Consumer complaint received 2024-08-16
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Unable to get your credit report or credit score — Other problem getting your report or credit score
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (CA)

I am a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX victim who believes that my sexual orientation and race are causing me to be unjustly targeted. XXXX has violated my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( " FCRA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq., to have adverse information removed on numerous occasions. I have submitted all required proof and documentation to XXXX in support of such request, which includes evidence that I was a victim of XXXX XXXX, and " XXXX  documentation '' as defined by 12 C.F.R. 1022.142 ( b ) ( 6 ). XXXX declined to fulfill the initial request and responded with a form letter that cited the pertinent law but did not offer a substantive justification for its decision. The credit agency has tried to disqualify and refute my XXXX XXXX situation, despite the fact that they lack the constitutional authority to approve or verify my status with healthcare providers. XXXX has used this unconstitutional action to deny me, as these facilities have been unable to provide the information due to HIPAA regulations. My XXXX  is still being invalidated by XXXX, and they are refusing to comply with the law. XXXX has developed its own set of laws and criteria to establish the legitimacy of both valid and invalid documents, which President Biden nor Congress has given the CRAs authority to do so. The law was amended to include health care facilities, providers, social workers, and such to provide XXXX. 

The Debt Bondage Repair Act that was signed by President Biden, prohibits credit reporting companies from providing credit reports that contain any negative item of information about a survivor of XXXX  that resulted from the XXXX  and amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to detail a consumer reporting agencies obligation to block, remove or delete credit accounts that are the result of XXXX. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681c-3 ( b ) and 12 C.F.R. 1022.142 ( e ) ( 1 ) ; a consumer reporting agency may decline to block, or may rescind any block of, adverse items of information resulting from a severe form of XXXX  in persons or XXXX XXXX, in accordance with the timing requirements under paragraph ( e ) ( 2 ) ( ii ) of this section, only where the consumer reporting agency can not reasonably confirm the appropriate proof of identity under paragraph ( b ) ( 1 ) of this section for the consumer, and, if applicable, the consumer 's representative, the consumer can not provide documentation consisting of a victim determination under paragraph ( b ) ( 6 ) ( i ) of this section, or the consumer reporting agency can not properly identify the adverse items of information under paragraph ( b ) ( 6 ) ( ii ) of this section. 

A consumer reporting agency may not, however, ask for information on the validity of the facts or circumstances detailed in the contents of the submitted XXXX  documentation establishing the consumer is a victim of XXXX  or whether the identified adverse information resulted from a severe form of XXXX  in persons or XXXX XXXX  under paragraph ( b ) ( 6 ) of this section. 

Equifax finally responded to complaint XXXX that was filed with CFPB by reiterating that I have not provided a XXXX, despite being sent the XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX. Later that day, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email that the adverse items were removed from my Equifax credit report. Two days later, on XX/XX/XXXX ; Equifax retaliated against me by reinstating all of the negative adverse accounts back on my credit reports. They further retaliated against me by indicating that old satisfactory accounts from previous years were " charged off, '' which resulted in more negative credit reporting. It seems that the purpose of this retaliatory strike was to prevent me from breaking free from the negative credit reporting cycle and continuing to dispute accounts. I have proof of email correspondence that was sent to me stating that the prior statuses of those accounts were marked Satisfactory and Paid in Full before Equifax took aggressive and unfair actions towards me based on my race and background. 

Regardless of my efforts to address my concerns through the appropriate channels, including emailing the CEO and executive office of XXXX, I have been subjected to retaliation, which has resulted in the deterioration of my credit score and the impediment of my access to financial services and housing. This blatant disregard for consumer rights and ethical business practices must be addressed and rectified. It is unacceptable for a credit bureau to use their power in such a vindictive manner simply because a consumer has spoken out against them. This type of behavior only serves to further erode trust in the credit reporting industry and harm consumers who are trying to protect their rights. The CFPB 's XX/XX/XXXX statements provided a detailed account of the unethical practices of CRAs that continue to cause damage to victims, including myself. As you can see, XXXX has declined to rectify these issues. 

Consumers should not have to fear retaliation for simply seeking fairness and transparency. XXXX and other Specialty Credit Reporting Agencies has acted to the will of the law despite XXXX  disregard to my constitutional rights. XXXX 's willful and personal intent to harm me and keep me trapped in negative credit reporting is further supported by the fact that XXXX and other credit agencies have used the same documents and removed adverse items from my credit reports with no issue. 

I have included an example of an account that was previously classified as " Satisfactory and paid in full in XXXX '' but was subsequently changed to be " charged-off. '' Equifax 's deliberate and intentional retaliation can be seen by this specific incident. 

Equifax XXXX # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Case # XXXX