Consumer complaint received 2016-05-08
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MI
Product: Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of my credit report
Sub-issue: Received marketing offer after opted out

Complaint:
The attached .pdf distinguishes the intended language that XXXX uses as quite different what Experian uses ; such that I am not sure where the criteria was disseminated to the creditor. While I therefore complained about this offer 's company, in a separate CFPB yesterday, my purpose on this complaint is to specific language prohibiting violations of both opt-in and opt-out consumers on Experian 's reports. The FRCA, ( see page XXXX of attachment ; bottom of page ) says that consumers can exclude " unsolicited firm offers of credit and insurance '' which brings up some differences between how XXXX enforce it. I opted-out and still received offers subsequently. But, they were not " firm offers of credit '' to begin with. Experian seems to be more lax than XXXX ; by not actually stating this language on their report as the latter does do. Even if I was opted-in these creditors should not get past the gatekeeper ; based the word " firm, '' because the credit offers are no where near that. In fact, I also noticed the bold language on the offer by XXXX XXXX in particular ; which had to have received more than a name and address to pre-qualify me. Seems that they are getting much more than just a name and address!!! Pre-qualified offers must be " firm offers of credit '' to be legal. Because, if they are wishy-washy & caveat-filled " may be denied '' offers of conditional credit, then XXXX customers should get them - whether opting in or opting out - whatsoever. Another way that this creditor, in particular gets more, is by posing as a creditor in a separate inquiry. A day apart on XXXX. This is relevant to this Experian complaint, because it seems to be this credit reporting agency - that devulged more than legally allowed ; to an even fully-qualified inquiry. So what gives here? As one example, I received today an offer to apply in XXXX ; as if I never opted-out by U.S. Mail. Page XXXX of XXXX of XXXX credit report, # XXXX says " ... permissible purpose ... '' Strike # 1. It is not permissible after I opt-out. Then it says, " other creditors which want to offer you pre-approved credit ; ... '' Strike # 2. It is not a " firm offer of credit '' if it is not actually " pre-approved '' because ( according to XXXX ) they ca n't base pre-approval on a name and address alone. Worse still, in my case, I disputed so many addresses, how many people received this offers? Plus, this is like opening the phonebook to determine who is credit-worthy. That is sloppy. That is profiling. Ethnically-populated zip codes are where a slew of payday lenders and other businesses pop up. Pawn shops. So it is easy to do predatory lending by using zip codes to preapprove. Then it says, " your current creditors ... '' Strike # 3. The pre-approved credit offer excludes its existing customers from the offer but mails it to them knowing they qualify. Fraud! So this needs to stop. As soon as my credit report errors are fixed I need to put a freeze on my credit report. That seems to be the only way to stop fraud and identity theft from credit reporting agencies who provide multiple erroneous addresses to companies violating the FCRA blatantly. The words should say, " firm offer of credit based not solely on your name and address but your credit-worthiness as determined before mailing ot to the comsumer. '' And XXXX envelopes would legally fall into that because to do so, they would have to know more than the name and address. This would limit these offers to their own existing customers who they will not approve but are equipt as a group to file a class-action lawsuit. The double-fraud is their realm, as existing comsumer victims. But, in specific case, three strikes : 1. None of these offers should been " preapproved '' based on phonebook data alone. 
2. Is not a " firm offer of credit '' 3. Was past the opt-out ; but, even if I opted in. Either way it is illegal per FCRA plus us mail fraud and discrimination.

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 non-monetary relief