Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

In the matter at hand, the Consumer ( 'Complainant ' ) alleges that Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX Equifax XXXX and XXXX have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in relation to student loan accounts purportedly owed to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXComplainant is a natural person and a person and consumer as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) at 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( c ). Complainant has at least one XXXX as defined under 42 U.S.C. 12102 ( the Americans with XXXX Act, ADA ) for all times material hereto. Complainant has experienced several accounts and tradelines being reported with adverse, inaccurate, and misleading information in the files that Equifax maintains and disseminates. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX repeatedly submitted disputes to have the erroneous information removed. The continued failure to remove inaccurate and misleading information from Equifax 's files has caused repeated and compounding harm to Complainant 's financial stability, housing security, and employment prospects.

In several instances, Equifax has failed to detect and block facially inaccurate information from appearing in the files it maintains and reports regarding Complainant.

Complainant has continuously disputed adverse information for each tradeline containing false, inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete data.

Equifax, in response, has repeatedly failed to conduct thorough reinvestigations, with some concluding in less than twenty-four ( 24 ) hours after Complainants submissions. In one of the most serious instances, Complainant supplied Equifax with 10 responses from the data furnisher, where the furnisher initially insisted they were reporting correctly, but later provided contradictory explanations as to why they were not. The furnisher eventually admitted they had not been reporting correctly, claiming the errors were fixed. However, the furnisher later acknowledged that they had not fixed the errors but were in the process of correcting them. Despite this, the errors were never resolved, and Equifax repeatedly ignored the documentation provided by Complainant, allowing the inaccuracies to persist in its records for XXXX ( XXXX ) years. Equifax has still failed to resolve all of the issues with those accounts/tradelines. 
The Matter Herein : On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant checked the information Equifax maintains regarding his creditworthiness and found that three ( 3 ) accounts ending 1AAA and 1BAA were inaccurately reporting past-due amounts and account statuses that conflicted with the on-timepayment histories displayed for each account. These inaccurate and misleading credit reports have exacerbated Complainants disability-related conditions, increasing the emotional and physical toll of the situation. This has further contributed to financial instability, heightened stress, an overall deterioration in Complainants well-being, and has thwarted efforts to obtain stable housing. Complainant alleges that Equifax is actively maintaining and disseminating facially inaccurate information regarding accounts ending 1AAA and 1BAA in files pertaining to Complainant. Specifically, these accounts report past-due amounts equivalent to two missed payments ( amounts of {$690.00}, {$150.00}, and {$290.00} ) despite the payment history reflecting on-time payments for the months of XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. 
Importantly, the purported Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX is not only inaccurate but also impossible. As of XX/XX/XXXX, less than XXXX months have passed since the XXXX, meaning it can not be accurate to state that payments are past due. 
This contradiction raises serious questions about the validity of the reporting by XXXX and Equifax and highlights the misleading nature of the information being disseminated. Per the CFPB Advisory Opinion on Facially False Data ( 87 FR 64690 ), " a consumer reporting agencys policies and procedures should be sufficient to detect tradelines with account statuses or codes that are plainly inconsistent with other information reported for that same account, such that, if included in a consumer report, at least one item of information therein would necessarily be inaccurate. '' Courts have made this explicit ( Cortez v. Trans Union , LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 711 n.25 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) ), noting that when a furnisher provide [ s ] a [ CRA ] with information about a consumer that the agency knows or has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate or misleading, it is incumbent on the [ CRA ] to permanently delete and cloak the erroneous information.

Incomplete or inaccurate reporting " encompass [ es ] not only false information, but also correct information that nevertheless create [ s ] a materially misleading impression '' ( Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr , Inc. , 954 F.3d 938, 943 ( 6th Cir. 2020 ), quoting Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 617 ( 6th Cir. 2012 ) ). As the XXXX XXXX explained in XXXX, " a credit report is inaccurate under 1681e ( b ) and 1681i ( a ) if it omits accurate information that could reasonably be expected to adversely affect a consumers creditworthiness '' ( Chaitoff, F.4th 810 ( 7th Cir. 2023 ) ). This explanation is echoed by the Sixth Circuit in Twumasi, where the court, quoting Dalton, defined materially misleading information as " information that [ is ] misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it [ could have been ] expected to have an adverse effect [ on the consumer ] '' ( Dalton, 257 F.3d at 415, as articulated in Twumasi-Ankrah , 954 F.3d at 942 ). In Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 ( 2007 ), the U.S. Supreme Court established that willful noncompliance with the FCRA includes not only violations committed knowingly but also those committed with reckless disregard for statutory duties. As per the CFPB Advisory Opinion, Fair Credit Reporting ; Facially False Data, 87 Fed. Reg. 64689, 64689-64693 ( Oct. 26, 2022 ), credit reporting agencies must implement internal controls to prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logically inconsistent information. In general logically inconsistent data includes but is not limited to account statuses or codes that are plainly inconsistent with other information reported for that same account, such that, if included in a consumer report, at least one item of information therein would necessarily be inaccurate. ( 87 Fed.

Reg. 64690 ). According to the CFPB advisory opinion, [ A ] violation is willful when it is inconsistent with authoritative guidance from a relevant agency [ such as the CFPB and FTC ]. 87 Fed. Reg. 64691. Plainly, the CFPB expects CRAs to implement internal controls to prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logically inconsistent information [. ] ( 87 Fed. Reg. 64689 ) ( emphasis added ). Further, logically inconsistent data includes but is not limited to a [ D ] ate of First Delinquency reported for an account whose records reflect no delinquency, such as through activity reflecting a current account ( [ a ] complete history of timely payments [. ] ) ( 87 Fed. Reg. 64691 ). 
XXXX failure to do so constitutes a clear violation of these standards. The CFPB expects CRAs to have controls in place that detect and prevent the inclusion of account statuses and codes that create inconsistencies in tradeline reporting ( XXXX Fed. XXXX. XXXX ). In this case, Equifax failed to meet the requirements of XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX ( b ) because a tradeline reporting on-time payments, while simultaneously listing the status as Not more than XXXX payments past due, is facially inconsistent and materially misleading. 
Further, Equifax failed in another critical way under 1681e ( b ) when its systems did not detect the inconsistency between the Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) and the account status. As of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, all accounts ending in 1AAA and 1BAA were reported with a status of Not more than two payments past due, alongside a DoFD of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. This is also facially inaccurate. 
While the status might be technically correct ( i.e., any delinquency within the range of not more than two payments past-due ), the reporting is still misleading because the time between XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the update date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX is less than XXXX ( XXXX ) days. Under common reporting standards, the status not more than XXXX payments past-due typically implies a XXXX delinquency. Since XXXX days had not yet passed between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, this representation of the account 's status is misleading and could cause significant harm to Complainant 's creditworthiness. The CFPB makes clear that a CRA that fails to implement such controls is not using reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under [ 15 U.S.C.

1681e ( b ) /Section 607 ( b ) ] of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 87 Fed. Reg 64689 ( emphasis added ). Further, courts have held the inclusion of facially false data in the files maintained and disseminated by a CRA may, in certain circumstances, be evidence of unreasonableness in a consumer reporting agencys procedures ( 87 Fed. Reg. 664691, referencing Stewart v. Credit Bureau , Inc., 734 F.2d at 52 ).

For example, in Stewart v. Credit Bureau Inc., 734 F.2d 47 ( D.C. Cir. 1984 ) the Court explained inaccurate credit reports by themselves can fairly be read as evidencing unreasonable procedures, and in Cortez v. Trans Union LLC, 617 F.3d 688 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) the Court held a failure to follow reasonable procedures can be inferred from the mere fact of an inaccuracy on a consumers credit report. Within the past few years the XXXX XXXX has addressed the issue writing in Hammoud v. Equifax Info. Servs., 52 F.4th 669, ( 6th Cir. 2022 ) ( A credit reporting agencys reliance on information gathered by outside entities is reasonable so long as the information is [ neither ] obtained from a source that was known to be unreliable [ nor ] inaccurate on its face [ n ] or otherwise inconsistent with the information the [ credit reporting agencies ] already had on file ( Wright, 805 F.3d at 1240 ( citations omitted ) ) ) Hammoud , 52 F.4th 669.

The reporting for the three ( 3 ) account/tradelines identified ending 1AAA and 1BAA are inaccurate and misleadingin such a way and to such an extent that it [ could have been ] expected to have an adverse effect on [ Complainant ] Twumasi-Ankrah, 954 F.3d at 942 ( emphasis added ).

