Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

Subject : Inaccurate and Unverifiable Bankruptcy Information Reported by LexisNexis Violation of FCRA Verification Requirements Complaint Description I am filing this complaint against [ XXXX ] for reporting inaccurate and unverifiable information related to a bankruptcy appearing on my credit report. This complaint is made in accordance with the rights afforded to consumers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), which mandates that all information included in a consumer credit report must be verifiable and accurate. Summary of the Issue : The bankruptcy case ( Case
Number : [ XXXX ] ) is currently being reported in my credit file by [ XXXX ] XXXX Upon initiating a dispute, the credit bureau claimed that they had verified the information. However, the verification process used is fundamentally flawed and violates the requirements of the FCRA for the following reasons : XXXX Bankruptcy Courts do not report information to credit bureaus : As per multiple statements made by XXXX XXXX  including the XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX for the XXXX XXXX of Missouri : '' The courts of bankruptcy do not provide information to credit reporting agencies. Credit reporting agencies obtain this information from public records. '' ( moeb.uscourts.gov ) Since the bankruptcy courts themselves do not verify or provide this information, the burden falls on the credit bureaus to ensure accurate and verifiable data, in compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).

Reliance on third-party databases, such as PACER or LexisNexis, does not meet FCRA standards for verification : The credit bureau is relying on third-party data vendors, such as LexisNexis or XXXX, to report and verify the bankruptcy. However, these entities do not constitute a reliable source under the FCRA. In the case XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court emphasized that : '' Credit bureaus are required to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy, and reliance solely on public records or third-party data without proper verification fails to meet this standard. " Furthermore, the FCRA requires direct verification with the original furnisher of the information, which in this case, the courts have explicitly stated they do not provide. Therefore, the credit bureaus failure to obtain verification directly from a valid source constitutes a violation of FCRA provisions. 
Lack of direct verification violates 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : The FCRA states that if disputed information can not be verified as accurate, it must be deleted. Since the bankruptcy court is not the furnisher of this information, and the third-party sources are insufficient for verification, I am requesting that the credit bureau immediately delete the bankruptcy from my credit file.

Failure to address this dispute constitutes clear and willful violations of the law : The communication from my end was clear and unambiguous. I provided ample opportunity for the credit bureau to verify or correct the inaccurate bankruptcy reporting. By failing to remove this unverifiable information, the credit bureau is in clear violation of multiple provisions of the FCRA as highlighted above. Their continued noncompliance represents a willful disregard for consumer protection laws. 
Supporting Precedents To support my argument, I would like to highlight the following precedents and rulings where lack of proper verification led to successful disputes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) This case highlights the need for reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy and the responsibility of credit bureaus to conduct proper investigations beyond public records. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) The court emphasized that credit bureaus must perform meaningful investigations when consumers dispute the accuracy of the information and can not merely rely on automated data validation. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) This case demonstrated that when disputed information is not properly verified, the consumer has the right to demand its removal.