claiming that an account was paid, Experian inserts into the ACDV the e-OSCAR dispute code labeled Claims account closed instead of an appropriate dispute code for paid accounts.\n\n44. As another example, Experian inserts into the ACDV the intentionally generic e-OSCAR dispute code labeled Claims inaccurate information. Did not provide specific dispute. even where the consumer provides specific information pertaining to the dispute, such as disputing the date of first delinquency or the payment of an account, and for which a more specific dispute code, such as Disputes Date of First Delinquency and Disputes present/previous Account Status, History is available and appropriate.\n\n45. And as another example, Experian agents apply dispute codes requesting updates that are already reflected on consumers tradelines and therefore do not correspond to the actual substance of consumers disputes. As one COMPLAINT 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 12 of 40 Page ID # :12 illustration, agents apply the Claims account closed dispute code to tradelines that already display as closed. The fact that the update requested is already reflected on the tradeline suggests that the basis for the underlying dispute differs from the dispute code selected by Experian, and that Experian has not accurately described the nature of the dispute to the furnisher.\n\n46. By failing to select appropriate dispute codes, Experian fails to accurately convey the basis of the consumers disputes to furnishers in what is usually the only communication Experian has with the furnisher during its reinvestigation. By using inaccurate or misleading dispute codes, Experian fails to provide the furnisher with all relevant information about the consumers dispute and fails to fulfill its reasonable reinvestigation obligations.\n\n47. In addition to transmitting misleading, confusing, or inaccurate dispute codes to furnishers, Experian also fails to always include relevant consumer submitted documentation with the ACDV transmitted to the furnisher, despite Company policy requiring agents to do so. Relevant consumer documentation often contains information that is not conveyed elsewhere on the ACDV, including probative evidence that supports the merits of the consumers dispute. As a result, Experian fails to provide the furnisher with all relevant information about the consumers dispute and fails to fulfill its reasonable reinvestigation obligations.\n\n48. These failures hinder the reinvestigation.\n\n49. As a result of the above, Experian fails to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and convey all relevant information to furnishers, which causes or increases the risk that inaccurate information remains in consumers files.\n\nCOMPLAINT 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 13 of 40 Page ID # :13 Experian Over-relies on Furnishers ACDV Responses During its Reinvestigation Even When Presented with Information Suggesting that the Furnisher is Unreliable 50. Experian regularly over-relies on furnishers ACDV responses when conducting a reinvestigation, even when Experian possesses information that alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the furnisher of the disputed information might be unreliable. As a result, Experian permits inaccurate information to remain in consumers files. Experian does so even though cost- effective measures exist to resolve any outstanding factual issues.\n\n51. Experians over-reliance on furnishers ACDV responses occurs in at least three categories of disputes : disputes where consumer documentation provides highly probative evidence about the dispute, disputes where Experian itself possesses relevant information about the dispute in its own consumer files, and disputes where Experian receives illogical and inconsistent ACDV responses from furnishers.\n\n52. Consumers often provide documentation that, at a minimum, should put Experian on notice that reinvestigation beyond the furnishers ACDV response is necessary. For example, consumers frequently provide Experian with the date or case number of a bankruptcy petition discharging a particular debt that is still being reported on their consumer report, or documents reflecting an agreement to settle a debt for a certain amount. In other instances, consumers provide Experian documentation showing that the furnisher had previously agreed to delete or correct information in the disputed tradeline.\n\nCOMPLAINT 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 XXXX XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 14 of 40 Page ID # :14 53. Such documents are sufficient to put Experian on notice that the furnisher may have transmitted unreliable information. Yet, Experian regularly gives the supporting documents no weight in resolving the dispute and routinely conducts no further reinvestigation of the dispute beyond the furnishers ACDV response.\n\n54. Next, Experian frequently possesses relevant supporting information in its own consumer files that should alert it to a furnishers unreliability. For example, Experian often possesses information confirming the existence of a bankruptcy fitting the description in the consumers dispute, or information confirming that a consumer has made a settlement payment. Often this information alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the tradeline disputed by the consumer might be inaccurate and the furnisher might be unreliable. Yet, Experian routinely conducts no additional reinvestigation based on this information, and instead relies solely on the furnishers ACDV response to resolve the dispute.\n\n55. Finally, Experian frequently receives furnisher responses that contain data that is either illogical or facially and internally inconsistent, but it still accepts the furnishers response without further reinvestigation into the dispute.\n\n56. For example, Experian receives ACDV responses with inconsistent information, such as indicating a consumers overdue balance is greater than the total amount due. Other ACDV responses state that a consumer first became delinquent on an installment debt a month after the consumer had paid the account to a XXXX  balance. \n57. Receiving an ACDV with illogical or inconsistent data is alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the original furnisher of the disputed COMPLAINT 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 15 of 40 Page ID # :15 information might be unreliable and the disputed information may be inaccurate.\n\nYet, Experian regularly accepts the ACDV response in those circumstances and ignores the fact that it contains illogical or inconsistent information.\n\n58. In some instances where Experian receives illogical responses from furnishers, Experian partially implements the furnishers ACDV response on the consumers tradeline, but also unilaterally alters the information in the ACDV to make it appear logical and consistent. In doing so, Experian does not take steps to ensure that the changed tradeline is in fact complete and accurate ; Experian simply changes the tradeline by applying predetermined business rules. Experian does not, for example, verify the changes with the furnisher, base the changes on another reliable source of information, or confront the furnisher with the apparent error.\n\n59. To the detriment of consumers, in all of the above-described scenarios, Experian routinely does nothing more than send an ACDV to the furnisher and implement its response.\n\n60. Experian does so without consulting readily available, inexpensive third-party sources of information, such as bankruptcy court records, that could accurately and definitively resolve the consumers dispute. And Experian routinely does not pose any queries to the furnisher for specific factual information, such as the authenticity of a document, the existence of a settlement agreement, or why the furnishers response appears to be internally illogical and inconsistent.\n\n61. Experians failures to conduct reasonable reinvestigations negatively impact consumers.\n\n62. First, Experians over-reliance on furnishers ACDV responses results in consumer reports maintaining inaccurate information, such as a tradeline with an COMPLAINT 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 16 of 40 Page ID # :16 inaccurate status or balance. This inaccurate information can have deleterious impacts on consumers, including lowering their credit score, the denial of credit, housing, employment, or other goods or services, or causing consumers to obtain less favorable credit terms.\n\n63. Additionally, consumers waste their time and resources submitting disputes that are not adequately reinvestigated and gathering and submitting documents that are given no consideration in the dispute process.\n\nExperian Fails to Inform Consumers of Reinvestigation Results 64. At the conclusion of a reinvestigation, Experian sends consumers written results letters intended to fulfill its statutory obligation to report the results of the reinvestigation.\n\n65. Experians results letters include an initial section labeled How to Read Your Results which lists the possible reinvestigation outcomes of Deleted, Remains, Updated, and Processed and their accompanying definitions.\n\nNotably, Experian defines Updated four different ways, some of which indicate information other than the disputed information was updated.\n\n66. Below is an example of the relevant portion of an Experian results letter : 67. reinvestigation outcome for each.\n\nDirectly below that, Experian lists the disputed accounts and the COMPLAINT 16 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 17 of 40 Page ID # :17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 68. On subsequent pages, Experian typically displays a snapshot of how the disputed account appears before and after the reinvestigation. However, the after snapshot of the account often looks nearly identical to the before snapshot, and the results letter does not explicitly identify what information was updated or changed. Instead, consumers are required to deduce that on their own.\n\nIn cases of deleted tradelines, no snapshots are provided.\n\nCOMPLAINT 17 XXXX XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 18 of 40 Page ID # :18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 69. Below is an example of a before and after snapshot from a letter that informed the consumer that their information was updated. The consumer was left to deduce what information was updated. This snapshot was not accompanied by any explanation of what information changed.\n\n70. Experians results letters often provide inaccurate, contradictory, ambiguous, or confusing information to consumers regarding the outcome of their COMPLAINT 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 19 of 40 Page ID # :19 reinvestigation, and fail to inform them of what, if anything, changed on their consumer report as a result of the dispute.\n\n71. For example, a number of Experian results letters state the result of a reinvestigation as Outcome : Processed This item was either updated or deleted ; Please review your report for the details.\n\n72. Although a typical results letter includes the before and after snapshots of an updated tradeline, these letters only display how the tradeline appears before the dispute.\n\n73. In addition, these results letters use three of the four potential dispute outcomes to describe the results of the investigation ( processed, updated, and deleted ), including two potentially inconsistent outcomes updated and deleted.\n\n74. Below is an example of the relevant portion of an Experian results letter : COMPLAINT 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 20 of 40 Page ID # :20 75. These results letters do not provide the result of the reinvestigation.\n\nThey are confusing and contradictory, and do not adequately inform consumers of the outcome of the reinvestigation. The letters do not identify what information was updated or deleted or even provide an updated credit report or an after snapshot for the consumer to attempt to self-identify the update or deletion. They also fail to clearly identify whether information was updated, or deleted, or both.\n\n76. Another subset of Experian results letters pairs a reinvestigation result of Outcome : Updated with before and after snapshots of the tradeline that show no change.\n\n77. Below is an example of the relevant portion of an Experian results letter : COMPLAINT 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 21 of 40 Page ID # :21 78. This subset of results letters fails to describe the results of the reinvestigation to the consumer. They do not identify what information was updated and they do not depict any updates in the accompanying tradeline snapshots. Consumers receiving such a notice have no way of deciphering what information was updated and why, or whether the disputed information itself was updated. Consumers also can not determine if the update was the result of the reinvestigation, or due to some other reason.\n\n79. A third subset of Experians results letters describe the outcome of a reinvestigation as Updated and provided the following definition : Information on this item has been updated. Please review your report for the details.\n\nCOMPLAINT 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 22 of 40 Page ID # :22 80. Below is an example of the relevant por","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-26T23:51:03.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"080XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14307495","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-26T23:33:47.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Information reflected in consumer reports is <em>provided</em> to CRAs by data furnishers, such as banks, <em>credit</em> card companies, or debt collectors, and other sources. Errors in consumer reports can be significant for consumers, resulting in the denial of <em>credit</em>, employment, or housing, or being offered less favorable <em>credit</em> terms.\n\n5."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[4.2935805,"14307495"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14307855","_score":4.286374,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 1 of 40 Page ID # :1 XXXX XXXX, Mass. Bar No. XXXX ( Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending ) Email : XXXX CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Phone : XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, Cal. Bar No. XXXX Email : XXXX CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number : XXXX COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, REDRESS, DISGORGEMENT, AND CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES ACTION SEEKING NATIONWIDE RELIEF INTRODUCTION 1. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( Bureau ) brings this action against Experian Information Solutions , Inc. ( Experian or the Company ) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau, Plaintiff, vs.\n\nExperian Information Solutions , Inc., Defendant. \nCOMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 2 of 40 Page ID # :2 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( a ) ( b ), 5564, and 5565. This action alleges that Experian violated both Acts by failing to reasonably reinvestigate consumer disputes challenging the accuracy or completeness of information in consumer reports, including by failing to forward all relevant information to furnishers, failing to provide adequate or accurate notice to consumers of the outcome of their disputes, and failing to utilize reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information in consumers files.\n\n2. Experian is one of the largest consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) in the country. A primary aspect of its business is collecting and organizing data on most adult Americans to generate consumer reports, consumer file disclosures, and credit scores that reflect consumers credit activity and history. As Experian acknowledges, its consumer reporting services play an integral part in the financial lives of millions of people.\n\n3. This is because Experian sells its consumer reports to creditors and businesses who are evaluating whether to offer a consumer various products, services, and opportunities, such as a loan, a job, or housing.\n\n4. Information reflected in consumer reports is provided to CRAs by data furnishers, such as banks, credit card companies, or debt collectors, and other sources. Errors in consumer reports can be significant for consumers, resulting in the denial of credit, employment, or housing, or being offered less favorable credit terms.\n\n5. Recognizing the serious consequences borne by consumers when their consumer reports contain inaccurate information, Congress enacted the FCRA in 1970 to, in part, [ e ] nsure that consumer reporting agencies [ like Experian ] COMPLAINT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 3 of 40 Page ID # :3 exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( 4 ).\n\n6. The FCRA demands that CRAs use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information contained in consumer reports, 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), and provides a mechanism for consumers to dispute any incomplete or inaccurate information in their report. 15 U.S.C. 1681i.\n\n7. When a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of information in their consumer report, the FCRA requires Experian to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the disputed information and report the results of the reinvestigation to the consumer, all within certain timelines. 15 U.S.C.\n\n1681i ( a ). At the conclusion of the reinvestigation, Experian must modify or delete any item of information found to be inaccurate or incomplete, or that it could not verify. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ). For any information deleted as a result of a dispute, the FCRA imposes specific obligations on Experian that must be satisfied before that information may be reinserted into a consumers file. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ).\n\n8. Despite its obligations under the FCRA, Experian fails consumers who dispute information in their consumer reports at every stage of the dispute process.\n\n9. First, Experians faulty intake procedures fail to accurately convey all relevant information regarding the dispute to the original furnisher of the disputed information, and, at times, Experian simply fails to provide furnishers with consumer-submitted documentation that supports the dispute.\n\nCOMPLAINT 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 4 of 40 Page ID # :4 10. Second, Experian uncritically accepts the original furnishers response to the disputed information, even when that response was improbable or illogical on its face or when Experian has other information in its possession that alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the furnisher might be unreliable.\n\n11. Third, at the conclusion of its reinvestigation, Experian sends consumers notices that fail to inform them of the reinvestigation results, and instead provides information that is confusing, ambiguous, incorrect, and internally inconsistent.\n\n12. Additionally, Experians problematic dispute resolution processes have resulted in several other issues, including Experians outright failure to reinvestigate a significant number of disputes within the timeline required by the FCRA, its ongoing refusal to reinvestigate hard inquiry disputes, and its routine failure to ensure that previously deleted tradelines are not improperly reinserted into a consumers file.\n\n13. Experians faulty dispute intake procedures and failure to provide furnishers with consumer-submitted documentation, uncritical deference to furnishers response to the disputed information, and failure to inform consumers of the results of reinvestigations also violate the CFPAs prohibition on unfair acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) ( 1 ).\n\n14. Experians failures are an abdication of its obligations under the FCRA and the CFPA, and the Bureau brings this action to rectify these failings and impose civil money penalties.\n\nCOMPLAINT 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 5 of 40 Page ID # :5 XXXX XXXX. XXXX  is proper in this district because the Defendant resides and does business in this district. 12 U.S.C. 5564 ( f ).\n\nPARTIES 16. The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States created by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5491 ( a ). The Bureau has independent litigating authority and is authorized to initiate civil actions in federal district court to secure appropriate relief for violations of Federal consumer financial law, 12 U.S.C.\n\n5564 ( a ) - ( b ) and 5565, including the FCRA and the CFPA, 12 U.S.C.\n\n5481 ( 12 ) ( F ) and ( 14 ).\n\n17. Experian is a nationwide consumer reporting agency with its North American Headquarters in XXXX XXXX, California. At all times material to this Complaint, Experian transacted business in this district and nationwide. \n18. Experian collects, analyzes, maintains, or provides consumer report information or other account information, including information related to the credit history of consumers. This information is used or expected to be used in connection with any decision regarding the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service. These products or services are consumer financial products or services covered by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 5 ) and ( 15 ) ( A ) ( ix ).\n\n19. Further, Experian offers consumer reports, consumer file disclosures and credit scores, which are consumer financial products or services because they are or relate to consumer reports or other account information, including information relating to the credit history of consumers that Experian collects and maintains about a consumers account. Experian offers or provides these financial COMPLAINT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 6 of 40 Page ID # :6 products and services to consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and delivers, offers, and provides them in connection with consumer financial products or services such as consumer credit. These products or services are therefore consumer financial products or services covered by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 5 ) and ( 15 ) ( A ) ( ix ).\n\n20. Because Experian engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service, Experian is a covered person under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481 ( 6 ).\n\n21. Experian is a consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA.\n\nSee 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). Experian compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis as that term is defined in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( p ).\n\nExperian is therefore subject to the FCRA.\n\nBACKGROUND 22. The FCRA imposes a variety of obligations on CRAs like Experian to ensure that they report accurate information in consumer reports.\n\n23. A core obligation is that if a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information in their consumer report, the CRA must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is accurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).\n\n24. Within five business days of receiving the dispute, the CRA must provide notice of the dispute to the furnisher of the disputed information. A furnisher is any entity that provides financial information about a consumer to a CRA, such as a bank, credit card company, or debt collector. The notice to the COMPLAINT 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 7 of 40 Page ID # :7 furnisher must include all relevant information received by the CRA regarding the dispute. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ).\n\n25. The CRA must complete the reinvestigation within 30 days after the dispute is received unless an extension is sought. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ).\n\n26. After the reinvestigation, the CRA must provide the consumer written notice of the results of the reinvestigation no later than five business days after its completion. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ).\n\n27. The FCRA further requires that the furnisher maintain reasonable procedures to prevent the reinsertion of previously deleted information, notify consumers within five business days if previously deleted information was reinserted, and ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports. 15 U.S.C.\n\n1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), ( C ), 1681e ( b ).\n\ne-OSCAR and the ACDV Process 28. When a CRA receives a consumer dispute, the primary way information about the dispute is communicated to furnishers is on a web-based platform called e-OSCAR. Information about the disputed information is transmitted over the e-OSCAR platform via an Automated Credit Dispute Verification form ( ACDV ).\n\n29. The ACDV is a one-page form that contains identifying information about the consumer such as name, address, social security , and date of birth. The ACDV also reflects the disputed account ( also known as a tradeline ) as it is currently reported. The ACDV provides limited information about the consumers dispute, including a three-digit dispute code that indicates the basis of the dispute. There is sometimes a short free-form description of the dispute, based on COMPLAINT 7 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 8 of 40 Page ID # :8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 information provided by the consumer. The ACDV may also have other relevant information attached to it, including consumer-submitted documentation supporting the dispute.\n\n30. Below is a reproduction of an Experian ACDV : 31. After the furnisher reviews the information provided in and attached to the ACDV, it returns the ACDV to the CRA, indicating with a two-digit response code whether the disputed information is accurate or should be modified or deleted.\n\n32. The ACDV is typically the only way CRAs and furnishers communicate during a reinvestigation.\n\nCOMPLAINT 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 9 of 40 Page ID # :9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Experian Fails to Adequately Convey All Relevant Information to Furnishers 33. Consumers who identify inaccurate or incomplete information in their Experian consumer report can submit disputes to Experian by mail, over the telephone, or electronically through Experians website ( its Online Dispute Center ) or mobile application. Experian typically processes over a million consumer disputes per month.\n\n34. When submitting a dispute, consumers can, and frequently do, support their disputes by submitting relevant documentation, such as bank statements, canceled checks, or settlement agreements, among other things. Consumers can submit supporting documents via mail or electronically.\n\n35. For disputes accompanied by consumer-submitted documentation, Experians policies require that its agents determine whether the documents are sufficiently conclusive for Experian to make the change requested by the consumer. Experian refers to this as making an internal update.\n\n36. Experian resolves a minority of disputes via an internal update. If Experian does not make an internal update, it prepares an ACDV to transmit to the furnisher through e-OSCAR. Experians policy directs its agents to attach any consumer-submitted documentation that contains additional relevant information to the ACDV, although in some cases its agents fail to do so.\n\n37. The dispute codes included in the ACDV are integral to the dispute resolution process. As explained above, dispute codes are used by Experian to communicate the underlying basis of the dispute to the furnisher.\n\nCOMPLAINT 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 10 of 40 Page ID # :10 38. Because Experian relies on the ACDV to communicate with furnishers about consumer disputes, it is important that Experians selected dispute code accurately conveys the basis of the dispute to the furnisher. But Experian routinely sends dispute codes to furnishers that mischaracterize or fail to convey highly relevant information about consumers disputes.\n\n39. Many of these failures stem from Experians Online Dispute Center.\n\nWhen consumers submit a dispute on the Online Dispute Center, they select a dispute description from a prepopulated list to categorize the nature of their dispute, which Experian then translates into a formal e-OSCAR dispute code that it inputs into the ACDV. Experians Online Dispute Center presents consumers with a significantly smaller set of dispute descriptions than Experian uses when consumers have submitted mail and telephone disputes. On the Online Dispute Center, for example, there are no dispute descriptions that correspond to formal e- OSCAR codes for account settled, date of first delinquency disputed, paid by insurance, consumer stated company will delete, and consumer stated company will change.\n\n40. As an illustration, Experians Online Dispute Center instructs consumers to select a dispute description of Account paid in full if consumers believe [ they ] have paid the account in full or that it was paid in settlement. A separate dispute description for account settled is not available to consumers on the Online Dispute Center, even though it would more precisely describe the nature of the dispute.\n\n41. When Experian then notifies the furnisher about these disputes via an ACDV, it translates the dispute description selected by the consumer to the formal COMPLAINT 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 11 of 40 Page ID # :11 e-OSCAR dispute code indicating that the consumer is disputing the accounts status ( i.e., whether the lender or creditor considers the account current or in collections ), even though a separate, more precise e-OSCAR dispute code exists that would indicate to the furnisher that the consumer is claiming the disputed account has been settled. Indeed, Experian makes no use of the e-OSCAR settlement dispute code for disputes received through the Online Dispute Center.\n\n42. This is just one example of how furnishers receive either a mischaracterization or a less precise description of the basis for disputes submitted via the Online Dispute Center.\n\n43. Other failures stem from Experians frequent use of an inaccurate or confusing dispute code when processing disputes submitted via telephone or mail.\n\nFor example, when a consumer lodges a dispute claiming that an account was paid, Experian inserts into the ACDV the e-OSCAR dispute code labeled Claims account closed instead of an appropriate dispute code for paid accounts.\n\n44. As another example, Experian inserts into the ACDV the intentionally generic e-OSCAR dispute code labeled Claims inaccurate information. Did not provide specific dispute. even where the consumer provides specific information pertaining to the dispute, such as disputing the date of first delinquency or the payment of an account, and for which a more specific dispute code, such as Disputes Date of First Delinquency and Disputes present/previous Account Status, History is available and appropriate.\n\n45. And as another example, Experian agents apply dispute codes requesting updates that are already reflected on consumers tradelines and therefore do not correspond to the actual substance of consumers disputes. As one COMPLAINT 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 12 of 40 Page ID # :12 illustration, agents apply the Claims account closed dispute code to tradelines that already display as closed. The fact that the update requested is already reflected on the tradeline suggests that the basis for the underlying dispute differs from the dispute code selected by Experian, and that Experian has not accurately described the nature of the dispute to the furnisher.\n\n46. By failing to select appropriate dispute codes, Experian fails to accurately convey the basis of the consumers disputes to furnishers in what is usually the only communication Experian has with the furnisher during its reinvestigation. By using inaccurate or misleading dispute codes, Experian fails to provide the furnisher with all relevant information about the consumers dispute and fails to fulfill its reasonable reinvestigation obligations.\n\n47. In addition to transmitting misleading, confusing, or inaccurate dispute codes to furnishers, Experian also fails to always include relevant consumer submitted documentation with the ACDV transmitted to the furnisher, despite Company policy requiring agents to do so. Relevant consumer documentation often contains information that is not conveyed elsewhere on the ACDV, including probative evidence that supports the merits of the consumers dispute. As a result, Experian fails to provide the furnisher with all relevant information about the consumers dispute and fails to fulfill its reasonable reinvestigation obligations.\n\n48. These failures hinder the reinvestigation.\n\n49. As a result of the above, Experian fails to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and convey all relevant information to furnishers, which causes or increases the risk that inaccurate information remains in consumers files.\n\nCOMPLAINT 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 13 of 40 Page ID # :13 Experian Over-relies on Furnishers ACDV Responses During its Reinvestigation Even When Presented with Information Suggesting that the Furnisher is Unreliable 50. Experian regularly over-relies on furnishers ACDV responses when conducting a reinvestigation, even when Experian possesses information that alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the furnisher of the disputed information might be unreliable. As a result, Experian permits inaccurate information to remain in consumers files. Experian does so even though cost- effective measures exist to resolve any outstanding factual issues.\n\n51. Experians over-reliance on furnishers ACDV responses occurs in at least three categories of disputes : disputes where consumer documentation provides highly probative evidence about the dispute, disputes where Experian itself possesses relevant information about the dispute in its own consumer files, and disputes where Experian receives illogical and inconsistent ACDV responses from furnishers.\n\n52. Consumers often provide documentation that, at a minimum, should put Experian on notice that reinvestigation beyond the furnishers ACDV response is necessary. For example, consumers frequently provide Experian with the date or case number of a bankruptcy petition discharging a particular debt that is still being reported on their consumer report, or documents reflecting an agreement to settle a debt for a certain amount. In other instances, consumers provide Experian documentation showing that the furnisher had previously agreed to delete or correct information in the disputed tradeline.\n\nCOMPLAINT 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 XXXX XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 14 of 40 Page ID # :14 53. Such documents are sufficient to put Experian on notice that the furnisher may have transmitted unreliable information. Yet, Experian regularly gives the supporting documents no weight in resolving the dispute and routinely conducts no further reinvestigation of the dispute beyond the furnishers ACDV response.\n\n54. Next, Experian frequently possesses relevant supporting information in its own consumer files that should alert it to a furnishers unreliability. For example, Experian often possesses information confirming the existence of a bankruptcy fitting the description in the consumers dispute, or information confirming that a consumer has made a settlement payment. Often this information alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the tradeline disputed by the consumer might be inaccurate and the furnisher might be unreliable. Yet, Experian routinely conducts no additional reinvestigation based on this information, and instead relies solely on the furnishers ACDV response to resolve the dispute.\n\n55. Finally, Experian frequently receives furnisher responses that contain data that is either illogical or facially and internally inconsistent, but it still accepts the furnishers response without further reinvestigation into the dispute.\n\n56. For example, Experian receives ACDV responses with inconsistent information, such as indicating a consumers overdue balance is greater than the total amount due. Other ACDV responses state that a consumer first became delinquent on an installment debt a month after the consumer had paid the account to a XXXX  balance. \n57. Receiving an ACDV with illogical or inconsistent data is alerts or should alert Experian to the possibility that the original furnisher of the disputed COMPLAINT 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 15 of 40 Page ID # :15 information might be unreliable and the disputed information may be inaccurate.\n\nYet, Experian regularly accepts the ACDV response in those circumstances and ignores the fact that it contains illogical or inconsistent information.\n\n58. In some instances where Experian receives illogical responses from furnishers, Experian partially implements the furnishers ACDV response on the consumers tradeline, but also unilaterally alters the information in the ACDV to make it appear logical and consistent. In doing so, Experian does not take steps to ensure that the changed tradeline is in fact complete and accurate ; Experian simply changes the tradeline by applying predetermined business rules. Experian does not, for example, verify the changes with the furnisher, base the changes on another reliable source of information, or confront the furnisher with the apparent error.\n\n59. To the detriment of consumers, in all of the above-described scenarios, Experian routinely does nothing more than send an ACDV to the furnisher and implement its response.\n\n60. Experian does so without consulting readily available, inexpensive third-party sources of information, such as bankruptcy court records, that could accurately and definitively resolve the consumers dispute. And Experian routinely does not pose any queries to the furnisher for specific factual information, such as the authenticity of a document, the existence of a settlement agreement, or why the furnishers response appears to be internally illogical and inconsistent.\n\n61. Experians failures to conduct reasonable reinvestigations negatively impact consumers.\n\n62. First, Experians over-reliance on furnishers ACDV responses results in consumer reports maintaining inaccurate information, such as a tradeline with an COMPLAINT 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 16 of 40 Page ID # :16 inaccurate status or balance. This inaccurate information can have deleterious impacts on consumers, including lowering their credit score, the denial of credit, housing, employment, or other goods or services, or causing consumers to obtain less favorable credit terms.\n\n63. Additionally, consumers waste their time and resources submitting disputes that are not adequately reinvestigated and gathering and submitting documents that are given no consideration in the dispute process.\n\nExperian Fails to Inform Consumers of Reinvestigation Results 64. At the conclusion of a reinvestigation, Experian sends consumers written results letters intended to fulfill its statutory obligation to report the results of the reinvestigation.\n\n65. Experians results letters include an initial section labeled How to Read Your Results which lists the possible reinvestigation outcomes of Deleted, Remains, Updated, and Processed and their accompanying definitions.\n\nNotably, Experian defines Updated four different ways, some of which indicate information other than the disputed information was updated.\n\n66. Below is an example of the relevant portion of an Experian results letter : 67. reinvestigation outcome for each.\n\nDirectly below that, Experian lists the disputed accounts and the COMPLAINT 16 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 17 of 40 Page ID # :17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 68. On subsequent pages, Experian typically displays a snapshot of how the disputed account appears before and after the reinvestigation. However, the after snapshot of the account often looks nearly identical to the before snapshot, and the results letter does not explicitly identify what information was updated or changed. Instead, consumers are required to deduce that on their own.\n\nIn cases of deleted tradelines, no snapshots are provided.\n\nCOMPLAINT 17 XXXX XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 18 of 40 Page ID # :18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 69. Below is an example of a before and after snapshot from a letter that informed the consumer that their information was updated. The consumer was left to deduce what information was updated. This snapshot was not accompanied by any explanation of what information changed.\n\n70. Experians results letters often provide inaccurate, contradictory, ambiguous, or confusing information to consumers regarding the outcome of their COMPLAINT 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 19 of 40 Page ID # :19 reinvestigation, and fail to inform them of what, if anything, changed on their consumer report as a result of the dispute.\n\n71. For example, a number of Experian results letters state the result of a reinvestigation as Outcome : Processed This item was either updated or deleted ; Please review your report for the details.\n\n72. Although a typical results letter includes the before and after snapshots of an updated tradeline, these letters only display how the tradeline appears before the dispute.\n\n73. In addition, these results letters use three of the four potential dispute outcomes to describe the results of the investigation ( processed, updated, and deleted ), including two potentially inconsistent outcomes updated and deleted.\n\n74. Below is an example of the relevant portion of an Experian results letter : COMPLAINT 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 20 of 40 Page ID # :20 75. These results letters do not provide the result of the reinvestigation.\n\nThey are confusing and contradictory, and do not adequately inform consumers of the outcome of the reinvestigation. The letters do not identify what information was updated or deleted or even provide an updated credit report or an after snapshot for the consumer to attempt to self-identify the update or deletion. They also fail to clearly identify whether information was updated, or deleted, or both.\n\n76. Another subset of Experian results letters pairs a reinvestigation result of Outcome : Updated with before and after snapshots of the tradeline that show no change.\n\n77. Below is an example of the relevant portion of an Experian results letter : COMPLAINT 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 21 of 40 Page ID # :21 78. This subset of results letters fails to describe the results of the reinvestigation to the consumer. They do not identify what information was updated and they do not depict any updates in the accompanying tradeline snapshots. Consumers receiving such a notice have no way of deciphering what information was updated and why, or whether the disputed information itself was updated. Consumers also can not determine if the update was the result of the reinvestigation, or due to some other reason.\n\n79. A third subset of Experians results letters describe the outcome of a reinvestigation as Updated and provided the following definition : Information on this item has been updated. Please review your report for the details.\n\nCOMPLAINT 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case XXXX Document 1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 22 of 40 Page ID # :22 80. Below is an example of the relevant por","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-26T23:51:03.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"080XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14307855","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-26T23:50:34.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Information reflected in consumer reports is <em>provided</em> to CRAs by data furnishers, such as banks, <em>credit</em> card companies, or debt collectors, and other sources. Errors in consumer reports can be significant for consumers, resulting in the denial of <em>credit</em>, employment, or housing, or being offered less favorable <em>credit</em> terms.\n\n5."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[4.286374,"14307855"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10455744","_score":4.142684,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX XXXX Department, This credit dispute is being submitted as a notification of creditors who are in violation of the CARES Act during the XXXX Pandemic. The accounts that are being disputed, are either in violation of the CARES Act or do not belong to me. Policy states... \nStatement on Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V in Light of the CARES Act The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( Bureau ) recognizes the serious impact the XXXX pandemic is having on the financial well-being of many consumers and on the operations of many supervised entities, including actors in the consumer reporting system, and the challenges of this unique and rapidly evolving situation. Last Friday, on XX/XX/XXXX, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ( \" CARES Ad ' ), which provides critical emergency assistance to consumers and businesses affected by XXXX and includes provisions addressing consumer reporting requirements. \nConsumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains credit, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 million consumers in the United States who have credit files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers. The continued operation of the consumer reporting system will play a critical role in the functioning of the consumer financial services market, promoting fair and efficient access to credit and benefiting consumers and creditors alike. The Bureau understands that the current crisis impacts the financial well-being of consumers and poses operational challenges for consumer reporting agencies and furnishers, accommodation, the furnisher report the credit obligation or account as current; or ( Il ) if the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the maintain the delinquent status during the period in which the accommodation is in effect; and ( bb ) if the consumer brings the credit obligation or account current during the period described in item ( aa ), report the credit obligation or account as current '' ). In addition, section 3513 of the CARES Act addresses the furnishing of certain student loans for which payments are suspended. Rendering them unable to investigate consumer reporting disputes within the timeframes the FCRA requires. Furnishers include a wide variety of businesses that vary in size and sophistication and can range from small retailers to very large financial services firms, each of which will face unique challenges due to the XXXX pandemic. In evaluating compliance with the FCRA as a result of the pandemic, the Bureau will consider a consumer reporting agencies or furnisher 's individual circumstances and does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against a consumer reporting agency or furnisher making good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible, even if dispute investigations take longer than the statutory timeframe. The Bureau reminds furnishers and consumer reporting agencies that they may take advantage of statutory and regulatory provisions that eliminate the obligation to investigate disputes submitted by credit repair organizations and disputes they reasonably determine to be frivolous or irrelevant. \nThe Bureau will consider the significant current constraints on furnisher and consumer reporting agency time, information, and other resources in assessing if such a determination is reasonable.\n\nRegulatory Requirements This Policy Statement is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau 's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rule making requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 USC 553 ( b ). Because no notice of proposed rule making is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 USC 603 ( a ), 604 ( a ). The Bureau has determined that this Policy Statement does not impose any new or revise any existing record keeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 USC 3501-3521.\n\nThe trade lines listed below are items currently within my credit file, and none of these are related to any transaction that was made by me. It is my official statement that someone and/or several people have opened these accounts and made transactions on these account without my knowledge or authorization, my personal information has been used to obtain goods, services, or money : and the person ( s ) responsible for creating these accounts.\n\nI have filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission, which I have enclosed within this dispute package. I have reached out to all of these creditors and have made them aware that these accounts were fraudulently opened, and they have known this for several months, but have yet to remove these accounts from my credit reports. Some of the creditors have been cooperative and have removed the accounts, but others have refused to remove the fraudulent accounts. Therefore, I have come to you, the credit reporting agencies to resolve these issues. The law says that you must block these accounts while being investigated, and I expect that you will do so. \nI made an attempt to file a police report, but I was informed by my county that it did not constitute as an emergency, and that they would not file the report because I didn't have any information on the person who used my information, nor did I know how my information was obtained by this person.\n\nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means that you, this credit-reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts. \nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit reporting agency, report accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these account accounts/items doesnt belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be BLOCKED and DELETED! \nPolicy states... \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '', Section 1681c ( 2 ) Block of information resulting from identity theft.\n\n1. Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than four ( 4 ) business days after the date of receipt by such agency of...\n\n1. Appropriate proof of identity of the consumer ; 2. A copy of an identity theft report 3. The identification of such information by the consumer ; and 4. A statement by the consumer that the information relating to transaction by the consumer.\n\nAll furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies must comply with all applicable regulations. Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.\n\nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance. The text of the FCRA is available at the website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. A list of tile sections of tile FCRA cross-referenced to the.U.S Code is at the end of this document.\n\nSection 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy Guidelines results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Section 623 ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) Complete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information to the CRA ). Section Promptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section Duty to Report Voluntary Closing of Credit Accounts If a consumer voluntarily closes a credit account, any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnished information to one or more CRAs must report this fact when .it provides information to CRAs for the time period in which the account was closed. Section 623 ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nDuty to Report Dates of Delinquencies If a furnisher reports information concerning a delinquent account placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, the furnisher must, within 90 days after reporting the information, provide the CRA with the month and the year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action, so that the agency will know how long to keep the information in the consumers file. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nAny person, such as a debt collector, that has acquired or is responsible for collecting delinquent accounts and that reports information to CRAs may comply with the requirements of Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( until there is a consumer dispute ) by reporting the slime delinquency date previously reported by the creditor. If the creditor did not report this date, they may comply with the FCRA by establishing reasonable procedures to obtain and report delinquency dates, or, if a delinquency date can not be reasonably obtained, by following reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date when the account was placed for collection charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Section Duties of Financial Institutions When Reporting Negative Information Financial institutions that furnish information to \" nationwide '' consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603 ( p ), must notify consumers in writing if they may furnish or have furnished negative information to a CRA. Section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ). The CFPB has prescribed model disclosures, 12 CFR Part 1022, App. B.\n\nDuties When Furnishing Medical Information A furnisher whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices ( and such furnisher 's agents or assignees ) is a medical information furnisher for the purposes of the FCRA and must notify all CRAs to which it reports of this fact. Section 623 ( a ) ( 9 ). This notice will enable CRAs to comply with their duties under Section 604 ( g ) when reporting medical information.\n\nDuties When ID Theft Occurs Including staffing challenges, that could temporarily impede their ability to timely comply with their statutory and regulatory consumer reporting obligations.\n\nThe Bureau is therefore issuing this policy statement ( Policy Statement ) to highlight furnishers ' responsibilities under the CARES Act and inform consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of the Bureau 's flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Regulation V. The Bureau intends to consider the circumstances that entities face as a result of the XXXX pandemic and entities ' good faith efforts to comply with their statutory and regulatory obligations as soon as possible. The Bureau believes that this flexibility will help furnishers and consumer reporting agencies to manage the challenges the current crisis poses. It also will enable consumers, as well as lenders, insurers, employers and other consumer report users, to maintain confidence in the consumer reporting system.\n\nBelow are examples of the flexibility the Bureau intends to provide in the consumer reporting system. \nFurnishing Consumer Information Impacted by XXXX : The Bureau reiterates its prior guidance encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers and other customers affected by XXXX to meet their financial needs. While companies generally are not legally obligated to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, the Bureau encourages them to continue furnishing information despite the current crisis. Furnishers ' providing accurate information to consumer reporting agencies produces substantial benefits for consumers, users of consumer reports, and the economy as a whole. \nThe CARES Act, a section of which amends the FCRA, generally requires furnishers to report as current certain credit obligations for which furnishers make payment accommodations to consumers affected by XXXX XXXXXXXX who have sought such accommodations from their lendersl .The Bureau expects furnishers to comply with the CARES Act and will work with furnishers as needed to help them do so. \nMany furnishers are or will be offering consumers affected by XXXX various forms of payment flexibility, including allowing consumers to defer or skip payments, as required by the CARES Act or voluntarily. Such payment accommodations will avoid the reporting of delinquencies resulting from the effects of XXXX. The Bureau supports furnishers ' voluntary efforts to provide payment relief, and it does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies that accurately reflects the payment relief measures they are employing.\n\nDisputes : The FCRA generally requires that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers investigate disputes within 30 days of receipt of the consumer 's dispute. The 30-day period may be extended to 45 days if the consumer provides additional information that is relevant to the investigation during the 30-day period.\n\nThe Bureau is aware that some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may face significant operational disruptions that pose challenges for them in investigating consumer disputes. For example, some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may experience significant reductions in staff, difficulty intaking disputes, or lack of access to necessary information, 1 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 5 4201 ( XXXX ) ( stating that, with certain exceptions, \" if a furnisher makes an accommodation with respect to 1 or more payments on a credit obligation or account Of a consumer, and the consumer makes the payments or is not required to make 1 or more payments pursuant to the The below listed accounts by the Original Creditors, who have reported these accounts within my credit reports, were not opened by me. I also did not give my authorization for anyone else to open these accounts. Someone else of who did these that I did not know. \nThese original creditors are being reported incorrectly, and/or the accounts do not belong to me. \n\n1. Account involved in litigation \" an incorrect high balance '' an inaccurate date of last activity \" REAGED ACCOUNTS '' \" Reinsertion WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE '' an undated late pay a charge off listed as open a collection account with a limit. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Account Number : XXXX Please remove it from my credit report. \n\n\nPolicy States According to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Procedure in Case of Disputed Accuracy ( a ) Reinvestigation of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required a. In general. Subject to Subsection ( f ), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumers file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly thorough a reseller, of such dispute free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.\n\nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means to you, this credit reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts.\n\nFinally, you are reporting the INQUIRES that are a result of the same type of fraudulent activities. It must be noted that I did not apply for credit accounts with the below listed and companies and creditors, some of these are the result of attempts to open accounts, but the companies did not approve these accounts. Therefore, these inquiries must be deleted from within my credit file. You can not delete the fraudulently opened accounts without also deleting the fraudulent inquires.\n\nInquires that are made by someone else without my authorization is not a factual record of access to my credit, it is a fraudulent activity, and it must be addressed as such. The reason that these inquires are being disputed is because they were not made by me, and when I report this to you, it is your responsibility to investigate my claims, and when you can not prove that these inquires were made by me, they must be removed from my credit file. It is not my responsibility to go directly to each creditor, the obligation lies at your feet because you are reporting inaccurate information within my credit report, and this violates the FCRA.\n\nIt should be noted that any inquiry that was not made by me is not a factual record, just as a fraudulently opened account is not a factual record and not referred to the creditor to be disputed directly with them. The credit reporting agencies have attempted to address an inquiry as a factual record of file access, but if it was done though fraudulent means, it is not a factual record. As a consumer I should not be required to dispute each fraudulent inquiry with each company. These inquires are the result of fraudulent activity and therefore inaccurate information in which the credit reporting agencies or the creditors can not verify, meaning that these inquiries are unverifiable information and must be deleted from out of my credit file.\n\nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit reporting agency, report an accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these accounts and/or items do mot belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be UPDATED and/or DELETED! \n( SEE THE ENCLOSED EXHIBIT OF FRAUDULENT INQUIRIES BEING DISPUTED ) CREDIT INQUIRES DATE OF INQUIRY : Policy states... \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '' 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), Procedure In Case of Disputed Accuracy...\n\n( a ) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required ( a ) In general. Subject to Subsection ( O, if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer 's file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.\n\nThe FCRA requires furnishers to comply with federal guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. Federal regulations and guidelines are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( e ). \nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections Duty to Correct and Update Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified for the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623 ( a ) ( I ) ( B ).\n\nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute. Section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ).\n\nFurnishers must comply with federal regulations that identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Under these regulations, furnishers must complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a \" credit repair organization. '' Section 623 ( a ) (?. Federal regulations are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.Section 623 ( a ) (?\n\nDuties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher that a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 623 ( b ) ( I ) ( A ) and Report the results to the CRA that referred the dispute and, if the investigation establishes that the information was in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the All furnishers must have in place reasonable procedures to respond to notifications from CRAS that information furnished is the result of identity theft, and to prevent refurnishing the information in the future. A furnisher may not furnish Information that a consumer has identified as resulting from identity theft unless the furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer that the information is correct. Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). If a furnisher learns that it has furnished inaccurate information due to identity theft, it must notify each CRA of the correct information and must thereafter report only complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). When any furnisher of information is notified pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 605B that a debt has resulted from identity theft, the furnisher many not sell, transfer, or place for collection the debt except in certain limited circumstances. Section 615 ( 0.\n\nThe CFPB 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore, has more information about the FCRA, including publications for business and the full text of the FCRA.\n\nCitations for FCRA sections in the U.S. Code, IS U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : I have provided all of the above listed items within this package. Therefore, I expect these listed accounts to be deleted and blocked within four ( 4 ) business days. This is clearly an identity theft issue. I am also entitled to receive a free copy of my credit report, so I am requesting a free credit report and that all of these accounts, public records items, and inquiries be permanently blocked and deleted. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX : Identity Theft report Proof of Identity Copy of Account Statements showing Fraudulent Items FTC Notice to Furnishers","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-16T00:32:45.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30318","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10455744","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-10-16T00:21:40.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains <em>credit</em>, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 <em>million</em> consumers in the United States who have <em>credit</em> files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[4.142684,"10455744"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8440132","_score":4.139786,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ssn # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Legal Department, This credit dispute is being submitted as a notification of creditors who are in violation of the CARES Act during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The accounts that are being disputed, are either in violation of the CARES Act or do not belong to me. Policy states... \nStatement on Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V in Light of the CARES Act The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( Bureau ) recognizes the serious impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the financial well-being of many consumers and on the operations of many supervised entities, including actors in the consumer reporting system, and the challenges of this unique and rapidly evolving situation. Last XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ( \\ '' CARES Ad\\ ' ), which provides critical emergency assistance to consumers and businesses affected by COVID-19 and includes provisions addressing consumer reporting requirements. \nConsumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains credit, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 million consumers in the United States who have credit files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers. The continued operation of the consumer reporting system will play a critical role in the functioning of the consumer financial services market, promoting fair and efficient access to credit and benefiting consumers and creditors alike. The Bureau understands that the current crisis impacts the financial well-being of consumers and poses operational challenges for consumer reporting agencies and furnishers, accommodation, the furnisher report the credit obligation or account as current; or ( Il ) if the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the maintain the delinquent status during the period in which the accommodation is in effect; and ( bb ) if the consumer brings the credit obligation or account current during the period described in item ( aa ), report the credit obligation or account as current\\ '' ). In addition, section 3513 of the CARES Act addresses the furnishing of certain student loans for which payments are suspended. Rendering them unable to investigate consumer reporting disputes within the timeframes the FCRA requires. Furnishers include a wide variety of businesses that vary in size and sophistication and can range from small retailers to very large financial services firms, each of which will face unique challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In evaluating compliance with the FCRA as a result of the pandemic, the Bureau will consider a consumer reporting agencies or furnisher\\ 's individual circumstances and does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against a consumer reporting agency or furnisher making good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible, even if dispute investigations take longer than the statutory timeframe. The Bureau reminds furnishers and consumer reporting agencies that they may take advantage of statutory and regulatory provisions that eliminate the obligation to investigate disputes submitted by credit repair organizations and disputes they reasonably determine to be frivolous or irrelevant.\n\nThe Bureau will consider the significant current constraints on furnisher and consumer reporting agency time, information, and other resources in assessing if such a determination is reasonable.\n\nRegulatory Requirements This Policy Statement is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau\\ 's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rule making requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 USC 553 ( b ). Because no notice of proposed rule making is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 USC 603 ( a ), 604 ( a ). The Bureau has determined that this Policy Statement does not impose any new or revise any existing record keeping, reporting,\nor disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 USC 3501-3521.\n\nThe trade lines listed below are items currently within my credit file, and none of these are related to any transaction that was made by me. It is my official statement that someone and/or several people have opened these accounts and made transactions on these account without my knowledge or authorization, my personal information has been used to obtain goods, services, or money : and the person ( s ) responsible for creating these accounts.\n\nI have filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission, which I have enclosed within this dispute package. I have reached out to all of these creditors and have made them aware that these accounts were fraudulently opened, and they have known this for several months, but have yet to remove these accounts from my credit reports. Some of the creditors have been cooperative and have removed the accounts, but others have refused to remove the fraudulent accounts. Therefore, I have come to you, the credit reporting agencies to resolve these issues. The law says that you must block these accounts while being investigated, and I expect that you will do so.\n\nI made an attempt to file a police report, but I was informed by my county that it did not constitute as an emergency, and that they would not file the report because I didn\\'t have any information on the person who used my information, nor did I know how my information was obtained by this person.\n\nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means that you, this credit-reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts.\n\nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit reporting agency, report accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these account accounts/items doesnt belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be BLOCKED and DELETED!\n\nPolicy states...\n\nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \\ '' FCRA\\ '', Section 1681c ( 2 ) Block of information resulting from identity theft.\n\n1. Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than four ( 4 ) business days after the date of receipt by such agency of...\n\n1. Appropriate proof of identity of the consumer ; 2. A copy of an identity theft report 3. The identification of such information by the consumer ; and 4. A statement by the consumer that the information relating to transaction by the consumer.\nAll furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies must comply with all applicable regulations. Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.\n\nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance. The text of the FCRA is available at the website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. A list of tile sections of tile FCRA cross-referenced to the.U.S Code is at the end of this document.\n\nSection 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy Guidelines results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Section 623 ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) Complete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant\nadditional information to the CRA ). Section Promptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section Duty to Report Voluntary Closing of Credit Accounts If a consumer voluntarily closes a credit account, any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnished information to one or more CRAs must report this fact when .it provides information to CRAs for the time period in which the account was closed. Section 623 ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nDuty to Report Dates of Delinquencies If a furnisher reports information concerning a delinquent account placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, the furnisher must, within 90 days after reporting the information, provide the CRA with the month and the year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action, so that the agency will know how long to keep the information in the consumers file. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nAny person, such as a debt collector, that has acquired or is responsible for collecting delinquent accounts and that reports information to CRAs may comply with the requirements of Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( until there is a consumer dispute ) by reporting the slime delinquency date previously reported by the creditor. If the creditor did not report this date, they may comply with the FCRA by establishing reasonable procedures to obtain and report delinquency dates, or, if a delinquency date can not be reasonably obtained, by following reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date when the account was placed for collection charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Section Duties of Financial Institutions When Reporting Negative Information Financial institutions that furnish information to \\ '' nationwide\\ '' consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603 ( p ), must notify consumers in writing if they may furnish or have furnished negative information to a CRA . Section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ). The CFPB has prescribed model disclosures, 12 CFR Part 1022, App. B. Duties When Furnishing Medical Information A furnisher whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices ( and such furnisher\\ 's agents or assignees ) is a medical information furnisher for the purposes of the FCRA and must notify all CRAs to which i\nt reports of this fact. Section 623 ( a ) ( 9 ). This notice will enable CRAs to comply with their duties under Section 604 ( g ) when reporting medical information.\n\nDuties When ID Theft Occurs Including staffing challenges, that could temporarily impede their ability to timely comply with their statutory and regulatory consumer reporting obligations.\n\nThe Bureau is therefore issuing this policy statement ( Policy Statement ) to highlight furnishers\\ ' responsibilities under the CARES Act and inform consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of the Bureau\\ 's flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Regulation V. The Bureau intends to consider the circumstances that entities face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and entities\\ ' good faith efforts to comply with their statutory and regulatory obligations as soon as possible. The Bureau believes that this flexibility will help furnishers and consumer reporting agencies to manage the challenges the current crisis poses. It also will enable consumers, as well as lenders, insurers, employers and other consumer report users, to maintain confidence in the consumer reporting system.\n\nBelow are examples of the flexibility the Bureau intends to provide in the consumer reporting system.\n\nFurnishing Consumer Information Impacted by COVID-19 : The Bureau reiterates its prior guidance encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers and other customers affected by COVID-19 to meet their financial needs. While companies generally are not legally obligated to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, the Bureau encourages them to continue furnishing information despite the current crisis. Furnishers\\ '\nproviding accurate information to consumer reporting agencies produces substantial benefits for consumers, users of consumer reports, and the economy as a whole.\n\nThe CARES Act, a section of which amends the FCRA, generally requires furnishers to report as current certain credit obligations for which furnishers make payment accommodations to consumers affected by COVID 19 who have sought such accommodations from their lendersl .The Bureau expects furnishers to comply with the CARES Act and will work with furnishers as needed to help them do so.\n\nMany furnishers are or will be offering consumers affected by COVID-19 various forms of payment flexibility, including allowing consumers to defer or skip payments, as required by the CARES Act or voluntarily. Such payment accommodations will avoid the reporting of delinquencies resulting from the effects of COVID-19. The Bureau supports furnishers\\ ' voluntary efforts to provide payment relief, and it does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies that accurately reflects the payment relief measures they are employing.\n\nDisputes : The FCRA generally requires that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers investigate disputes within 30 days of receipt of the consumer\\ 's dispute. The 30-day period may be extended to 45 days if the consumer provides additional information that is relevant to the investigation during the 30-day period.\n\nThe Bureau is aware that some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may face significant operational disruptions that pose challenges for them in investigating consumer disputes. For example, some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may experience significant reductions in staff, difficulty intaking disputes, or lack of access to necessary information, 1 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 5 4201 ( 2020 ) ( stating that, with certain exceptions, \\ '' if a furnisher makes an accommodation with respect to 1 or more payments on a credit obligation or account Of a consumer, and the consumer makes the payments or is not required to make 1 or more payments pursuant to the The below listed accounts by the Original Creditors, who have reported these accounts within my credit reports, were not opened by me. I also did not give my authorization for anyone else to open these accounts. Someone else of who did these that I did not know. \nThese original creditors are being reported incorrectly, and/or the accounts do not belong to me. \nXXXX XXXX account # XXXX XXXX acct # XXXX XXXX  XXXX acct # XXXX XXXX  acct # XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCT # XXXX XXXX ACCT # XXXX, ACCT # XXXX  XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX  XXXX ACCT # XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCT # XXXX, ACCT # XXXX, ACCT XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCT # XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCT # XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCT # XXXX Policy States According to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Procedure in Case of Disputed Accuracy ( a ) Reinvestigation of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required a. In general. Subject to Subsection ( f ), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumers file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly thorough a reseller, of such dispute free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. \nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means to you, this credit reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts. \nFinally, you are reporting the INQUIRES that are a result of the same type of fraudulent activities. It must be noted that I did not apply for credit accounts with the below listed and companies and creditors, some of these are the result of attempts to open accounts, but the companies did not approve these accounts. Therefore, these inquiries must be deleted from within my credit file. You can not delete the fraudulently opened accounts without also deleting the fraudulent inquires. \nInquires that are made by someone else without my authorization is not a factual record of access to my credit, it is a fraudulent activity, and it must be addressed as such. The reason that these inquires are being disputed is because they were not made by me, and when I report this to you, it is your responsibility to investigate my claims, and when you can not prove that these inquires were made by me, they must be removed from my credit file. It is not my responsibility to go directly to each creditor, the obligation lies at your feet because you are reporting inaccurate information within my credit report, and this violates the FCRA. \nIt should be noted that any inquiry that was not made by me is not a factual record, just as a fraudulently opened account is not a factual record and not referred to the creditor to be disputed directly with them. The credit reporting agencies have attempted to address an inquiry as a factual record of file access, but if it was done though fraudulent means, it is not a factual record. As a consumer I should not be required to dispute each fraudulent inquiry with each company. These inquires are the result of fraudulent activity and therefore inaccurate information in which the credit reporting agencies or the creditors can not verify, meaning that these inquiries are unverifiable information and must be deleted from out of my credit file.\n\nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit reporting agency, report an accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these accounts and/or items do mot belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be UPDATED and/or DELETED! \n\nCREDIT INQUIRES XXXX  XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 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  Policy states... \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \\ '' FCRA\\ '' 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), Procedure In Case of Disputed Accuracy...\n\n( a ) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required ( a ) In general. Subject to Subsection ( O, if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer\\ 's file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.\n\nThe FCRA requires furnishers to comply with federal guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. Federal regulations and guidelines are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( e ).\n\nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections Duty to Correct and Upd\nate Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified for the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623 ( a ) ( I ) ( B ).\n\nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute. Section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ).\n\nFurnishers must comply with federal regulations that identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Under these regulations, furnishers must complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a \\ '' credit repair organization.\\ '' Section 623 ( a ) (. Federal regulations are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.Section 623 ( a ) ( Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher that a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 623 ( b ) ( I ) ( A ) and Report the results to the CRA that referred the dispute and, if the investigation establishes that the information was in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the All furnishers must have in place reasonable procedures to respond to notifications from CRAS that information furnished is the result of identity theft, and to prevent refurnishing the information in the future. A furnisher may not furnish Information that a consumer has identified as resulting from identity theft unless the furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer that the information is correct. Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). If a furnisher learns that it has furnished inaccurate information due to identity theft, it must notify each CRA of the correct information and must thereafter report only complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). When any furnisher of information is notified pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 605B that a debt has resulted from identity theft, the furnisher many not sell, transfer, or place for collection the debt except in certain limited circumstances. Section 615 ( 0.\n\nThe CFPB\\ 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore, has more information about the FCRA , including publications for business and the full text of the FCRA .\n\nCitations for FCRA sections in the U.S. Code, IS U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : I have provided all of the above listed items within this package. Therefore, I expect these listed accounts to be deleted and blocked within four ( 4 ) business days. This is clearly an identity theft issue. I am also entitled to receive a free copy of my credit report, so I am requesting a free credit report and that all of these accounts, public records items, and inquiries be permanently blocked and deleted. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-29T00:32:22.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92880","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8440132","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-28T23:52:10.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains <em>credit</em>, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 <em>million</em> consumers in the United States who have <em>credit</em> files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[4.139786,"8440132"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8440126","_score":4.1353383,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ssn # XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Legal Department, This credit dispute is being submitted as a notification of creditors who are in violation of the CARES Act during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The accounts that are being disputed, are either in violation of the CARES Act or do not belong to me. Policy states... \nStatement on Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V in Light of the CARES Act The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( Bureau ) recognizes the serious impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the financial well-being of many consumers and on the operations of many supervised entities, including actors in the consumer reporting system, and the challenges of this unique and rapidly evolving situation. Last XXXX, on XX/XX/XXXX, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ( \\ '' CARES Ad\\ ' ), which provides critical emergency assistance to consumers and businesses affected by XXXX and includes provisions addressing consumer reporting requirements. \nConsumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains credit, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 million consumers in the United States who have credit files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers. The continued operation of the consumer reporting system will play a critical role in the functioning of the consumer financial services market, promoting fair and efficient access to credit and benefiting consumers and creditors alike. The Bureau understands that the current crisis impacts the financial well-being of consumers and poses operational challenges for consumer reporting agencies and furnishers, accommodation, the furnisher report the credit obligation or account as current; or ( Il ) if the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the maintain the delinquent status during the period in which the accommodation is in effect; and ( bb ) if the consumer brings the credit obligation or account current during the period described in item ( aa ), report the credit obligation or account as current\\ '' ). In addition, section 3513 of the CARES Act addresses the furnishing of certain student loans for which payments are suspended. Rendering them unable to investigate consumer reporting disputes within the timeframes the FCRA requires. Furnishers include a wide variety of businesses that vary in size and sophistication and can range from small retailers to very large financial services firms, each of which will face unique challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In evaluating compliance with the FCRA as a result of the pandemic, the Bureau will consider a consumer reporting agencies or furnisher\\ 's individual circumstances and does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against a consumer reporting agency or furnisher making good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible, even if dispute investigations take longer than the statutory timeframe. The Bureau reminds furnishers and consumer reporting agencies that they may take advantage of statutory and regulatory provisions that eliminate the obligation to investigate disputes submitted by credit repair organizations and disputes they reasonably determine to be frivolous or irrelevant. \nThe Bureau will consider the significant current constraints on furnisher and consumer reporting agency time, information, and other resources in assessing if such a determination is reasonable. Regulatory Requirements\nThis Policy Statement is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau\\ 's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rule making requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 USC 553 ( b ). Because no notice of proposed rule making is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 USC 603 ( a ), 604 ( a ). The Bureau has determined that this Policy Statement does not impose any new or revise any existing record keeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 USC 3501-3521.\n\nThe trade lines listed below are items currently within my credit file, and none of these are related to any transaction that was made by me. It is my official statement that someone and/or several people have opened these accounts and made transactions on these account without my knowledge or authorization, my personal information has been used to obtain goods, services, or money : and the person ( s ) responsible for creating these accounts.\n\nI have filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission, which I have enclosed within this dispute package. I have reached out to all of these creditors and have made them aware that these accounts were fraudulently opened, and they have known this for several months, but have yet to remove these accounts from my credit reports. Some of the creditors have been cooperative and have removed the accounts, but others have refused to remove the fraudulent accounts. Therefore, I have come to you, the credit reporting agencies to resolve these issues. The law says that you must block these accounts while being investigated, and I expect that you will do so. \nI made an attempt to file a police report, but I was informed by XXXX XXXX that it did not constitute as an emergency, and that they would not file the report because I didn\\'t have any information on the person who used my information, nor did I know how my information was obtained by this person. \nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means that you, this credit-reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts. \nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit reporting agency, report accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these account accounts/items doesnt belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be BLOCKED and DELETED!\n\nPolicy states...\n\nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \\ '' FCRA\\ '', Section 1681c ( 2 ) Block of information resulting from identity theft.\n\n1. Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a co\nnsumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than four ( 4 ) business days after the date of receipt by such agency of...\n\n1. Appropriate proof of identity of the consumer ; 2. A copy of an identity theft report 3. The identification of such information by the consumer ; and 4. A statement by the consumer that the information relating to transaction by the consumer.\n\nAll furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies must comply with all applicable regulations. Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.\n\nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance. The text of the FCRA is available at the website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. A list of tile sections of tile FCRA cross-referenced to the.U.S Code is at the end of this document. Section 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy\nGuidelines results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Section 623 ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) Complete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information to the CRA ). Section Promptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section Duty to Report Voluntary Closing of Credit Accounts If a consumer voluntarily closes a credit account, any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnished information to one or more CRAs must report this fact when .it provides information to CRAs for the time period in which the account was closed. Section 623 ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nDuty to Report Dates of Delinquencies If a furnisher reports information concerning a delinquent account placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, the furnisher must, within 90 days after reporting the information, provide the CRA with the month and the year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action, so that the agency will know how long to keep the information in the consumers file. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nAny person, such as a debt collector, that has acquired or is responsible for collecting delinquent accounts and that reports information to CRAs may comply with the requirements of Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( until there is a consumer dispute ) by reporting the slime delinquency date previously reported by the creditor. If the creditor did not report this date, they may comply with the FCRA by establishing reasonable procedures to obtain and report delinquency dates, or, if a delinquency date can not be reasonably obtained, by following reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date when the account was placed for collection charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Section Duties of Financial Institutions When Reporting Negative Information Financial institutions that furnish information to \\ '' nationwide\\ '' consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603 ( p ), must notify consumers in writing if they may furnish or have furnished negative information to a CRA . Section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ). The CFPB has prescribed model disclosures, 12 CFR Part 1022, App. B.\n\nDuties When Furnishing Medical Information A furnisher whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices ( and such furnisher\\ 's agents or assignees ) is a medical information furnisher for the purposes of the FCRA and must notify all CRAs to which it reports of this fact. Section 623 ( a ) ( 9 ). This notice will enable CRAs to comply with their duties under Section 604 ( g ) when reporting medical information.\n\nDuties When ID Theft Occurs Including staffing challenges, that could tempor\narily impede their ability to timely comply with their statutory and regulatory consumer reporting obligations.\n\nThe Bureau is therefore issuing this policy statement ( Policy Statement ) to highlight furnishers\\ ' responsibilities under the CARES Act and inform consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of the Bureau\\ 's flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Regulation V. The Bureau intends to consider the circumstances that entities face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and entities\\ ' good faith efforts to comply with their statutory and regulatory obligations as soon as possible. The Bureau believes that this flexibility will help furnishers and consumer reporting agencies to manage the challenges the current crisis poses. It also will enable consumers, as well as lenders, insurers, employers and other consumer report users, to maintain confidence in the consumer reporting system. \nBelow are examples of the flexibility the Bureau intends to provide in the consumer reporting system.\n\nFurnishing Consumer Information Impacted by COVID-19 : The Bureau reiterates its prior guidance encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers and other customers affected by COVID-19 to meet their financial needs. While companies generally are not legally obligated to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, the Bureau encourages them to continue furnishing information despite the current crisis. Furnishers\\ ' providing accurate information to consumer reporting agencies produces substantial benefits for consumers, users of consumer reports, and the economy as a whole. \nThe CARES Act, a section of which amends the FCRA, generally requires furnishers to report as current certain credit obligations for which furnishers make payment accommodations to consumers affected by COVID 19 who have sought such accommodations from their lendersl .The Bureau expects furnishers to comply with the CARES Act and will work with furnishers as needed to help them do so.\n\nMany furnishers are or will be offering consumers affected by COVID-19 various forms of payment flexibility, including allowing consumers to defer or skip payments, as required by the CARES Act or voluntarily. Such payment accommodations will avoid the reporting of delinquencies resulting from the effects of COVID-19. The Bureau supports furnishers\\ ' voluntary efforts to provide payment relief, and it does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies that accurately reflects the payment relief measures they are employing.\n\nDisputes : The FCRA generally requires that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers investigate disputes within 30 days of receipt of the consumer\\ 's dispute. The 30-day period may be extended to 45 days if the consumer provides additional information that is relevant to the investigation during the 30-day period.\n\nThe Bureau is aware that some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may face significant operational disruptions that pose challenges for them in investigating consumer disputes. For example, some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may experience significant reductions in staff, difficulty intaking disputes, or lack of access to necessary information, 1 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 5 4201 ( 2020 ) ( stating that, with certain exceptions, \\ '' if a furnisher makes an accommodation with respect to 1 or more payments on a credit obligation or account Of a consumer, and the consumer makes the payments or is not required to make 1 or more payments pursuant to the The below listed accounts by the Original Creditors, who have reported these accounts within my credit reports, were not opened by me. I also did not give my authorization for anyone else to open these accounts. Someone else of who did these that I did not know. \nThese original creditors are being reported incorrectly, and/or the accounts do not belong to me. \nXXXX XXXX account # XXXX XXXX acct # XXXX XXXX  XXXX acct # XXXX XXXX  acct # XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCT # XXXX XXXX ACCT # XXXX, ACCT # XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX  XXXX ACCT # XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCT # XXXX, ACCT # XXXX, ACCT XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCT # XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCT # XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCT # XXXX Policy States According to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Procedure in Case of Disputed Accuracy ( a ) Reinvestigation of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required a. In general. Subject to Subsection ( f ), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumers file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly thorough a reseller, of such dispute free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.\n\nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means to you, this credit reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts.\n\nFinally, you are reporting the INQUIRES that are a result of the same type of fraudulent activities. It must be noted that I did not apply for credit accounts with the below listed and companies and creditors, some of these are the result of attempts to open accounts, but the companies did not approve these accounts. Therefore, these inquiries must be deleted from within my credit file. You can not delete the fraudulently opened accounts without also deleting the fraudulent inquires. \nInquires that are made by someone else without my authorization is not a factual record of access to my credit, it is a fraudulent activity, and it must be addressed as such. The reason that these inquires are being disputed is because they were not made by me, and when I report this to you, it is your responsibility to investigate my claims, and when you can not prove that these inquires were made by me, they must be removed from my credit file. It is not my responsibility to go directly to each creditor, the obligation lies at your feet because you are reporting inaccurate information within my credit report, and this violates the FCRA. \nIt should be noted that any inquiry that was not made by me is not a factual record, just as a fraudulently opened account is not a factual record and not referred to the creditor to be disputed directly with them. The credit reporting agencies have attempted to address an inquiry as a factual record of file access, but if it was done though fraudulent means, it is not a factual record. As a consumer I should not be required to dispute each fraudulent inquiry with each company. These inquires are the result of fraudulent activity and therefore inaccurate information in which the credit reporting agencies or the creditors can not verify, meaning that these inquiries are unverifiable information and must be deleted from out of my credit file. \nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the XXXX XXXX XXXX, report an accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these accounts and/or items do mot belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be UPDATED and/or DELETED! \n\nCREDIT  INQUIRES XXXX  XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX XXXX MAIN XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Policy states... \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \\ '' FCRA\\ '' 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), Procedure In Case of Disputed Accuracy...\n\n( a ) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required ( a ) In general. Subject to Subsection ( O, if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer\\ 's file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.\n\nThe FCRA requires furnishers to comply with federal guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. Federal regulations and guidelines are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( e ).\n\nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections Duty to Correct and Update Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified for the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623 ( a ) ( I ) ( B ).\n\nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute. Section 623 ( a ) ( 3 ).\n\nFurnishers must comply with federal regulations that identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Under these regulations, furnishers must complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a \\ '' credit repair organization.\\ '' Section 623 ( a ) (. Federal regulations are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.Section 623 ( a ) ( Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher tha\nt a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 623 ( b ) ( I ) ( A ) and Report the results to the CRA that referred the dispute and, if the investigation establishes that the information was in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the All furnishers must have in place reasonable procedures to respond to notifications from CRAS that information furnished is the result of identity theft, and to prevent refurnishing the information in the future. A furnisher may not furnish Information that a consumer has identified as resulting from identity theft unless the furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer that the information is correct. Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). If a furnisher learns that it has furnished inaccurate information due to identity theft, it must notify each CRA of the correct information and must thereafter report only complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). When any furnisher of information is notified pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 605B that a debt has resulted from identity theft, the furnisher many not sell, transfer, or place for collection the debt except in certain limited circumstances. Section 615 ( 0.\n\nThe CFPB\\ 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore, has more information about the FCRA , including publications for business and the full text of the FCRA .\n\nCitations for FCRA sections in the U.S. Code, IS U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : I have provided all of the above listed items within this package. Therefore, I expect these listed accounts to be deleted and blocked within four ( 4 ) business days. This is clearly an identity theft issue. I am also entitled to receive a free copy of my credit report, so I am requesting a free credit report and that all of these accounts, public records items, and inquiries be permanently blocked and deleted. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-29T00:32:32.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92880","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8440126","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-02-29T00:32:28.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains <em>credit</em>, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 <em>million</em> consumers in the United States who have <em>credit</em> files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[4.1353383,"8440126"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10741046","_score":3.978169,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX IVE submitted updated drivers license my minor children, DOJ FBI VNS FTC REPORTS CFPB XXXX XXXX ORDERED DOCUMENTS FROM THE JUDGE STAMPED AND SEALED AMENDED BIRTH CERTIFICATE IM BEING RETAILITATED AGAINST DUE TO MY DL SSN NAME ALL CHANGED. My kids and. Sufffered medical malpractice due to misuse of our XXXX TAX FRAUD IVE ATTACHED EVERYTHING DUE TO DEVICES MAILED COMPRMOSED BEFORE I GET THEM IT APPEARS IM THE CRIMINAL THEY REFUSE TO REMOVE THE FRAUD NEGATIVE INFO ON MY REPORT. \nIn recent years, my family and I have been victims of numerous data breaches, fraudulent activities, and ongoing issues with medical, financial, and personal information. We were notified of a medical data breach through XXXX, impacting me and my XXXX children. Since then, I have received no settlement payments from major breaches, including XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Equifax, or Bank XXXX XXXX. Additionally, neither my children nor I have received any victims compensation from the Department of Justice, despite proof of victimization, which I have attached. \nIn XXXX, due to issues with our XXXX, our XXXX numbers were changed in an emergency by the South Carolina XXXX XXXX XXXX. The inspector assigned to the case was XXXX XXXX. After this change, I was accused of XXXX fraud. Initially, officials claimed it was a systematic error but later reversed their stance, suggesting I committed fraud, which I categorically deny. Despite my honesty and record-keeping, this accusation was sent to addresses where suspects, such as my mother XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and my sister, reside. This systematic error negatively impacted my financial situation and my familys stability. The address XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, SC, has been linked to XXXX and other records with fraudulent updates, despite never being associated with me personally. \n\nFurther, in XXXX of this year, unauthorized access to my and my childrens medical and financial records was documented, with information accessed monthly. I have had to repeatedly request the removal of a middle initial mistakenly added to my name on South Carolina XXXX XXXX. Despite assurances each time that it would be corrected, the issue persists. This is compounded by issues with phone numbers linked to breached accounts from XXXX, such as XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. These breaches and unauthorized uses of my personal information have been verified through phone provider records. \n\nNotably, the Department XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) appears connected to some discrepancies. For example, while my XXXX benefits and associated records display my updated legal name, my benefits recertification information was suddenly switched back to my old name without explanation. Despite showing evidence of these discrepancies to officials, my benefit records have been manipulated to misrepresent my identity and financial standing. \n\nSimilarly, changes in records have affected my insurance and federal records. Unauthorized individuals manipulated my XXXX account and benefits, compromising my IP address, email authentication, and even my insurance with XXXX XXXX. Recently, fraudulent XXXX charges appeared on my insurance on XX/XX/XXXX, despite my lack of involvement. \n\nAdditional fraud has involved relatives. For instance, my sons father recently won a settlement of {$190000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX, yet child support adjustments have been erratic, likely due to changes in XXXX and health information. XXXX XXXX noted my mothers involvement in our records, despite my request to remove her due to misuse of my information. \n\nIn XXXX, I observed unusual financial XXXX among relatives who were previously in debt but suddenly gained perfect credit. I suspected fraud, involving a XXXX associate and manipulation of XXXX records, which at XXXX point falsely listed me as the owner of a hotel with foreign employees. My former business, XXXX XXXX XXXX, was taken from me after presenting a multi-million-dollar entertainment concept to XXXX XXXX. Following this meeting, my devices were compromised, stolen, and accessed without authorization, severely impacting my career. \n\nMy current employer, XXXX XXXX XXXX, has also mishandled my compensation and benefits. After suffering a XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, I qualified for medical leave but have yet to receive payment. Similarly, after my emergency hysterectomy in XXXX, I did not receive my full XXXX pay. In XXXX, I was shorted XXXX hours. Equipment issues were frequent, and the company appeared to hinder my ability to work by sending defective towers and assigning me to classes with inadequate resources. At XXXX point, a neighbor brought a box of equipment that XXXX confirmed had been sent to the wrong address by XXXX, compromising my security. Despite following all protocol and returning faulty equipment, the company claimed they had not received it, affecting my employment eligibility. \n\nEarlier this year, I faced issues with Concentrixs recruiter, who falsely claimed I needed a drug test, which I passed. Despite my repeated attempts to follow up, I never received responses or job confirmation. Meanwhile, XXXX unlawfully reported incorrect wages to the Social Security XXXX, resulting in a decrease in my sons XXXX benefits. Furthermore, the XXXX has provided inconsistent information about these reports, adding to our ongoing hardship. \n\nMy and my childrens medical records have also been tampered with. For example, despite having XXXX XXXX XXXX listed in my XXXX XXXX records, my primary care provider has said otherwise, leading to medical misdiagnoses. Billing inconsistencies, such as the erroneous {$80000.00} charges to XXXX for services I never received, illustrate these fraudulent practices. When I reported these discrepancies, the primary care provider unjustly dismissed me from her practice. \n\nOn several occasions, our personal records and belongings have been stolen from our home. Mail theft, unauthorized entries, and missing personal documents are regular occurrences. Recently, when XXXX requested my high school diploma, I discovered it had been stolen, along with my childrens report cards and certifications. \n\nWith evidence of multiple orchestrated financial crimes and unauthorized access to our personal, financial, and medical records by various individuals and organizations, I am seeking immediate action. This includes : XXXX. Changes to my and my childrens names. \nXXXX. Sealing of our medical record numbers, clinical records, and account histories to prevent further misuse. \nXXXX. Investigation into companies involved, including XXXX, XXXX, and other associated agencies. \n\nThese actions, constituting fraud, identity theft, unauthorized access, XXXX violations, discrimination, and retaliation, have created an unsafe environment for my family and inflicted significant financial, emotional, and physical distress. I request that immediate steps be taken to secure our information and hold responsible parties accountable. \nOver the past year, I have experienced an orchestrated pattern of financial, employment, and medical mismanagement by various organizations and individuals. The cumulative effects of these incidents have led to severe personal, medical, and financial hardship for my family and me. I implore you to address these issues with the utmost urgency, as they have impacted my health, my childrens well-being, and our financial stability. \nPersonal Background and Employment Issues with XXXX XXXX XXXX I am a single mother of XXXX children, and until recently, I was employed with XXXX XXXX XXXX. I experienced multiple incidents of payroll inconsistencies, mismanagement, and unaddressed medical leave issues due to my XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX and a prior emergency hysterectomy in XX/XX/XXXX. Despite being eligible for medical leave under federal law, I encountered severe delays and missing paychecks, including errors in my XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payroll. XXXX withheld portions of my income during these times, creating significant financial strain. Despite my best efforts to resolve these issues internally, I was encouraged by my supervisor, XXXX XXXX, to file for unemployment, which led to additional complications. \n\nOn top of that, I faced unusual and unethical recruitment practices in XX/XX/XXXX, when I was asked to take a drug screening for a new assignment that was, according to XXXX, urgent. During this process, I encountered irregularities, including late-night calls from the recruiter, delays, and unreturned messages. Although I passed the test, the recruiter stopped responding after confirming the validity of my prescription medications. I was left without employment, and my attempts to reach XXXX or XXXX XXXX about this recruiter were met with dismissal. This left me stranded financially and emotionally, as I felt I was being set up to fail without any recourse. \n\nMoreover, I discovered frequent alterations to my tax withholding information within the XXXX system between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Despite repeatedly adjusting my XXXX to reflect my head-of-household status with XXXX dependents, it was changed back to XXXX allowances without my consent. I provided proof to XXXX, but this continued unchecked. \n\nMedical and XXXX XXXX XXXX I have a complex medical history, including childhood XXXX XXXX and XXXX concerns, which have been mishandled and misdiagnosed by both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Following my XXXX, which was initially recorded as a mild XXXX ( TIA ), my medical records were altered to indicate a diagnosis of hemiplegic migrainesa condition my son, not I, suffers from. This falsification has led to additional complications in my treatment and care, as my true medical needs have not been addressed. \n\nMy children and I have also faced issues with XXXX and XXXX. There are records falsely listing XXXX as XXXX, and despite requesting corrections, the errors persist. Our medical charts contain inaccurate information, including previous diagnoses, and unauthorized changes to my name and other details have resurfaced despite multiple updates. The confusion around these records has not only impacted our ability to receive proper medical care but has caused my sons XXXX benefits to decrease based on false wage reporting by XXXX. The inaccuracies in our medical histories have left us without essential treatments and correct medical advice, placing our health in jeopardy. \n\nMail Theft, Identity Theft, and XXXX XXXX I have experienced repeated mail theft, including the unauthorized removal of important documents such as my high school diploma, my childrens report cards, and various personal identification papers. On XXXX occasion, my home was left open, and my childs football game folder, which contained sensitive identification documents, was disturbed. These repeated invasions have left my family feeling vulnerable and unsafe. \n\nIn addition, I have encountered false tax documents and compromised IRS returns. XXXX forms showing electronic signatures have appeared without my knowledge, and previous years returns were tampered with, creating suspicion that I completed forms I did not. Concerningly, Ive noticed unusual discrepancies involving the Federal Reserve, where records tied to my settlements and victims compensation have been altered, preventing those funds from reaching me. Compounding this, my tax information has been altered to show false wages that caused financial setbacks, such as my sons XXXX reduction. \n\nOn multiple occasions, I have observed unauthorized changes to our benefits, accounts, and medical information from unidentified foreign sources in the XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. Ive seen indicators suggesting that my documents are being manipulated and sold, including when XXXX documentation unexpectedly appeared on my personal devices. The situation has escalated to XXXX XXXX that my familys personal and financial records are being remotely accessed and modified, creating continual disruption to our financial and medical security. \n\nUrgent Request for Action These interconnected actions have violated numerous federal laws, including : XXXX Violations : Unauthorized access and alteration of medical records, resulting in misdiagnoses and incorrect medical treatment. \nXXXX XXXX Violations : Wrongful termination and mishandling of medical leave rights and pay by XXXX. \nSocial Security XXXX Violations : False reporting of wages to the XXXX, leading to wrongful reductions in XXXX benefits. \nIdentity Theft and XXXX XXXX : Manipulation of personal information, tax records, and financial data, impacting access to settlements and benefits. \nVictims Rights Violations : Withholding of victims compensation and child support deposits, likely due to altered banking records. \n\nThe cumulative impact of these issues is more than financial ; it has placed my familys health, well-being, and sense of security at grave risk. I request immediate intervention to investigate these ongoing issues, enforce accountability among involved parties, and ensure that our recordsmedical, employment, and financialare corrected and secured. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I am prepared to provide any additional documentation needed and am hopeful that with your assistance, my family and I can regain control over our health, financial stability, and personal security. \n\nI am urgently reaching out to address suspected fraud and identity misuse affecting my account and linked records, with the goal of correcting these errors and ensuring the privacy and safety of my familys energy services. This situation has caused significant concern for our household security, and I request your immediate assistance in investigating and removing fraudulent data associated with my account. \n\nSuspected Fraudulent Activity and Urgent Concerns There are multiple emails, addresses, and phone numbers that I have discovered associated with my XXXX XXXX account and records, which I did not authorize. The following emails in XXXX and XXXX fraudulent. I am asking for them to be immediately deleted from any association with my XXXX XXXX account or records. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I requested that the account for meter XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SC reflect my updated information, including my new name, Social Security number, and drivers license number. However, my records do not show this update, and neither do they list other addresses I have lived at under my old name. These addresses include : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX Lakecrest Apartments in XXXX, SC XXXX XXXX XXXX in Taylors, SC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX?, XXXX, SC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SC XXXX This discrepancy is a serious issue, as it leaves my new identity information unlinked, while fraudulently assigned addresses remain on record. I request either the removal of XXXX XXXX XXXX from my account or the addition of my legitimate, previous addresses under my old identity. Currently, my consumer report lists a fraudulent address that was never mine and that I believe was being used by others while I maintained my own separate residence. \n\nFraudulent Use of My Identity and That of My Children Between XX/XX/XXXX and now, there have been individuals who have repeatedly used my name and my minor childrens names to obtain services and hide behind our identities. Specifically, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SC XXXX appears fraudulently in my records as an address someone else used to access my information and receive my drivers license. \n\nThose I believe responsible for using my identity fraudulently include : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX These individuals have misused my identity and that of my minor children, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, in various financial schemes, manipulating records and identities linked to XXXX XXXX. It is essential that no accounts, direct deposits, or service addresses associated with these names, or variations like XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, be linked to my XXXX XXXX account. \n\nXXXX XXXX and Billing Concerns It has come to my attention that fraudulent deposits marked as child support are being associated with my XXXX XXXX account. I also see discrepancies in my billing statements, with statements showing XXXX, OH as the merchant location, while my receipts indicate XXXX, NC. This inconsistency raises serious concerns about the integrity of these charges and possible unauthorized use. \n\nFurthermore, I have noted unusually high energy bills when our lights are on, which directly affects my familys health, as we experience symptoms of sickness when lights are used for extended periods. This unusual billing and possible connection with external deposits must be investigated, as it suggests potential fraudulent activity that could jeopardize our energy security. \n\nRequest for XXXX XXXX I am asking XXXX XXXX to take immediate steps to : XXXX. Remove fraudulent emails ( XXXX and XXXX ) and phone numbers associated with my account. \nXXXX. Correct my address history by either removing XXXX XXXX XXXX or adding legitimate past addresses under my old identity. \nXXXX. Investigate and remove unauthorized accounts or deposits connected to names used fraudulently, including aliases associated with my childrens names. \nXXXX. Examine discrepancies in billing statements and merchant location data, as these XXXX indicate unauthorized activity affecting my account. \n\nMy family depends on XXXX XXXX secure and reliable service, and any errors or fraud in our records directly impact our daily lives and well-being. I trust that XXXX XXXX will investigate and resolve these issues quickly to ensure the integrity of our account and the safety of our home. \nI am detailing the complex misuse of my identity and records by family members, which has led to financial and legal confusion. \n\nXXXX. Address and XXXX Records : Although my sister does not use my address with XXXX, XXXX with the Department of XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX her under my address. This has led to a mix-up, as the court records show payments from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the determination of who is responsible for certain obligations. \nXXXX. Medical Record Number ( XXXX ) Discrepancies : At the hospital, I am listed under XXXX separate MRNsone for XXXX XXXX and another for XXXX XXXX XXXX. My sons XXXX was also changed without my consent. These discrepancies suggest attempts to use our medical records to forge identities or claim benefits fraudulently. \nXXXX. IRS Form XXXX Corrections : In XX/XX/XXXX, I received XXXX corrected IRS Forms XXXX, despite no legitimate reason for such changes. This suggests manipulation of our records, possibly to alter tax or insurance status. \nXXXX. Tax Filing Irregularities : I filed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and expected a refund of {$6200.00} ; however, I only received {$5100.00}. I believe my sons father manipulated tax information, possibly claiming benefits as the head of household. Despite records showing my daughter is the head of household, corrections continue to misclassify this status. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX Discrepancies : My sons financial deposit history begins with XXXX, identical to numbers found in XXXX records for liens and judgments related to me as a victim. Previous checks issued to me as restitution for victimization are now missing, and XXXX Carolinas Disbursement Unit ( SC SDU ) is not recording deposits to my account ( XXXX ), though some deposits appear in FHE format ( indicating possible child support or benefits for family household expenses ). \n\nThe extensive misuse of my personal information, medical and tax records, and financial deposits has caused both personal and financial harm. I am seeking thorough investigation and corrective action. \nI am filing this complaint to report extensive fraud involving forged medical and financial records linked to my family. Specifically, my sons XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and other family members have allegedly altered my childrens medical records at XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX under my former name, XXXX XXXX. Theyve manipulated record numbers and listed incorrect dates of service, even though XXXX XXXX lived in XXXX since XXXX. Furthermore, I have evidence showing XXXX distinct medical record numbers for XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX recently won a {$200000.00} lawsuit at XXXX XXXX. Additionally, when he falsely accused me of criminal domestic XXXX ( XXXX ), the public index records show my name twice instead of his, further indicating fraudulent misuse of my identity. I have also found evidence that XXXX signed as my sons birth parent, using fraudulent documents to access benefits and funds without my consent. \nI also uncovered misuse of XXXX benefits in our medical records, falsely indicating absent parent support. In the Child Support Portal, over {$1000.00} in payments meant for my son has been held by the South Carolina State Disbursement Unit without explanation. Additionally, it appears my tax returns were forged and intercepted, with {$5100.00} issued on a fraudulent check from XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX instead of the original {$6200.00} owed. \nI have evidence suggesting a XXXX XXXX account was linked to my Treasury XXXX account under my new identity without my authorization. Despite removing certain addresses, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX records show XXXX continued to use my address. The ongoing manipulation of my records has been substantiated by documents, and my XXXX data was also accessed without permission. I am seeking corrective action and an investigation into these fraudulent activities, which have left me financially compromised. \n\n\nSubject : Urgent Report of Financial and Privacy Violations, Medical Record Manipulation, and Fraudulent Activity To Whom It XXXX Concern, I am writing to urgently bring to your attention a series of serious violations and fraudulent activities that have caused significant financial hardship, emotional distress, and breaches of privacy for both myself and my children. We have become victims of what appears to be a carefully orchestrated scheme involving unauthorized access to medical records, misuse of personal information, and the misallocation of benefits. The following outlines in detail the specific violations, the individuals involved, and the detrimental impact this has had on our lives. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and Misdiagnosis My sons medical records at XXXX XXXX reveal troubling discrepancies, particularly an instance where his father, XXXX XXXX XXXX, signed as the patient for a visit. He did not sign as the legal guardian or authorized representativehe signed as if he were my son, which is neither accurate nor authorized. Additionally, my sons medical record number for this visit does not match the number assigned to him at birth. This inconsistency raises serious concerns about tampering and unauthorized access to our medical records. \n\nFurther, I suffered a XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. However, records at XXXX XXXX XXXX ( connected to XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ) indicate my son was admitted for hemiplegic migraines on the exact dates of my hospitalization, suggesting either gross error or intentional misrepresentation. This not only complicates my own diagnosis but has led to an inappropriate medical history being attached to my son. \n\nXXXX. Financial Hardship and Incorrect XXXX Benefit Allocation Recently, the Social Security XXXX reduced my sons XXXX benefits, citing funds he supposedly received from his father, who has not made any child support payments for over XXXX months. Despite my providing evidence of this nonpayment, the XXXX has continued to decrease his benefits. This financial burden has caused me great hardship and confusion, especially as my sons fathers unpaid child support was supposed to be offset against my tax refund, which was delayed for XXXX months and ultimately arrived short by over {$2000.00}. \n\nAdditionally, the Department XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) has been deducting child support for XXXX, yet only for my son, XXXX, and not my other child. XXXX claimed no offset was done, which conflicts with earlier communications. It has also come to my attention that my insurance through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX assurances from XXXX administrators XXXX I owe no TANF obligations. This misrepresentation of benefits further amplifies my financial distress. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Evidence suggests that someone XXXX have gained unauthorized access to my online records and accounts. My IP address has shown unusual access points from XXXX, where my sons father resides. In XXXX, someone using a XXXX device accessed my XXXX account without my authorization, specifically connected to XXXX XXXX. I have explained these issues to the Department of Treasury and the Department of XXXX, but the concerns persist. \n\nAdditionally, a detective revealed that my sister had used my address with the Department XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, although her name does not appear in the XXXX system. Her use of my address for state services could be contributing to the financial and identity confusion affecting us. This misuse of my address and personal information by family members, combined with unauthorized access to my accounts, suggests a significant compromise of my personal privacy and civil rights. \n\nXXXX. Forgery, Misrepresentation, and Potential Financial Gain On XX/XX/XXXX, my sister reportedly forged my signature, making it appear that my son was in the hospital at the same time I was. This forged record enabled further manipulation of our medical history and potentially allowed for financial claims I did not authorize. In addition, school records have inexplicably reversed the roles between myself and my daughter, listing me as the student and her as the parent, which further indicates identity tampering and misrepresentation. \n\nSubjects Involved and Methods Used XXXX XXXX XXXX : Used my sons medical information, signing as the patient at XXXX XXXX without authorization. The motives appear to be tied to manipulating medical records and possibly accessing benefits fraudulently. \nMy Sister : Forged my signature, used my address with the Department XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, and XXXX have contributed to the ongoing misrepresentation issues with the XXXX and state agencies. \nDepartment XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : Deducted child support for XXXX but failed to apply it correctly, resulting in unexplained benefit misallocations and tax offset confusion. \n\nThese actions have collectively created a web of complications that leave XXXX vulnerable, financially strained, and emotionally distressed. Our rights to privacy, fair treatment, and accurate benefits allocation have been compromised. The effects of these ongoing issues are profound and have disrupted every aspect of our lives, leading to financial instability and unwarranted emotional trauma. \n\nRequest for Urgent Intervention I urge your office to investigate the following : Unauthorized Medical Record Access and Forgery : Violations under XXXX due to unauthorized changes and access to medical records. \nSocial Security XXXX : Manipulation of XXXX benefits and associated financial documents, resulting in incorrect benefit allocation. \nXXXX XXXX : Potential manipulation of child support payments, XXXX misallocation, and missing tax offsets. \nIdentity Theft and Impersonation : Fraudulent use of my address and unauthorized access to my records, resulting in compromised privacy and civil rights violations. \nWe have become victims treated as criminals, facing unwarranted scrutiny and reduction in necessary benefits. I respectfully ask for an in-depth investigation to provide relief, clarity, and accountability for those responsible. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your prompt response.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-09T19:30:12.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"296XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10741046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-09T18:41:16.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["For instance, my sons father recently won a settlement of {$190000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX, yet child <em>support</em> adjustments have been erratic, likely due to changes in XXXX and health information. XXXX XXXX noted my mothers involvement in our records, despite my request to remove her due to misuse of my information. \n\nIn XXXX, I observed unusual financial XXXX among relatives who were previously in debt but suddenly gained perfect <em>credit</em>."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[3.978169,"10741046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8444022","_score":3.8741014,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX SS # : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Legal Department XXXX This credit dispute is being submitted as a notification of creditors who are in violation of the CARES Act during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The accounts that are being disputed, are either in violation of the CARES Act or do not belong to me. Policy states... \nStatement on Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V in Light of the CARES Act The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( Bureau ) recognizes the serious impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the financial well-being of many consumers and on the operations of many supervised entities, including actors in the consumer reporting system, and the challenges of this unique and rapidly evolving situation. Last Friday, on XX/XX/XXXX, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ( \" CARES Ad ' ), which provides critical emergency assistance to consumers and businesses affected by COVID-19 and includes provisions addressing consumer reporting requirements. \nConsumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains credit, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 million consumers in the United States who have credit files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers. The continued operation of the consumer reporting system will play a critical role in the functioning of the consumer financial services market, promoting fair and efficient access to credit and benefiting consumers and creditors alike. The Bureau understands that the current crisis impacts the financial well-being of consumers and poses operational challenges for consumer reporting agencies and furnishers, accommodation, the furnisher report the credit obligation or account as current; or ( Il ) if the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the maintain the delinquent status during the period in which the accommodation is in effect; and ( bb ) if the consumer brings the credit obligation or account current during the period described in item ( aa ), report the credit obligation or account as current '' ). In addition, section 3513 of the CARES Act addresses the furnishing of certain student loans for which payments are suspended. Rendering them unable to investigate consumer reporting disputes within the timeframes the FCRA requires. Furnishers include a wide variety of businesses that vary in size and sophistication and can range from small retailers to very large financial services firms, each of which will face unique challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In evaluating compliance with the FCRA as a result of the pandemic, the Bureau will consider a consumer reporting agencies or furnisher 's individual circumstances and does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against a consumer reporting agency or furnisher making good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible, even if dispute investigations take longer than the statutory timeframe. The Bureau reminds furnishers and consumer reporting agencies that they may take advantage of statutory and regulatory provisions that eliminate the obligation to investigate disputes submitted by credit repair organizations and disputes they reasonably determine to be frivolous or irrelevant. \nThe Bureau will consider the significant current constraints on furnisher and consumer reporting agency time, information, and other resources in assessing if such a determination is reasonable. \nRegulatory Requirements This Policy Statement is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau 's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rule making requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 USC 553 ( b ). Because no notice of proposed rule making is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 USC 603 ( a ), 604 ( a ). The Bureau has determined that this Policy Statement does not impose any new or revise any existing record keeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 USC 3501-3521.\n\nThe trade lines listed below are items currently within my credit file, and none of these are related to any transaction that was made by me. It is my official statement that someone and/or several people have opened these accounts and made transactions on these account without my knowledge or authorization, my personal information has been used to obtain goods, services, or money : and the person ( s ) responsible for creating these accounts. \nI have filed a report with the Federal Trade Commission, which I have enclosed within this dispute package. I have reached out to all of these creditors and have made them aware that these accounts were fraudulently opened, and they have known this for several months, but have yet to remove these accounts from my credit reports. Some of the creditors have been cooperative and have removed the accounts, but others have refused to remove the fraudulent accounts. Therefore, I have come to you, the credit reporting agencies to resolve these issues. The law says that you must block these accounts while being investigated, and I expect that you will do so. \nI made an attempt to file a police report, but I was informed by my county that it did not constitute as an emergency, and that they would not file the report because I didn't have any information on the person who used my information, nor did I know how my information was obtained by this person. \nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means that you, this credit-reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts. \nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit reporting agency, report accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these account accounts/items doesnt belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be BLOCKED and DELETED! \nPolicy states... \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '', Section 1681c ( 2 ) Block of information resulting from identity theft.\n\n1. Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than four ( 4 ) business days after the date of receipt by such agency of...\n\n1. Appropriate proof of identity of the consumer ; 2. A copy of an identity theft report 3. The identification of such information by the consumer ; and 4. A statement by the consumer that the information relating to transaction by the consumer. \nAll furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies must comply with all applicable regulations. Information about applicable regulations currently in effect can be found at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. \nNOTICE TO FURNISHERS OF INFORMATION : OBLIGATIONS OF FURNISHERS UNDER THE FCRA The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C 1681-1681y, imposes responsibilities on all persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ). These responsibilities are found in Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C 1681s-2. State law may impose additional requirements on furnishers. All furnishers of information to CRAs should become familiar with the applicable laws and may want to consult with their counsel to ensure that they are in compliance. The text of the FCRA is available at the website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. A list of tile sections of tile FCRA cross-referenced to the.U.S Code is at the end of this document.