Consumer complaint received 2025-11-20 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Early Warning Services, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Re : Response to EWSs CFPB Reply Identity Theft Dispute To Whom It May Concern I am writing in response to your letter dated XX/XX/year>, which was issued in connection with my CFPB Complaint and my identity theft dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, the identity theft blocking provisions.

Your reply contains several inaccuracies and improper legal positions that must be addressed.

1. My Identity Theft Submission Already Satisfies FCRA 1681c-2 ( a ) Under federal law, a CRA must block identity-theft-related information if the consumer provides : 1. A copy of a police report, 2. An FTC identity theft report, and 3. Identification of the fraudulent information. 

I have already submitted all three. 
Your claim that my documentation lacks sufficient information is incorrect and legally insufficient because : The police report and FTC report do NOT need to list the business names individually. 
The law only requires a report showing I am a victim of identity theft. 

FCRA does NOT require the police report to name EWS, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. 

Courts have repeatedly held that identity theft reports must be accepted even when specific tradelines are not listed.

2. The missing information request is vague and unlawful You stated I must provide : Identification of the specific information that resulted from the identity theft.

This was already provided.

My dispute letter explicitly identified the fraudulent accounts connected with the fraudulent activity.

If you need the list again, here it is : Fraudulent banking activity that must be blocked immediately : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account not mine XXXX  XXXX XXXX account not mine ( And any other bank account activity in your system not opened by me. ) This satisfies 1681c-2 ( a ) ( 4 ).

Your refusal to block unless these entries appear in a police report violates federal law.

3. EWS does not have authority to demand documents that the FCRA does not require Your letter suggests that you can not investigate without additional information. But blocking is NOT an investigation standard.

Under 1681c-2 ( a ), blocking is mandatory, not discretionary.

A CRA may only decline to block under the narrow exceptions in 1681c-2 ( c ), which include : Material misrepresentation of fact ( not applicable ), Information resulting from fraud by an associate ( not applicable ), Receipt of information from the consumer after the block showing the information was not fraudulent ( not applicable ).

Youre not claiming any statutory exception.

Youre simply refusing to block.

That refusal is an FCRA violation. 

4. XXXX statement that certain accounts are not reporting does not end the dispute You stated that the following accounts are not in your database : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX That is fine, but irrelevant to the core issue. 
My dispute is specifically about banking/fraud information EWS is reporting, particularly connected to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX You still have a legal duty to block these. 

XXXX. Directing me to contact the banks does not relieve EWS of its obligations Under the FCRA : A consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft.

15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ) There is no requirement for me to obtain or submit account-opening records from the banks.

The banks internal authorization documents have nothing to do with the blocking requirement. 

I asked for the information you received that led you to reinsert the information and the method of verification you used in your own internal investigation. I also have disputed this with the banks and once they accept my theft claim that will solidify your willful negligence for my lawsuit. I just had the XXXX main CRAs do this with a furnisher who did their own investigation and confirmed it was fraud after I disputed for months with several attempts for the CRAs to remove it.

( Attached outcome of that ) 6. Requested Action A sham investigation is what youve done. You will have to show an actual investigation was done by you when discovery is requested and at that point accuracy isnt the issue it will be procedural violations of how you mishandled the identity theft dispute To cure your noncompliance, I request : Immediate blocking of the fraudulent bank account information, including but not limited to : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX A corrected consumer file and written confirmation. 

If this is not resolved within 15 days, I will : File an updated CFPB complaint, Seek damages for negligent and willful FCRA violations, including 1681n statutory and punitive damages, 1681o actual damages, Submit your refusal as evidence in ongoing federal litigation related to identity theft reporting.

7. Re-Submission of Items ( For Your Convenience ) Attached again : FTC Identity Theft Report Police Report List of fraudulent entries Government ID You now have all documents required by statute. 

Your continued refusal to block will be considered intentional noncompliance and my next communication will be litigation Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation