Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Doing Business As ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, Chair, Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) XXXX XXXX, Michigan Attorney General Subject : Formal Notice of Federal Violations and Demand for Deletion and Remittance Introduction This letter serves as a formal and legally substantiated notice of violation, aimed to address numerous and consequential statutory breaches committed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS , INC., and XXXX, XXXX ( Doing Business As ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX These entities have failed to comply with mandates under U.S. federal law, specifically contravening statutory protections found in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and additional statutes governing the standards of consumer information protection. These violations are demonstrated in full by the following exhibits : EXPERIAN XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX EXPERIAN XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX This letter will articulate the individual breaches of law, supported by precedent where relevant federal and state agencies, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and state-level attorneys general, have had to intervene due to similar non-compliance by credit agencies and debt collectors. Furthermore, this letter includes an analysis of American Canon Law principles relevant to consumer fairness and privacy, to underscore the depth of these obligations beyond merely civil parameters.

Thorough Analysis of Evidence and Statutory Violations 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) - 15 U.S. Code 1681e ( b ) : Supporting Evidence : The PDFs ( EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX ) reveal clear non-compliance with FCRAs accuracy standards. The account from XXXX XXXX XXXX remains inaccurately reported on Experian, despite XXXX commitment in XXXX XXXX to delete it. Notably, Experian and other credit reporting agencies were informed and yet retained this erroneous record, a failure of their duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) to assure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. 

Legal Precedent : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX liable for damages for not ensuring report accuracy, underscoring the grave responsibilities of credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) to exercise vigilance in maintaining accurate consumer information. Additionally, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), establishes that CRAs must take meaningful steps to investigate inaccuracies, with non-compliance constituting actionable negligence. 

Agency Involvement : XXXX of the Comptroller of the Currency : Historically, the OCC has mandated procedural overhauls at financial institutions failing to maintain accurate reporting, particularly when consumers faced undue harm from inaccuracies in their credit history.

FTC Chairs Involvement : The FTC has penalized CRAs for similar inaction. In FTC vXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the FTC fined XXXX {$1.00} XXXX for failure to resolve errors and to ensure consumer report accuracy. XXXX XXXX XXXX, FTC Chair, has voiced strong stances against such violations, especially concerning pervasive and systemic issues affecting consumers ' financial lives. 
State Attorney General Precedent : XXXX XXXX, Michigan Attorney General, has acted to enforce accuracy standards, particularly in consumer financial rights cases. Michigans AG office frequently files lawsuits under its consumer protection statutes when CRAs fail to address error complaints, reflecting the serious state-level implications of these breaches.

2. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) - 15 U.S. Code 6801, 6802 Supporting Evidence : XXXX XXXX details how XXXX, XXXX disclosed XXXX XXXX XXXX without affording necessary notice or opt-out options, contravening GLBA 's consumer privacy protections. According to GLBA, financial institutions must safeguard sensitive data and obtain explicit consent before sharing it with third-party entities, which XXXX failed XXXX do in sharing my information with Experian. 

Legal Precedent : In FTC v. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was fined {$15.00} XXXX by the FTC for breaches under the GLBA due to unauthorized disclosure of personal data, underscoring the serious implications of privacy violations under this act. Similar cases affirm the right to statutory penalties and enforcement for unauthorized data handling. 

Agency Involvement : FTC Enforcement : XXXX XXXX XXXX role in consumer data privacy emphasizes enforcement for breaches that expose consumers to unauthorized disclosures. The FTC often enforces penalties for failure to meet GLBA standards. 
Michigan Attorney General : In Michigan, the Attorney Generals Office routinely initiates actions against companies breaching data protection mandates under GLBA, with consumer restitution and penalties as outcomes.

3. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) - 15 U.S.C. 1692e Supporting Evidence : The account details in EXPERIAN XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX indicate that XXXX falsely represented this debt as legitimate, even after acknowledging it as erroneous. This directly contravenes FDCPA standards prohibiting deceptive debt representations. 

Legal Precedent : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), found XXXX liable for misrepresenting debt status, solidifying that such actions violate FDCPA. XXXX actions mirror XXXX, wherein the alleged debt 's legitimacy is falsely represented. 

Agency Involvement : FTC Oversight : The FTC routinely intervenes in FDCPA cases, underscoring the obligation of collection agencies to avoid misrepresentation. In FTC v. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the FTC imposed a {$2.00} XXXX penalty for misleading debt collection practices. 
Michigan State AG : XXXX XXXX has enforced Michigan consumer protection laws to penalize misrepresentative debt collection, filing suits against agencies using deceptive tactics similar to XXXX. 
XXXX. FTC Holder Rule - XXXX XXXX XXXX Supporting Evidence : XXXX practices, as highlighted in EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX, reveal non-compliance with the Holder Rules stipulations requiring that debt collectors retain full consumer claims and defenses in case of disputes. 

Legal Precedent : In Beemus v. Interstate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), the court recognized consumer rights to retain claims under similar breaches of the FTC Holder Rule, a precedent directly applicable to XXXX practices. 

Agency Involvement : FTC and State Oversight : The FTCs enforcement of Holder Rule violations aligns with practices penalizing companies for failing to afford consumer defenses, often coordinated with state-level attorneys general for enforcement. 
XXXX. Extortionate Credit Collection - 18 U.S. Code 894 Supporting Evidence : EXPERIAN XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX reveal XXXX implicit coercion by maintaining false debt status to compel payment, constituting an extortionate tactic under 18 U.S.C. 894. 

Legal Precedent : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), emphasizes the unlawful nature of coercive debt tactics, marking similar methods as prosecutable under federal law. 

Agency Involvement : FTC : In recent years, the FTC has undertaken punitive actions for extortionate practices, often collaborating with state attorneys general to address the abusive debt collection tactics that violate FDCPA and extortion statutes. 
XXXX. Aggravated Identity Theft - 18 U.S. Code 1028A Supporting Evidence : As demonstrated in XXXX XXXX, XXXX unauthorized use of personal identifiers without lawful purpose aligns with identity theft standards under 18 U.S.C. 1028A. 

Legal Precedent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, emphasizes stringent penalties for unauthorized data use, affirming statutory repercussions for aggravated identity theft. 

Agency Involvement : FTC Oversight : The FTCs commitment to prosecuting identity theft aligns with the enforcement actions necessary in cases where unauthorized personal information is misused, marking a point of synergy with state AG offices. 
XXXX. Consumer Protection Purpose under Congressional Findings - 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( a ) ( b ) Supporting Evidence : The evidence of Experians disregard for consumer reporting accuracy within EXPERIAN XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, and EXPERIAN XXXX XXXX XXXX affirms the harm to consumer trust and financial welfare caused by these inaccuracies.