\n\nSection 623 imposes the following duties upon furnishers : Accuracy Guidelines results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis. Section 623 ( C ) and ( b ) ( 1 ) Complete the above steps within 30 days from the date the CRA receives the dispute ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information to the CRA ). Section Promptly modify or delete the information, or block its reporting. Section Duty to Report Voluntary Closing of Credit Accounts If a consumer voluntarily closes a credit account, any person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnished information to one or more CRAs must report this fact when .it provides information to CRAs for the time period in which the account was closed. Section 623 ( a ) ( 4 ). \nDuty to Report Dates of Delinquencies If a furnisher reports information concerning a delinquent account placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, the furnisher must, within 90 days after reporting the information, provide the CRA with the month and the year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action, so that the agency will know how long to keep the information in the consumers file. Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nAny person, such as a debt collector, that has acquired or is responsible for collecting delinquent accounts and that reports information to CRAs may comply with the requirements of Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( until there is a consumer dispute ) by reporting the slime delinquency date previously reported by the creditor. If the creditor did not report this date, they may comply with the FCRA by establishing reasonable procedures to obtain and report delinquency dates, or, if a delinquency date can not be reasonably obtained, by following reasonable procedures to ensure that the date reported precedes the date when the account was placed for collection charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Section Duties of Financial Institutions When Reporting Negative Information Financial institutions that furnish information to \" nationwide '' consumer reporting agencies, as defined in Section 603 ( p ), must notify consumers in writing if they may furnish or have furnished negative information to a CRA. Section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ). The CFPB has prescribed model disclosures, 12 CFR Part 1022, App. B. \nDuties When Furnishing Medical Information A furnisher whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices ( and such furnisher 's agents or assignees ) is a medical information furnisher for the purposes of the FCRA and must notify all CRAs to which it reports of this fact. Section 623 ( a ) ( 9 ). This notice will enable CRAs to comply with their duties under Section 604 ( g ) when reporting medical information.\n\nDuties When ID Theft Occurs Including staffing challenges, that could temporarily impede their ability to timely comply with their statutory and regulatory consumer reporting obligations. \nThe Bureau is therefore issuing this policy statement ( Policy Statement ) to highlight furnishers ' responsibilities under the CARES Act and inform consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of the Bureau 's flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Regulation V. The Bureau intends to consider the circumstances that entities face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and entities ' good faith efforts to comply with their statutory and regulatory obligations as soon as possible. The Bureau believes that this flexibility will help furnishers and consumer reporting agencies to manage the challenges the current crisis poses. It also will enable consumers, as well as lenders, insurers, employers and other consumer report users, to maintain confidence in the consumer reporting system.\n\nBelow are examples of the flexibility the Bureau intends to provide in the consumer reporting system. \nFurnishing Consumer Information Impacted by COVID-19 : The Bureau reiterates its prior guidance encouraging financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers and other customers affected by COVID-19 to meet their financial needs. While companies generally are not legally obligated to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, the Bureau encourages them to continue furnishing information despite the current crisis. Furnishers ' providing accurate information to consumer reporting agencies produces substantial benefits for consumers, users of consumer reports, and the economy as a whole. \nThe CARES Act, a section of which amends the FCRA, generally requires furnishers to report as current certain credit obligations for which furnishers make payment accommodations to consumers affected by COVID 19 who have sought such accommodations from their lendersl .The Bureau expects furnishers to comply with the CARES Act and will work with furnishers as needed to help them do so.\n\nMany furnishers are or will be offering consumers affected by COVID-19 various forms of payment flexibility, including allowing consumers to defer or skip payments, as required by the CARES Act or voluntarily. Such payment accommodations will avoid the reporting of delinquencies resulting from the effects of COVID-19. The Bureau supports furnishers ' voluntary efforts to provide payment relief, and it does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies that accurately reflects the payment relief measures they are employing.\n\nDisputes : The FCRA generally requires that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers investigate disputes within 30 days of receipt of the consumer 's dispute. The 30-day period may be extended to 45 days if the consumer provides additional information that is relevant to the investigation during the 30-day period. \nThe Bureau is aware that some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may face significant operational disruptions that pose challenges for them in investigating consumer disputes. For example, some consumer reporting agencies and furnishers may experience significant reductions in staff, difficulty intaking disputes, or lack of access to necessary information, 1 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 5 4201 ( 2020 ) ( stating that, with certain exceptions, \" if a furnisher makes an accommodation with respect to 1 or more payments on a credit obligation or account Of a consumer, and the consumer makes the payments or is not required to make 1 or more payments pursuant to the The below listed accounts by the Original Creditors, who have reported these accounts within my credit reports, were not opened by me. I also did not give my authorization for anyone else to open these accounts. Someone else of who did these that I did not know.\n\nThese original creditors are being reported incorrectly, and/or the accounts do not belong to me.\n\n1. Account involved in litigation \" an incorrect high balance '' an inaccurate date of last activity \" REAGED ACCOUNTS '' \" Reinsertion WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE '' an undated late pay a charge off listed as open a collection account with a limit. \nXXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Please remove it from my credit report. \n\n2. Account involved in litigation \" an incorrect high balance '' an inaccurate date of last activity \" REAGED ACCOUNTS '' \" Reinsertion WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE '' an undated late pay a charge off listed as open a collection account with a limit. \nXXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Please remove it from my credit report. \n\n3. Account involved in litigation \" an incorrect high balance '' an inaccurate date of last activity \" REAGED ACCOUNTS '' \" Reinsertion WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE '' an undated late pay a charge off listed as open a collection account with a limit. \nXXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Please remove it from my credit report. \n\n4. Account involved in litigation \" an incorrect high balance '' an inaccurate date of last activity \" REAGED ACCOUNTS '' \" Reinsertion WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE '' an undated late pay a charge off listed as open a collection account with a limit. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX Please remove it from my credit report. \n\n\nPolicy States According to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Procedure in Case of Disputed Accuracy ( a ) Reinvestigation of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required a. In general. Subject to Subsection ( f ), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumers file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly thorough a reseller, of such dispute free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. \nTherefore, my position is being clearly stated, these accounts do not belong to me, meaning that you are reporting inaccurate account information within my credit file. The fact that these are inaccurate account information means to you, this credit reporting agency, are reporting incorrect accounts. \nFinally, you are reporting the INQUIRES that are a result of the same type of fraudulent activities. It must be noted that I did not apply for credit accounts with the below listed and companies and creditors, some of these are the result of attempts to open accounts, but the companies did not approve these accounts. Therefore, these inquiries must be deleted from within my credit file. You can not delete the fraudulently opened accounts without also deleting the fraudulent inquires. \nInquires that are made by someone else without my authorization is not a factual record of access to my credit, it is a fraudulent activity, and it must be addressed as such. The reason that these inquires are being disputed is because they were not made by me, and when I report this to you, it is your responsibility to investigate my claims, and when you can not prove that these inquires were made by me, they must be removed from my credit file. It is not my responsibility to go directly to each creditor, the obligation lies at your feet because you are reporting inaccurate information within my credit report, and this violates the FCRA. \nIt should be noted that any inquiry that was not made by me is not a factual record, just as a fraudulently opened account is not a factual record and not referred to the creditor to be disputed directly with them. The credit reporting agencies have attempted to address an inquiry as a factual record of file access, but if it was done though fraudulent means, it is not a factual record. As a consumer I should not be required to dispute each fraudulent inquiry with each company. These inquires are the result of fraudulent activity and therefore inaccurate information in which the credit reporting agencies or the creditors can not verify, meaning that these inquiries are unverifiable information and must be deleted from out of my credit file. \nI am well aware of my rights as a consumer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that you, the credit reporting agency, report an accurate and/or correct account information within my credit file. My credit issues are very specific, these accounts and/or items do mot belong to me. This means that you are reporting incorrect account information within my credit report. It is with this in mind that I request that these listed accounts and items be UPDATED and/or DELETED! \n( SEE THE ENCLOSED EXHIBIT OF FRAUDULENT INQUIRIES BEING DISPUTED ) CREDIT INQUIRES DATE OF INQUIRY : Policy states... \nAccording to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT \" FCRA '' 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), Procedure In Case of Disputed Accuracy...\n\n( a ) Reinvestigations of Disputed Information ( 1 ) Reinvestigation Required ( a ) In general. Subject to Subsection ( O, if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer 's file at a consumer agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, of such dispute, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph ( 5 ), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. \nThe FCRA requires furnishers to comply with federal guidelines and regulations dealing with the accuracy of information provided to CRAs by furnishers. Federal regulations and guidelines are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore. Section 623 ( e ).\n\nGeneral Prohibition on Reporting Inaccurate Information The FCRA prohibits information furnishers from providing information to a CRA that they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. However, the furnisher is not subject to this general prohibition if it clearly and conspicuously specifies an address to which consumers may write to notify the furnisher that certain information is inaccurate. Sections Duty to Correct and Update Information If at any time a person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more CRAs determines that the information provided is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must promptly provide complete and accurate information to the CRA. In addition, the furnisher must notify all CRAs that received the information of any corrections, and must thereafter report only the complete and accurate information. Section Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified for the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact, inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623 ( a ) ( I ) ( B ).\n\nIf a consumer notifies a furnisher that the consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any information reported by the furnisher, the furnisher may not subsequently report that information to a CRA without providing notice of the dispute. Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). \nFurnishers must comply with federal regulations that identify when an information furnisher must investigate a dispute made directly to the furnisher by a consumer. Under these regulations, furnishers must complete an investigation within 30 days ( or 45 days, if the consumer later provides relevant additional information ) unless the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant or comes from a \" credit repair organization. '' Section 623 ( a ) (. Federal regulations are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.Section 623 ( a ) Duties After Notice of Dispute from Consumer Reporting Agency If a CRA notifies a furnisher that a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher, the furnisher has a duty to follow certain procedures. The furnisher must : Conduct an investigation and review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including information given to the CRA by the consumer. Sections 623 ( b ) ( I ) ( A ) and Report the results to the CRA that referred the dispute and, if the investigation establishes that the information was in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the All furnishers must have in place reasonable procedures to respond to notifications from CRAS that information furnished is the result of identity theft, and to prevent refurnishing the information in the future. A furnisher may not furnish Information that a consumer has identified as resulting from identity theft unless the furnisher subsequently knows or is informed by the consumer that the information is correct. Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ). If a furnisher learns that it has furnished inaccurate information due to identity theft, it must notify each CRA of the correct information and must thereafter report only complete and accurate information. Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ). When any furnisher of information is notified pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 605B that a debt has resulted from identity theft, the furnisher many not sell, transfer, or place for collection the debt except in certain limited circumstances. Section 615 ( 0.\n\nThe CFPB 's website, www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore, has more information about the FCRA, including publications for business and the full text of the FCRA.\n\nCitations for FCRA sections in the U.S. Code, IS U.S.C. 1681 et seq. : I have provided all of the above listed items within this package. Therefore, I expect these listed accounts to be deleted and blocked within four ( 4 ) business days. This is clearly an identity theft issue. I am also entitled to receive a free copy of my credit report, so I am requesting a free credit report and that all of these accounts, public records items, and inquiries be permanently blocked and deleted. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Enclosures : Identity Theft report Proof of Identity Copy of Account Statements showing Fraudulent Items FTC Notice to Furnishers","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-28T17:33:51.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60914","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8444022","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-28T17:24:39.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Consumer report information is critical to consumers and industry in determining who obtains <em>credit</em>, insurance, and housing, and at what price, and who obtains employment in many cases. Consumer reporting has enormous reach, as evidenced by the over 200 <em>million</em> consumers in the United States who have <em>credit</em> files and trade lines furnished by over 10,000 providers."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting or other personal consumer reports"],"sub_product":["<em>Credit</em> reporting"]},"sort":[3.8741014,"8444022"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":28,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":28}]}},"product":{"doc_count":28,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":16,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":16}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":2},{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"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":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Personal line of credit","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":28,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":5},{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":3},{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Confusing or misleading advertising about the credit card","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":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting a line of credit","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting a loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraudulent loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your bill","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company won't work with you while you're going through financial hardship","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't get other flexible options for repaying your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":28,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":28}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":28,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":19},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":8},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":28,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":28}]}},"company":{"doc_count":28,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":8},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foris DAX, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"MOHELA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":28,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":8},{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":28,"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":18}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":28,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":5},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[3.8741536,"8444022"]}}}