On XX/XX/2018, I contacted Experian by phone to ask about an account that had aged off my XXXX  and XXXX reports but not my Experian report. I spoke with a representative named XXXX and then with a supervisor named XXXX. At issue was the date from which Experian counts for determining when a certain type of account will age off of a credit report. XXXX was eager to persuade me to initiate a dispute. I stated at least twice that I did _not_ wish to initiate a dispute. However, today ( XX/XX/2018 ) I received a " dispute results '' mailing from Experian. The " dispute results '' mailing is dated XX/XX/2018 -- the same date as my phone call. Apparently XXXX or someone else at Experian initiated a dispute without my consent. The " dispute results '' mailing is 14 pages long and after several minutes of flipping through it, it appears to just be a copy of my credit report with one sheet of dispute boilerplate attached to the front, and another sheet of dispute boilerplate added to the back. Despite the length of the mailing and amount of time I spent reading it, I have no clue what " results '' this " dispute '' purports to have produced. Having reviewed FCRA, I think this violates a few different provisions in addition to raising other legal red flags : -- 604 : Whatever purpose Experian gives for having furnished this copy of my report, it can not be among the " permissible purposes '' listed in this section. -- 611 : Disputes require reinvestigation, but this report was issued the same day I called Experian. Moreover, the date was the Sunday before XX/XX/XXXX, so the notion that Experian was able to verify any information with any information furnisher within hours on a holiday weekend is laughable. Presumably Experian will explain the fast turnaround by stating it made a determination that my concerns about the account that had not aged off yet are " frivolous or irrelevant. '' However, such a determination requires the CRA to provide " the reasons for th [ at ] determination, '' and no reasons were provided for any determination. -- Fraud : In response to a point I brought up about New York State law, XXXX stated that the CFPB had approved Experian 's policies as to that point. I informed XXXX  that his statement couldn't possibly be true because the CFPB deals with federal rather than state law, but he replied by just revising his statement to an assertion that " the government '' had approved Experian 's policies. While not constituting fraud in my case because I did not rely on his statement, this would likely constitute fraud as applied to other consumers who call Experian. ( To be completely sure about the falsity of the revised statement, I contacted both the NY AG 's office as well as the NY Dept. of State 's Consumer Protection Division. Both told me they had not approved the stated policy either. ) FCRA allows the CRAs to treat a consumer 's subsequent disputes less seriously than an initial dispute. Now that Experian has a false record of me " disputing '' something -- probably the account that has aged off of my other reports -- it is more likely to deem any actual disputes I may initiate as " frivolous or irrelevant, '' even if I provide supporting documentation. I called Experian at least three times today to ask what it claims I " disputed. '' I was unable to get a human on the phone at any point. Given Experian prompts callers to enter their SSN and ZIP code before even following a series of number-picking menus, I suspect Experian has effectively blacklisted me from being able to reach a human on the phone. Notably, I had no trouble reaching a human when I called Experian on XX/XX/2018. And for what it's worth, I also suspect this unauthorized dispute was the supervisor 's revenge for catching him in a lie about the CFPB approving Experian policy as applied to NY state law. Thank you for your time and assistance.