Consumer complaint received 2018-12-02
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: TX
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Information belongs to someone else

Complaint:
A Bank XXXX XXXX account was fraudulently opened and It had been blocked by all XXXX CRAs including experian since XXXX! Experian is in violation of numerous Fair CrediXXXX Transactions Act, and in particular the holding in the XXXX case by illegally violating my FACTA rights by surreptitiously and without cause reinserting a fraudulent account that was absolute fraud as proven by the numerous law enforcement agencies! They also are in violation of XXXX of which I was a class member the court ruled '' XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff submitted her Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Identity Theft Victims Complaint and Affidavit, a copy of her police report, and proof of residence to Experian. With this submission, XXXX requested that Experian block the disputed accounts. Rather than blocking the accounts, XXXX alleges that Experian responded to her request by sending a letter informing XXXX that her submissions were insufficient. 
-2 - Experians letter ( the letter which all of the proposed Class B members received ) states, in part : We are responding to your request that information in your personal credit report be blocked due to the alleged fraud. The identity theft report that you sent us does not meet the guidelines established by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ; therefore, we are unable to honor your request to block information. However, if you provided specific information, we are investigating the information you questioned with the sources. If you still wish to have this information blocked, please send us a valid identity theft report. 
Pls. XXXX XXXX. Comp. ; Ex. 2. 
The letter continues by listing what Experian looks for in a valid identity theft report, but fails to specify exactly what was missing from the materials XXXX and other class members submitted. Experian claims this omission is intentional to avoid fraudulent claims. XXXX alleges that the letter misrepresented that XXXX submissions were insufficient and further alleges that the letter did not contain the requisite notice of the business name and address of any furnisher of information that Experian contacted after receiving XXXX identity theft report. XXXX avers that this letter and its lack of notice violated the FCRA. Specifically, Plaintiffs XXXX and XXXX ( collectively, the Plaintiffs ) allege that Experian is  liable under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( c ) ( 2 ) because Experian willfully failed to provide the requisite notice after declining requests to block information and failed to specify the additional information or documentation it -3 - needed from the consumer upon receiving requests to block pursuant to 16 C.F.R. 603.3. 
XXXX now seeks to bring a claim on behalf of putative Class B, alleging that Experian willfully failed to block information that class members identified as identity theft related. XXXX proposes Class B to include : All persons to whom Experian sent a letter between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX stating at least in part : We are responding to your request that information in your personal credit report be blocked due to alleged fraud. The identity theft report that you sent us does not meet the guidelines established by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ; therefore we are unable to honor your request to block information. However, if you provided specific information, we are investigating the information you question with the sources... 
Pls. Amend. Mot. to Certify at 4.

II. LEGAL STANDARD To certify a class under FED. R. CIV. P. 23 ( Rule 23 '' ), a court must find : ( a ) that the class is definite enough that its members are identifiable, and ( b ) that it satisfies not only the requirements of Rule 23 ( a ), but also one of the three subsections of Rule 23 ( b ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Sch., XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). Rule 23 ( a ) requires that class members be so numerous that joining each is impracticable ( numerosity ) ; that there be class-wide questions of law or fact ( commonality ) ; that the named parties claims or defenses be typical of the class ( typicality ) ; and that the representative be able to protect the classs interests adequately ( adequacy ). Rule 23 ( a ).

-4 - Here, Plaintiffs proceed under Rule 23 ( b ) ( 3 ), which provides that certification is appropriate if the common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and... a class action is superior to other available adjudication methods. Rule 23 ( b ) ( 3 ). The Court must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether Plaintiffs have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the class meets the Rule 23 criteria. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, -- - F.3d -- --, XXXX WL XXXX, at *4 ( 7th Cir. XXXX ). In doing so, the XXXX must resolve material disputed facts. Id. 
III. DISCUSSION In XXXX, Congress amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) to increase protection for victims of identity theft. XXXX XXXX. L. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). XXXX new provision generally requires consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) such as Experian to block information in a consumers credit report if that information resulted from identity theft. The CRA must do so within four days of receiving certain documentation of the identity theft. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ). That documentation includes : proof of the  consumers identity ; a copy of an identity theft report ; identification of what information should be blocked ; and the consumers statement that the disputed information does not relate to any transaction that she made. Id. Once a CRA receives the necessary information and places the block, -5 - it must inform the furnisher of the blocked information. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( b ). 
The FCRA defines identity theft and identity theft report and authorizes the FTC to add to those definitions by regulation. 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( q ). Thus, for the FTCs purposes, an identity theft report is a report that : ( 1 ) alleges identity theft with as much specificity as the consumer can offer ; ( 2 ) is a copy of an official, valid report that the consumer filed with a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, and which subjected the consumer to criminal penalties if the report is false ; and ( 3 ) may include additional information or documentation that... [ a CRA ] reasonably requests for the purpose of determining the validity of the alleged identity theft [. ] 16 C.F.R. 603.3 ( a ).

However, if a CRA requests additional information, it must do so within 15 days of receiving the consumers block request or identity theft report, and generally must make any additional requests and its final decision on whether to place the block within 15 days after its first request for additional information. Id. 
The regulation also provides examples of when it would or would not be reasonable to request additional information or documentation. 16 C.F.R. 603.3 ( b, c ). One such example provides that, if a CRA receives a police report containing detailed -6 - information as well as the signature, badge number, or other identifying information for the officer taking the report, it is not reasonable for the CRA to request additional information without an identifiable concern, such as an indication that the report was fraudulent. 16 C.F.R. 603.3 ( c ) ( 1 ).

The FCRA gives CRAs some authority to decline or rescind requested blocks. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( c ). A CRA may do so if it reasonably determines that [ : ] ( a ) the block was requested or placed in error ; ( b ) the block or request was based on a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer ; or ( c ) the consumer received goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( c ) ( 1 ). If a CRA declines or rescinds a block, it must promptly notify the consumer in the same manner as... under section 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) of this title. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( c ) ( 2 ). Section 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), as applicable here, requires that a CRA notify the consumer in writing ( or by other consumer-approved means ) within five days. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( ii ). [ A ] XXXX part of, or in addition to that notice, the CRA must tell the consumer what has been declined or un-blocked, the name and contact information of the business that furnished the information at issue, and that the consumer has a right to add a statement to her consumer report that the information is disputed. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( iii ).

-7 - '' This is exactly what Experian has done and revictimized me without any reason but to inflict cruel and grotesque pain. For 5 years the fraud account was blocked and then you mixed my file! I demand that the Bank XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX account be deleted immediately! I am seeking redress from the courts and you're in violation of XXXX and XXXX! 
I want the Bank XXXX XXXX account blocked per facta as it was for nearly 3 years and without notice illegally reinserted!

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation