Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

I am filing this complaint against Experian Information Solutions , Inc. for multiple willful and negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., for mishandling the accuracy, dispute process, and reporting practices associated with my consumer credit file. 

Experian has marked multiple disputed accounts as verified without providing any supporting documentation or evidence. Despite my formal disputes, Experian has not produced original documents such as contracts bearing my wet ink signature, billing statements, or legally admissible proof that the accounts belong to me or are being reported accurately. Instead, Experian continues to mark these items as verified, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which requires a credit reporting agency to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which obligates them to provide a description of the procedures used to verify the information. 

Account name XXXX XXXX XXXX  - Address identification number XXXX - Account number XXXX .... 

Account name XXXX XXXX - Account number XXXX - Address identification number XXXX Account name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account number XXXX - Address identification number XXXX In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court ruled that a credit reporting agency can not rely solely on the furnisher of information and must independently investigate disputes. Likewise, in XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that both CRAs and furnishers must conduct a reasonable investigation blind reliance is not enough. Experians ongoing use of the term verified without transparency or documentation clearly violates these standards. 

XXXX accounts currently being reported on my credit file illustrate further misleading and damaging reporting practices : XXXX XXXX, Address Identification Number XXXX, Account Number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Address Identification Number XXXX, Account Number XXXX Both of these accounts are listed show Terms : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ). XXXX accounts should not report payment terms such as a XXXX installment. Doing so misrepresents the account type and artificially makes it appear like a high-risk, short-term defaulted loan manipulating credit scoring algorithms and misleading any lender who pulls the file. This violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires all information reported to be as accurate and complete as possible. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that even technically correct information can still be considered inaccurate under the FCRA if it is misleading to creditors or consumers. 

Experian is also inaccurately reporting my personal identifying information. Specifically, they have my first and last name spelled incorrectly, including instances where the name is reversed and the first name is split, which is not my legal or reported name in any records. This is a direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires credit reporting agencies to maintain maximum possible accuracy of all data including consumer identifiers. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), the court found that even an error in a name could constitute an FCRA violation if it led to reputational or economic harm. Similarly, in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the court confirmed that misidentification alone, such as reversed names, can trigger CRA liability if not addressed with reasonable procedures. Furthermore, when I attempted to dispute this error through Experians online system, I was blocked and instructed to call in instead of being allowed to file a dispute directly a restriction that violates my rights under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) and contradicts the ruling in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), where the court held that consumers must be given fair access to the dispute process without unreasonable obstruction. 

Experian is also reporting charged-off accounts in a way that is deceptive and materially inaccurate. XXXX example reads : Account charged off. {$610.00} written off. {$610.00} past due as of XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX - Address identification number XXXX - Account number XXXX .... 

This reporting is contradictory and misleading. Once an account is charged off and closed, it should not be updated with a new " past due '' balance as if the account is actively billing or delinquent. This practice misleads lenders into believing the account is currently delinquent, when in fact it is a closed, written-off debt. This violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) by failing to ensure maximum possible accuracy, and has been condemned in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the court held that technically accurate but misleading information still violates the FCRA. Additionally, this method of updating closed accounts each month to reflect fresh delinquency misrepresents my creditworthiness and artificially inflates the negative impact of the account, contrary to the reasoning in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). I have disputed this issue and Experian has failed to correct or properly investigate it, further violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ). 

Experian is also inaccurately reporting collection accounts as if they are actively past due in the current billing cycle. XXXX entries read : XXXX account. past due as of XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX, Address Identification Number XXXX, Account Number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Address Identification Number XXXX, Account Number XXXX This reporting is misleading and factually incorrect. A collection account is, by definition, already in default and closed there are no new payments due. By reporting it as past due as of a current or future month, Experian misrepresents the status and severity of the account. This inflates the impact on my credit score by making the account appear newly delinquent, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the court held that even technically accurate data can be misleading under the FCRA. Similarly, in XXXX v. Experian XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court found that the FCRA is violated when date manipulation or reporting distorts the age or activity of a delinquent account. This practice is deceptive, harmful, and must be corrected. 

In addition, Experian has blocked me from submitting disputes on certain items, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ). The XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX decision makes clear that credit bureaus can not simply prevent or ignore consumer disputes without conducting a proper investigation. 

To make matters worse, Experian has failed to conclude its reinvestigations within the legally required 30-day window. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), any information that can not be verified within 30 days must be deleted from the credit file. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court held that failure to delete unverified or unverifiable data after this statutory period is a direct violation of the FCRA. 

Given all of the above the misuse of the term verified, the failure to provide verification documents, the manipulative reporting of XXXX terms on charge-offs, the misrepresentation of charged-off and collection accounts as newly delinquent, the incorrect reporting of my name, obstruction of the dispute process, and the failure to meet the XXXX reinvestigation deadline I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate these violations and take corrective and enforcement action against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Sham investigation ref XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc . Filed on : XX/XX/XXXX In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Press Release dated XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB issued a formal enforcement action against XXXX, XXXX, and Experian for violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i by mishandling consumer disputes, failing to remove unverifiable items, and blocking legitimate dispute investigations. These violations mirror the exact issues I am experiencing with TransUnion today.