Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

TransUnion has willfully violated multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I have been completely blocked from accessing my credit file through both XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and TransUnions own portal for 2 years, in direct violation of FCRA 1681j ( a ) and 1681g ( a ), which guarantee consumer access to their report and full file disclosures. This is not a system-wide technical issue, as others in my householdincluding my roommateare able to access their full TransUnion reports , dispute items, and manage credit freezes using the same network, browser, and device. TransUnions claim that the issue is technical is provably false, and the pattern of behavior strongly indicates retaliation for prior disputes and complaints Ive filed, including with the CFPB. 

I have submitted over five disputes on the same inaccurate items, and TransUnion has failed to correct or remove the information. They continue to label the data as verified without providing any of the legally required documentationsuch as a wet signature, original application, or any proof of authorizationas mandated under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). Since the 30-day dispute window has long passed without proper resolution, FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) requires that the inaccurate and unverifiable data be immediately deleted, not continued. Courts have affirmed this in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX Trans Union, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX ), finding that continued reporting after failed or sham disputes violates the FCRA. 

To escalate matters further, TransUnion has mailed my personal credit dataincluding my Social Security number and full reportto an unauthorized and unknown address, rather than delivering it securely through their portal or the CFPB system. This puts me at clear risk for identity theft and violates FCRA 1681e ( a ), which requires CRAs to use reasonable procedures to ensure data is shared only with authorized recipients. In XXXX XXXX Trans Union, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ), courts held that CRAs can be held liable for failing to secure sensitive consumer information and sending it to improper destinations. 

These repeated, intentional acts reflect not just negligence but a coordinated pattern of misconduct, suppressing dispute rights, obstructing lawful access, and protecting furnishers in violation of consumer law. As a federally regulated CRA, TransUnion holds a unique position of public responsibility, and this conduct constitutes a violation of public trust. As recognized in FTC v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), entities handling sensitive consumer data owe a duty to the public and can be held accountable when they knowingly act against that duty. TransUnions actions may also qualify as a federal XXXX violation under 18 U.S.C. 1962 ( c ), given the repeated obstruction, misrepresentation, and concealment of federally protected rights for financial gain. 

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, furnishers who receive a dispute from a credit reporting agency are required under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to conduct a proper investigation, which courts have held must include a review of original account documentation, not just internal records. This means the furnisher must be able to produce the original signed contract or application, billing statements, proof of account ownership, and any supporting evidence used to verify the debt. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court made clear that an investigation relying solely on internal systems is not compliant. Under 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ), they must also review all relevant information provided by the CRA, including any evidence submitted by the consumer, which reinforces the need to examine documentation like a wet signature, transaction records, or the chain of assignment in cases involving debt buyers. If the furnisher can not verify the information with actual supporting documentation, 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) requires them to delete or correct the data. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the court found that failure to do so violates the FCRA. Furthermore, 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) requires the credit bureau to disclose the procedure used to verify disputed information, which implicitly requires the furnisher to provide a summary of the documents or methods usedsomething that can not be satisfied by vague statements or automated flags. This was reinforced in XXXX XXXX Trans Union, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), where the court ruled that failure to examine underlying documents constitutes an unreasonable investigation. The FCRA does not explicitly list required documents, but these sections and rulings establish that if a furnisher can not produce a signed contract, billing history, or legal proof of the debt, they can not legally verify it and must delete it.