Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

I have filed multiple complaints through the CFPB regarding Experian and XXXX handling of information in my credit file for an account/tradeline with XXXX XXXX XXXX Both have alleged the account status was " verified '' as correct by XXXX. It is clear neither has reviewed any and all documentation that was attached to the respective complaints because had XXXX and Experian reviewed the information, they would have found a XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX response to a complaint I filed with My state 's attorney general 's office that says " we have no control over how the credit reporting agencies display the information we provide them for their account. '' XXXX XXXX claims the account was charged-off XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. However, they have repeatedly re-aged the account over the past two ( 2 ) years, allegedly in response to billing errors I filed. The result of that re-age includes two ( 2 ) erroneous periods that alleged the payments were past-due at one point by 150 days and another 180 days. The account as recently reported as past-due for the last five ( 5 ) months. That reporting by itself is erroneous and gives an impression that there exists a recent history of an inability to pay on current debt obligations. It should also be mentioned that this account was charged-off because XXXX locked me out of my ability to pay, provided misinformation to me to make payments thereafter, blocked access to online statements and stopped sending billing statements. Experian and XXXX XXXX claim the disputed information regrading the alleged charge-off status of the account is a " legal '' matter because a charge-off is because such a dispute would poses questions of a legal nature, rather than a factual nature. However, the CFPB and FTC jointly filed an amicus brief in Sessa v. TransUnion, LLC wherein they argue the text of the FCRA harbors no such distinction between factual and legal inaccuracies, and that importing a distinction between factual and legal inaccuracies into the law is unworkable in practice because most and presumably all inaccuracies in consumer reports could be characterized as legal. To create such a distinction would create an exception that would effectively nullifying the reasonable procedures section of the FCRA. In XXXX SCOTUS clarified that disclosing inaccurate information in a credit report to a third party constitutes a redressable injury sufficient to confer Article XXXX standing ( See TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 220809 ). I have been declined tenancy with at least two ( 2 ) different apartment complexes because of the inaccurate information reported to third-party tenant screening companies, which use Experian and/or XXXX credit reports in the automated approval process. Given that I have repeatedly filed CFPB complaints with Experian and XXXX regarding the false/misleading/inaccurate/incomplete information for this account/tradeline, and given I have filed disputes regarding the information for the account/tradeline with them on multiple occasions, I have standing to assert a negligence claim under FCRA, and as result a reasonable jury could find Experian and XXXX both enaged in negligent and willful violation XXXX see : Krueger v. Experian, et al ). Reasonable procedures under 1681e ( b ) are not proof of a reasonable re-investigation under XXXX81i ( b ). The re-investigation requirements undet 1681i ( a ) mandates a more thorough investigation than 1681e ( b ) and a CRA 's liability under the two sections may diverge depending on the facts ( see. Chaitoff v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., No. 21-2632 ( 7th Cir. 2023 ) ). XXXX and Experian have disregarded their responsibilities under 15 U.S. Code 1681 et. seq. and are allowing an account that was allegedly charged-off by XXXX two ( 2 ) years ago to be re-aged by XXXX such that the re-aging of account information has caused delinquencies to be reported by one-hundred XXXXighty ( 180 ). After filing nearly twenty ( 20 ) complaints regarding the reporting of this account over the past two ( 2 ) years, and demonstrating the multiple violations of Federal Law XXXX has engaged in, Experian and XXXX know XXXX has violated 15 U.S. Code 1681s2. By now there is no possible way Experian and/or XXXX can claim they do not know, or should not know, the account information is false/misleading/inaccurate, etc.. There is no way either is unaware the information for this XXXX account constitutes an error under US 6th Circuit interpretation of 15 U.S. Code 1681e, which regards errors as including factual information that is false/misleading/incomplete/inaccurate. Under 6th Circuit interpretation verifying information as technically correct, does not imply the information as reported is not an error. Given the contradictions in XXXX written response to my state 's attorney general 's office with those it provided to the CFPB, the account/tradeline needs to be removed and XXXX needs to be blocked from inserting additional information under a new and/or duplicate account/tradeline.