Equifax can not claim it used reasonable procedures in this instance because its controls clearly failed to detect the inconsistent statuses and codes for accounts ending 1AAA and 1BAA as required by the CFPB ( 87 Fed. Reg. 64689 ). As expressed in Cortez, " it is incumbent on the consumer reporting agency to permanently **delete and cloak** the [ facially inaccurate or misleading ] information. '' ( Cortez quoting Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359, 368 ( 5th Cir. 2001 ) ) ( emphasis added ) [ 1 ]. Thus, there is no justifiable explanation for XXXX failure to implement proper controls ( policies, procedures, systems ) to prevent facially false information from appearing in the files it maintains and disseminates regarding XXXX. XXXX " did not intentionally weave an exception into the fabric of the FCRA that would destroy its remedial scheme by allowing a credit reporting agency to escape responsibility for its [ recklessness ] whenever misleading information finds its way into a credit report through the agency of a third party '' ( Cortez v. Trans Union , LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 710 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) ) ( emphasis added ).

Therefore, any and all accounts ending 1AAA and 1BAA must necessarily be deleted immediately. The erroneous Date of First Delinquency and payment status misrepresents Complainants payment history and has led to an 80-point drop in credit score. This significant decline creates a substantial risk of being unable to secure housing, as potential landlords and credit agencies typically assess credit scores when evaluating rental applications. The adverse impact of this misleading reporting on Complainant 's credit report is substantial and ongoing, heightening the emotional toll and financial instability faced by Complainant.

Complainant remains exceptionally vulnerable to the conduct Equifax, as the inaccurate and misleading reporting has already caused significant harm. The emotional distress associated with these inaccuracies has manifested in increased XXXX  and XXXX, exacerbating Complainants existing medical conditions. When a CRA fails to ensure maximum possible accuracy under 1681e ( b ), ( materially misleading information can be just as damaging to a consumer as if it had come directly from the furnisher. ) ( Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr , Inc. , 954 F.3d 938, 943 ( 6th Cir.

2020 ) ), because ( both 1681e and 1681s-2 serve the same purpose : ensuring accuracy in consumer credit reporting. ) ( Saunders v. Branch Banking, 526 F.3d 142, 148 n.3, ( 4th Cir.

2008 ) ). The FCRA permits recovery for humiliation and mental distress, as well as for reputational and creditworthiness injuries, as outlined in Fischl v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 708 F.2d 143 ( 5th Cir. 1983 ). Moreover, Ricketson v. Experian Info.

Solutions, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 3d 1083 ( W.D. Mich. 2017 ) recognized that emotional distress is a sufficiently concrete injury to support Article III standing in an FCRA claim. Likewise, in Miller v. Dish Network , L.L.C., 326 F. Supp. 3d 51 ( E.D. Va. 2018 ), the court affirmed that emotional distress constitutes an injury in fact under the FCRA, even in light of the Spokeo decision.

Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit 's ruling in Santos v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., No. 22-11187 ( 11th Cir. 2023 ), confirmed that statutory damages are recoverable under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), even in the absence of actual harm, when violations are **willful**. In light of these precedents, Complainant has experienced significant emotional distress and financial instability due to the failure to correct or delete inaccurate information, which constitutes a violation of the statutory obligations under the FCRA. As a result, Complainant is entitled to recover statutory damages, in addition to damages for the emotional and reputational harm caused by these violations.

At this point, Complainant is simply asking that Equifax delete and cloak the accounts/tradelines associated with the inaccurate information to prevent further harm and restore Complainant 's financial stability and creditworthiness. The continued presence of erroneous data must be rectified promptly.

Complainant has been unable to secure housing due to the adverse impact on their credit report, and the continued presence of inaccurate information threatens further damage to Complainant 's financial stability and creditworthiness. Additionally, this situation has exacerbated Complainants underlying medical conditions, resulting in increased emotional distress. The emotional toll of dealing with these inaccuracies, combined with the financial and logistical hardships caused by the erroneous reporting, is substantial and ongoing.

footnotes : [ 1 ] Each failure to maintain accurate procedures and correct reported inaccuracies results in a new statutory violation, as implied in the CFPB 's emphasis on continuous obligations under the FCRA to correct errors, thereby ensuring accurate reporting ( see Brief for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff Appellant, Ingram v. Waypoint Resource Group , LLC, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ( No. 212430 ) ; Sessa v. TransUnion LLC, No. 22-87, CFPB Amicus Brief ( 2d Cir. May 2022 ) ).