Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, A victim of identity theft, request removal and deletion of the listed accounts on my XXXX credit report.The following company is XXXX XXXX XXXX CRE Account Number : XXXX with fraudulent charges on my account with a accumulated balance of {$3600.00}. I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, A victim of Identity theft, request removal and deletion of the listed account on my XXXX credit report.The following company is : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, A victim of identity theft, request removal and deletion of the listed accounts on my Equifax credit report.The following company is XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Dear XXXX and Equifax XXXX XXXX, I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, formally request the removal and deletion of fraudulent accounts listed on my XXXX and Equifax credit reports due to verified identity theft. The fraudulent accounts include : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX, with a fraudulent balance of {$3600.00}. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX These accounts were opened and used without my knowledge, accruing unauthorized charges that negatively impact my credit standing. I have filed an FTC Identity Theft Report, submitted a report to local law enforcement, and am now demanding the removal of these items from my credit reports. 

Legal and Regulatory Support for My Request The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) mandates that credit reporting agencies conduct a reasonable investigation into any disputed information. Courts have consistently held that reliance on automated verification systems, such as XXXX, does not fulfill this standard, particularly when identity theft is involved. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court underscored that credit reporting agencies must conduct a meaningful review of disputed accounts beyond automated processing. 

Moreover, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), reaffirms that the FCRAs reasonable investigation requirement is not satisfied by the XXXX systems automated response process. Credit reporting agencies like XXXX and Equifax have a statutory duty to investigate beyond automated responses, especially in cases involving documented identity theft. 

Additional Federal and State Privacy and Opt-Out Protections The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. 6802-6805, requires financial institutions and related entities to allow consumers to opt-out of sharing personal information with third parties. Specifically, under 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( b ) and 16 C.F.R. 313.7, credit reporting agencies and creditors must provide me with clear options to opt-out of any sharing of my personal information. The Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S.C. 552a ), further protects individuals by restricting the use and disclosure of personal data by government agencies, thus reinforcing my right to privacy and limited data sharing, which extends to actions by credit reporting entities. 

Violations of these privacy protections carry substantial penalties under federal law. For example, violations of GLBA 's privacy and opt-out requirements can result in civil penalties of up to {$100000.00} per violation and personal liability for agency officers up to {$10000.00} per violation.

Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Dollar Amounts for Violations The Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., imposes specific requirements on the accuracy and transparency of credit reporting, particularly in cases where unauthorized accounts impact a consumer 's credit profile. Violations of TILA are subject to statutory damages, including individual damages up to {$1000.00} per violation and class action damages of up to the lesser of {$500000.00} or 1 % of the creditor 's net worth, in addition to covering legal fees. The Federal Reserve 's TILA guidelines also reinforce the necessity for creditors to verify the legitimacy of debts before reporting them, making these unauthorized accounts a serious legal violation.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) Comptrollers Standards The OCC Comptroller has issued guidance that mandates financial institutions to prioritize thorough investigations in response to identity theft claims. Automated systems, such as e-OSCAR, fail to meet these standards, as recognized in multiple legal cases. Relying on automated responses in identity theft situations is considered inadequate and non-compliant under OCCs interpretations of consumer protection regulations.

Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Chair and Michigan Attorney Generals Guidance The FTC, under Section 5 of the FTC Act, prohibits unfair and deceptive practices, mandating that consumer credit reports be accurately maintained. The FTC Chair has repeatedly advocated for detailed investigations into identity theft cases, underscoring the insufficiency of automated systems for resolving such disputes. Similarly, the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, enforced by the Michigan Attorney General, mandates credit reporting agencies to conduct a full, manual investigation of disputed items to ensure compliance with state-level identity theft protections.

Applicable Michigan Law and Statutory Damages Michigans Identity Theft Protection Act ( MCL 445.61 et seq. ) provides strong consumer rights for victims of identity theft. This law requires credit bureaus to investigate disputed accounts involving identity theft thoroughly, beyond mere automated processing. Failure to comply with these requirements under Michigan law allows for statutory damages, including but not limited to, financial penalties of up to {$1000.00} per violation, and compensatory and punitive damages as determined by the court.

Request for Immediate Action and Potential Legal Consequences Given the documented identity theft, the legal requirements under FCRA, TILA, GLBA, and Michigan law, and your agencies ' duty to perform a detailed investigation beyond XXXX, I formally demand that you : Immediately delete the fraudulent accounts listed above from my credit reports. 
Provide formal confirmation of these deletions in writing. 
Detail the investigatory actions conducted to ensure full compliance with FCRA, TILA, and Michigan 's Identity Theft Protection Act.

Provide opt-out assurances in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 6802-6805 and 16 C.F.R. 313.7, demonstrating that my personal information will not be shared further.

Your failure to fully investigate and act accordingly constitutes multiple violations under federal and state laws, including the FCRA, TILA, and Michigan 's Identity Theft Protection Act, each carrying statutory penalties per violation as outlined above. Should you continue to ignore these requirements or rely on automated systems such as e-OSCAR, I will consider taking legal action, which may include seeking damages, attorney 's fees, and injunctive relief. 

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter. I trust you will act in full compliance with all relevant federal and state laws to protect my rights as a consumer and a documented victim of identity theft.