Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

alleges inaccuracies and material misrepresentations in credit reporting by XXXX for Transworld Systems accountXXXX ( TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC ) with corresponding account number XXXX. Despite multiple disputes and clear evidence of inaccuracies, XXXX has failed to correct the information, resulting in significant harm to Consumers creditworthiness and financial stability. This complaint outlines the pattern of noncompliance by XXXX and the legal basis for Consumer 's claims. 
Complainant is XXXX and has experienced the comorbidities of XXXX and XXXX. Complainant contracted XXXX on at least three ( 3 ) occasions ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ), leading to prolonged periods of XXXX, also referred to as Post-Acute Sequelae of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), with symptoms including fatigue, brain fog, migraines, and rigors. XXXX significantly increases the risk of XXXX XXXX or XXXX due to clotting, and recovery can be exacerbated and prolonged by undue stress. Complainant manages XXXX  through medication, but has faced obstacles renewing medications due to supply shortages and processing delays. Sudden cessation of these medications causes severe adverse effects, including fatigue, anxiety, XXXX, coma, and death. On XX/XX/XXXX, Complainant received a notification from XXXX indicating that a collection account from Transworld Systems Inc. ( " TSI '' ) related to XXXX XXXX had been reported on Complainant 's credit file maintained by XXXX. 
On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Complainant filed indirect disputes for the account with XXXX ( CFPB XXXX ), XXXX ( CFPB XXXX ), and XXXX ( CFPB XXXX XXXX challenging the accuracy on several grounds, including lack of proper notice from XXXX, failure to verify the XXXX, and the overall legitimacy of the account under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). XXXX additionally filed a direct dispute with XXXX. 
In his initial dispute notices XXXX noted the following pertaining to the FDCPA and FCRA : 1. Lack of Proper Notice : TSI failed to provide Complainant with proper notice of the debt as required by the FDCPA. Complainant never received any communication or notice from TSI regarding the alleged debt, which is a fundamental violation of consumer rights under the FDCPA ; XXXX. Failure to Verify Address : If XXXX XXXX provided TSI with an outdated address, TSI had an obligation to verify the accuracy of the address before sending any notices. 
The failure to ensure that any notice reached Complainant further underscores TSIs failure to follow reasonable procedures ; 3. Violation of FDCPA : By failing to provide Complainant with proper notice and an opportunity to dispute the debt, TSI violated Complainants rights under the FDCPA, rendering the reporting of this account on Complainants credit file unjustified ; 4. Materially Misleading Information : The information reported by TSI is materially misleading under the standard set forth in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a misleading impression that adversely affects Complainants creditworthiness ; 5. Billing and Payment Processing Issues : Between XXXX and XXXX, XXXX XXXX had significant billing and processing irregularities on Complainants utility account, leading to delays in billing and payment processing. These issues were documented in a prior CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, an energy draft for {$620.00} issued by Complainants state of residence was never applied to Complainants XXXX XXXX account, further contributing to the inaccuracies reported. 
6 No Inquiries on Credit File : There are no inquiries from TSI in the credit files maintained by XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, suggesting a lack of due diligence by TSI in verifying any alleged address to which they purport to have mailed any collection notice. After receiving responses from XXXX that continued to report inaccurate and misleading information, Complainant proceeded to file subsequent indirect disputes with XXXX through various channels, including the XXXX web portal ( myequifax.com ), the Michigan Attorney General ( MIAG ) web portal, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) web portal. In these subsequent dispute notices, Complainant highlighted the following key issues : 1. Omission of Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) : XXXX had removed the DoFD on multiple occasions, leaving the account incomplete and unverifiable for the seven- year reporting limit under the FCRA XXXX 
2. Discrepancies in Reporting Across CRAs : Complainant noted inconsistencies in how the account was being reported across the three major credit reporting agencies ( XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ), particularly with regard to the DoFD and account balance. 
3. Failure to Verify Debt Properly : Despite Complainant 's evidence of discrepancies, XXXX continued to verify the account as accurate, even though the collection agency, Transworld Systems Inc. ( TSI ), had not provided valid verification of the debt. TSI had placed the account in a restricted status and ceased collection activities as of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 
4. Harm and Adverse Effects : Complainant detailed the ongoing harm caused by XXXX persistence in reporting the unverifiable and misleading account, including potential impacts on housing, employment, and credit opportunities. Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX provided specific evidence in several disputes indicating the information being furnished to XXXX by TSI was likely inaccurate. Among the documents supplied were credit reports from all three ( XXXX ) NCRAs that showed different Dates of First Delinquency ( DoFD ), a prior CFPB complaint filed against the original creditor that alleged financial irregularities in the account, and an image of an energy draft that was never applied to Complainants account by the purported original creditor. By the end of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX had been provided with a copy of the purported validation letter upon which TSI alleged the collection item on the credit report was based. This letter, and its accompanying documentation, supplied to XXXX before the end of XX/XX/XXXX, showed the debt had not been properly validated because there was a discrepant amount between what the documentation from the original creditor showed and the amount alleged in TSIs validation letter, and the XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter that responded to Complainant 's earlier XX/XX/XXXX direct dispute regarding the TSI validation letter. 
On at least XXXX occasions, XXXX removed the XXXX without replacing it2. As noted in XXXX v. XXXX University, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : When a furnisher provides information to a CRA regarding an account placed for collection or charged to profit or loss, the furnisher then has 90 days in which to notify the CRA of the accounts date of delinquency, which is defined as the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency on the account that immediately preceded the action. The date of delinquency enables the CRA to calculate the seven-year window for aging-off purposeswithout it, the CRA would be unable to determine when the account had been placed for collection, rendering the aging-off date impossible to calculate ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ). espite these issues, and no matter what factual basis on which Complainant demonstrated significant inaccuracies with the account as reported, XXXX continued to persist information it knew or had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate, and glaringly without a Date of First delinquency on at least XXXX ( XXXX ) separate occasions. Between XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX acknowledged Complainants disputes but took no action to remove the demonstrated inaccuracies from the files it maintains and disseminates regarding XXXX, instead processing whatever information it received from XXXX as absolute truth. On at least XXXX such occasions XXXX failed to replace the XXXX after it was removed, leaving the account incomplete for determining whether the debt had surpassed the seven-year reporting limit. XXXX received from a data furnisher does not meet the accuracy and completeness standard, i.e., accuracy and not misleading, as established in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). In fact, as the CFPB has emphasized ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, No. XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX Cir. XX/XX/XXXX ) ), the fact that a CRA obtains information from another source simply does not mean that the information is free from error. This is not at all dissimilar from opinions within the XXXX XXXX, where in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the court held that A credit reporting agencys reliance on information gathered by outside entities is reasonable so long as the information is not obtained from a source that was known to be unreliable and is not inaccurate on its face or otherwise inconsistent with the information the [ credit reporting agencies ] already had on file ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( citations omitted ) ) ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX 's XXXX to replace the DoFD is a clear violation of XXXX ( b ), which requires CRAs to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Without a XXXX, XXXX was maintaining and disseminating incomplete and inaccurate information regarding the account 's status. 
When a CRA fails to ensure maximum possible accuracy under XXXX ( b ), ( materially misleading information can be just as damaging to a consumer as if it had come directly from the furnisher. ) ( Twumasi-Ankrah v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. 
XXXX ) ), because ( both XXXX and XXXX serve the same purpose : ensuring accuracy in consumer credit reporting. ) ( XXXX v. XXXX Banking, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, ( XXXX Cir. 
XXXX ) ). Therefore, reliance on a data furnisher does not categorically insulate a CRA from reasonable-procedures liability under section XXXX ( b ) ( CFPB XXXX Brief in XXXX ), because as XXXX articulates XXXX ( once a claimed inaccuracy is pinpointed by the consumer, the [ credit-reporting ] agency incurs only the cost of [ independently ] reinvestigating that XXXX piece of disputed information ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, quoting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ). A CRA is required to consider and review [ a Consumers notice of dispute and accompanying documentation ] independently ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ), and the burden for ensuring maximum possible accuracy falls to the CRA as an arbiter of truth between a data furnisher and a XXXX. 
