This complaint is based on violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by XXXX/XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter XXXX XXXX ). 

___ On XX/XX/XXXX, I reviewed my XXXX, XXXX  and XXXX credit reports and saw a charged off account reported by XXXX XXXX. All three ( 3 ) of my credit reports contained damaging details that were conflicting with each other. 

XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I disputed the account with all three credit reporting agencies. In my dispute, I included the following : The furnisher reported different balances, charge off amounts, and different charge off dates to all 3 credit bureaus. This can not be accurate if the information contradicts itself. Please remove the account. 

___ Between the dates of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I received the results of the investigations from all three credit reporting agencies. The results continued to reflect information that was contradictory to each other, with even more conflicting and damaging information. Examples of these errors which were falsely verified by XXXX XXXX are as follows : ___ FIRST XXXX XXXX notified XXXX and XXXX  that the first 30 day late payment that led to the charge off took place on XXXX of XXXX, while XXXX  shows this date as of XXXX of XXXX ( this is a vast spread of 7 months ). More strangely is that XXXX XXXX furnished the date of first delinquency on XXXX  as of XXXX of XXXX, which contradicted the payment history that XXXX XXXX furnished under the same account. 

___ SECOND XXXX XXXX notified XXXX  that the original charge off date took place in XXXX of XXXX, whereas they notified XXXX  that this date was in XXXX of XXXX, all while instructing XXXX that this date took place in XXXX of XXXX. This grossly inaccurate spread includes a whopping 20 months of false and damaging data. 

___ THIRD XXXX XXXX  failed to mark the disputed account as disputed to XXXX  and XXXX. 

___ XXXX XXXX verified false and damaging information which can cause the remarks to remain on my credit reports for longer than allowed by law. In addition, credit scores are weighed more heavily on recent negative activity much more than older negative activity. 

___ In a recent decision in the U.S. District Court of MD, the court ruled that reporting inconsistent information to varying credit bureaus in response to a consumers dispute is a violation of the FCRA : This inconsistency between the type of account reported supports an inference of carelessness on [ Defendants ] part sufficient for a cognizable section 1681s-2 ( b ) claim. See XXXX, XXXX WL XXXX, at XXXX ( finding that alleged inconsistencies between information provided by the furnisher to different credit bureaus sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss ). Accordingly, XXXX XXXX XXXX motion to dismiss XXXX claims under 1681s-2 ( b ) will be Denied. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( D. Md. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ). 

___ To support my complaint, I have attached the updates from the credit bureaus where I copied and pasted the relevant trade lines from their respective PDF files, and adjusted the sizes of the images to fit each page for easy reviewing. 

___Based on the aforementioned facts ( and supported by the attached updates from the credit bureaus ), XXXX XXXX engaged in the following violations of the FCRA : ___ ( a ) Violation of the FCRA 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) in that they failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of my dispute thru the credit reporting agencies. 

___ ( b ) Violation of the FCRA 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) in that they failed to review all relevant information provided in my dispute to the credit reporting agencies ( including the fact that information can not possibly be accurate if it is in direct conflict to information they verified to different credit bureaus ). 

___ ( c ) Violation of the FCRA 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) in that they failed to modify, delete, and/or permanently block the reporting of inaccurate information on my credit reports. 

___ ( d ) Violation of the FCRA 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) ( i ) in that they failed to modify the account with a notation that it was disputed upon the completion of their investigation, as required by 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ). The Tenth Circuit, applying XXXX, found XXXX argument insufficient to support an award of summary judgment, stating that [ a ] jury could reasonably conclude that [ the defendants ] decision to report the debt without any mention of a dispute was misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to have an adverse effect [. ] Id. at 1186 (  emphasis in original ) ( quoting XXXX, 526 F.3d at 150 ).