Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

I have filed at dozens of disputes for various accounts/tradelines in my Experian credit files over the past six ( 6 ) months. Experian specialists are modifying the disputes without examining the dispute statement or the documents submitted with disputes, leading to errors in which disputes are filed. For example, I have private student loans that were serviced by a bank and then contracted out to XXXX for servicing. I filed disputes for the accounts XXXX XXXX. The enclosed documentation has included a statement of exactly what account numbers are being disputed -- these are the same numbers used to identify the account in my Experian credit file. Moreover the account numbers are included in the documentation on a single page. Despite this, Experian '' specialists '' have modified the disputes simply to conduct automatic updates through eOSCAR, when the bank itself has been the source of the error. Moreover, these modified disputes have included accounts that are XXXX which have not been the subject of my disputes. Thus the results of the alleged ( re ) investigations simply show " verified '' and or " verified/updated '' and shows the same garbage data that was disputed to begin with. There is no way Experian believes the accounts are being reported with maximum possible accuracy. If a bank engages in unfair and/or unlawful acts and practices, and then uses the results of those unfair and unlawful acts and practices as the basis of the data they furnish to the CRAs, then the data is false/inaccurate/misleading because the data furnished gives a materially misleading impression. The harm/injury, derogatory indicators in the credit file, suppression in credit score, and in general defamation, are not reasonably avoidable by a consumer because the consumer does not have control over the unfair and unlawful acts and practices of the bank. The CRAs, having received disputes regarding the accounts/tradelines knows or should know the information it is reporting is false/misleading/inaccurate, and further WOULD know if it bothered to examine the enclosed documents, instead of blindly passing those documents on to the data furnisher to automatically " verify. '' In the case of ( re ) invesigations, blindly passing the documents onto the data furnisher and failing to examine the results and compare with the documentation submitted with the consumer complaint, means the CRA has abandoned its responsibilities under 15 U.S. Code 1681e. The bank, as furnisher, knows or has reasonable cause to believe it is furnishing inaccurate information because in this case it tried to justify how its negligence DID NOT affect/harm the borrower and/or coborrower, by ignoring the issues rearding its failure ( s ) to provide timely information to borrower and co-borrower, and giving no regard for the timing overhead for its servicer to provided timely information to borrower and/or coborrower, resulting in conflicting streams of information. It has, before, reviewed the documents submitted by the consumer as part of the dispute, or should have reviewed the documents submitted with the dispute, and instead has chosen to continue to report the account with derogatory indicators to protect its interest including, vut not limited to perceived leverage over consumer, and minimization of exposure to litigation. In the process the bank runs afoul of its responsibilities as data furnisher under 15 U.S. Code 1681s2. When a bank 's unlawful and unfair practices preferentially target disadvantaged groups such as those who may be minorities, and/or XXXX, and or XXXX, the bank 's practices are additionally abusive and violate anti-discrimination laws.