The removal of the DoFD without replacement caused substantial harm to XXXX, potentially leading to negative outcomes in applications for housing, credit, or employment. Even if specific denials or adverse actions havent yet occurred, the mere presence of inaccurate or incomplete information could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on XXXX because it fails to ensure maximum possible XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Additionally, the inability of Transworld Systems XXXX to validate the debt further underscores the unlawfulness of XXXX 's continued reporting of this account. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. XXXX reliance on automated processes ( XXXX ) without reviewing new documentation or conducting thorough ( re ) investigations violates its duty to reinvestigate disputes under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ). Courts have consistently held that a reasonable reinvestigation requires more than a superficial review of information provided by furnishers. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. Solutions, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the court emphasized that a reasonable [ re ] investigation must mean more than simply making only a cursory investigation into the reliability of information that is reported to potential creditors, because reasonable procedures under XXXX ( b ) are not proof of a reasonable reinvestigation under XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX, citing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). 
Despite multiple disputes from XXXX, XXXX has : XXXX. Failed to properly validate the disputed information. 
XXXX. Ignored discrepancies in the XXXX across the XXXX CRAs, leaving conflicting information in Complainants credit file. 
XXXX. Repeatedly removed and reinstated the XXXX, without permanently resolving the issue, leading to at least XXXX instances where the account was reported without a DoFD. 
XXXX. Verified the account as accurate on multiple occasions, despite the ongoing discrepancies in the XXXX and missing information in later reports. 
XXXX failure to maintain a consistent DoFD, coupled with its repeated verification of the account as accurate, despite the discrepancies across CRAs, is clear evidence of unreasonable procedures under XXXX. The cycle of removing and reinstating the XXXX demonstrates that XXXX reinvestigations were not thorough, as they failed to resolve the root issue despite multiple disputes XXXX. By failing to replace the XXXX in at least XXXX instances, XXXX left the account unverifiable for aging-off purposes, meaning it could remain on the credit report indefinitely. 
According to the CFPB XXXX XXXX at XXXX FR XXXX, A consumer reporting agencys policies and procedures should further identify and prevent illogical reporting of a Date of First Delinquency in connection with an account. XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Fed. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). Section XXXX ( a ) of the FCRA ensures that accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss can not remain on a consumer report for more than XXXX years and 180 days from the Date of First Delinquency. This provision exists so that consumers can rebuild their credit after a delinquency. Failure to properly reflect the XXXX, as seen in XXXX mishandling, allows a delinquency to persist indefinitely, perpetuating inaccurate reporting and undermining consumer rights under the FCRA. 
By verifying the account as accurate while reporting conflicting information, XXXX actions were not only unreasonable but also suggest they did not follow proper reinvestigation procedures. This pattern of behavior underscores systemic inadequacies in their handling of the dispute process, as each investigation failed to correct the inaccuracies. The removal of the DoFD without replacement rendered the account incomplete and inaccurate, in violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), which requires CRAs to correct or delete any information found to be inaccurate or incomplete. As noted in XXXX v. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), when a creditor continues to furnish a [ XXXX ] XXXX with information about a consumer that the XXXX knows or has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate, the XXXX is required to act. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the court emphasized that it is incumbent upon the [ XXXX ] to permanently delete and cloak the false or inaccurate information from the files the XXXX maintains and disseminates regarding a consumer to which the file pertains. ( emphasis added ). 
Continuing to report the account without a DoFD constitutes inaccurate and incomplete reporting, violating the accuracy and completeness standards under XXXX. 
Thus, XXXX should have deleted the account. Under the CFPB XXXX opinion on facially false information, beginning at XXXX XXXX XXXX, consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) are required to detect and prevent the inclusion of facially inaccurate data in the files they maintain or disseminate regarding a consumer. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Fed. XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). This requirement extends to data that would render accounts or tradelines inaccurate and/or incomplete. As the advisory opinion explains, [ i ] naccuracies in consumer reports can, in part, be attributed to consumer reporting agencies failing to maintain reasonable procedures, such as business rules, to prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logical inconsistencies relating to consumer data and/or the status or other information associated with consumer accounts, when preparing consumer reports. ( XXXX FR XXXX ). The advisory opinion further clarifies that [ a ] consumer reporting agencys policies and procedures [ shall ] be sufficient to detect tradelines with account statuses or codes that are plainly inconsistent with other information reported for that same account, such that, if included in a consumer report, at least XXXX item of information therein would necessarily be inaccurate. ( XXXX FR XXXX ). 
When such facially inaccurate data finds its way into the files that CRAs maintain and disseminate regarding a consumer, the violation is willful if it is inconsistent with authoritative guidance from a relevant agency, such as the CFPB or FTC. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX citing XXXX XXXX. XXXX of XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) and Fuges v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX 
, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). In fact, the legislative intent behind the FCRA does not allow XXXX to evade responsibility when misleading information finds its way into a report, even if it originates from a third party, as emphasized in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX : XXXX surely did not intentionally weave an exception into the fabric of the FCRA that would destroy its remedial scheme by allowing a credit reporting agency to escape responsibility for its carelessness whenever misleading information finds its way into a credit report through the agency of a third party. ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ). 
Moreover, XXXX was concerned with the harm to consumers stemming from incomplete credit reporting just as much as it was concerned with inaccurate credit reporting ( XXXX ). Incomplete or inaccurate reporting encompass [ es ] not only false information, but also correct information that nevertheless create [ XXXX ] a materially misleading impression ( XXXX, quoting XXXX v. XXXX Fed. XXXX. Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). 
As the XXXX XXXX explained in XXXX, a credit report is inaccurate under 1681e ( b ) and XXXX ( a ) if it omits accurate information that could reasonably be expected to adversely affect a consumers creditworthiness ( XXXX ). This explanation is echoed by the XXXX XXXX in XXXX, where the court, quoting XXXX, defined materially misleading information as information that [ is ] misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it [ could have been ] expected to have an adverse effect [ on the consumer ] ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, as cited in XXXX ). 
According to XXXX, omission of material information can render technically accurate information misleading and, thus, actionable under the FCRA ( XXXX ). In short, material omissions render a credit report inaccurate ( XXXX ). 
XXXX removed the DoFD from credit files it maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant on at least three ( 3 ) occasions in an attempt to correct inaccurate information. However, rather than deleting the account tradeline as Complainant demanded, XXXX chose instead to remove the XXXX, which caused the account/tradeline to report as a perpetual collection, thereby making the information even more inaccurate in such a way and to such an extent that it [ could have been ] expected to have an adverse effect ( XXXX ) on Complainant, potentially exposing Complainant to an endless cycle of housing instability, credit denials, and weaker employment prospects. 
Without an accurate DoFD, a CRA would be unable to determine when [ an account/tradeline ] [ was ] placed for collection, rendering the aging-off date impossible to calculate ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ). The aging-off date enables a CRA to determine when the account is no longer eligible for reporting under the seven-year statute of limitations for negative information ( XXXX ; see also XXXX FR XXXX ). The removal of the DoFD without replacement rendered the account/tradeline incomplete and thus inaccurate. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that is found to be inaccurate or incomplete must be either corrected or deleted. 
However, in this instance, it was XXXX own 'correction'the removal of the XXXX that resulted in further inaccuracies. Harm resulted not only from the removal of the DoFD itself but also because the account continued to persist in the files XXXX maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant as a perpetual collection, despite its unverifiable status. In the jury instructions for XXXX, as cited in XXXX, XXXX willful violation of the FCRA XXXX when the defendant knowingly and intentionally committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of the consumer ' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( quoting XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ) ). XXXX v. XXXX Banking, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). 
This situation reflects broader systemic issues in how nationwide consumer reporting agencies ( NCRAs ) including Equifaxhandle consumer disputes. As noted in the CFPBs XXXX blog post, When information is wrong or incomplete, consumers have the right to get that information corrected. But in their complaints to the CFPB, consumers talked about a system by which the nationwide consumer reporting agenciesEquifax, XXXX, and TransUnionput up barriers, hampering their ability to exercise their rights ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, CFPB Blog ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ). This highlights the willful disregard of consumers ' rights by maintaining inaccurate data and obstructing their ability to correct the record. XXXX failure to reinstate or provide a replacement for the XXXX, despite knowing the debts unverifiable status, reflects this pattern of disregard and supports a finding of willfulness. 
Thus, even though XXXX may not have acted with malicious intent, their actions qualify as willful violations because they disregarded established regulations and case law. 
Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( FCRA Section 611 ), CRAs are required to correct or delete inaccurate information after reinvestigation. However, XXXX continued reporting of an account with discrepancies, particularly the absence of the XXXX, compounded the inaccuracies. By relying on incomplete information and failing to properly reinvestigate the disputed data, XXXX perpetuated inaccuracies in the files it maintains and disseminates regarding XXXX. 
Furthermore, by failing to adhere to statutory obligations and the authoritative interpretations from the CFPB, as well as judicial rulings in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX not only violated FCRA requirements but also demonstrated a systemic failure in following reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy. These violations, under the framework set forth by both XXXX and the CFPB, qualify as willful because XXXX knowingly acted in conscious disregard of the rights of the consumer. 
As a result, XXXX conduct continues to persist and disseminate misleading information that harms or is likely to cause harm to Complainant. This constitutes a violation of the accuracy and not misleading standard as established in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), which requires consumer reporting agencies to ensure that the information they report is not only accurate but also not misleading, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). These failures directly expose Complainant to ongoing and severe consequences, including housing instability, credit denials, and weakened employment prospects. Credit reporting inaccuracies can lead to severe and far-reaching consequences, affecting not only individual consumers but the entire economy. As noted during the XXXX XXXX House XXXX XXXX XXXX hearing on consumer credit reporting, Whether in assessing credit, employment, housing, insurance or even utilities, the information provided by the major [ N ] CRAs has the power to either open or foreclose a vast array of opportunities that undergird economic security and social justice for consumers ( opening statement of XXXX XXXX, House XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
Moreover, the allocation of credit, described as the lifeblood of the American economy, hinges on the reliability of these reports ( opening statement of XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX continued reporting of inaccurate and incomplete information in the files it maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant, despite repeated disputes and ample evidence of unverifiable and misleading data, constitutes a clear violation of its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Despite receiving several indirect dispute notices from the Complainant, XXXX has consistently failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i. Furthermore, XXXX failure to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), has resulted in the persistence of inaccurate and incomplete information in the files XXXX maintains regarding Complainant, specifically the repeated removal and failure to replace the Date of First Delinquency ( DoFD ) on the Transworld Systems Inc. 
account. 
The removal of the XXXX without a proper replacement, coupled with XXXX premature and unfounded verification of the account, has perpetuated a cycle of harm to the Complainant, including negative impacts on creditworthiness, financial stability, housing stability, and employment opportunities. XXXX reliance on the data provided by Transworld Systems XXXX, despite its known unreliability and the clear discrepancies in the validation of the debt, further demonstrates a systemic failure to meet its statutory obligations. 
In light of these ongoing violations, XXXX actions constitute willful noncompliance with the FCRA, as the company has disregarded both the statutory requirements and the authoritative guidance from the CFPB and relevant case law. 
Complainant remains exceptionally vulnerable to the conduct of XXXX, and continues to suffer serious harm. Complainant is entitled to relief from XXXX egregious conduct that includes, but is not limited to the immediate deletion of the Transworld Systems Inc. 
account/tradeline from any and all files XXXX maintains and disseminates regarding Complainant.