Consumer complaint received 2025-12-22 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: LEXISNEXIS
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX LexisNexis XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> RE : Notice to Cease and Desist for Reporting Bankruptcy Case No. XXXX Lexis Nexis : This letter serves as my fourth formal dispute concerning the continued reporting of the above-referenced bankruptcy record. All of your previous responses fail to satisfy your obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and they do not address the core defects repeatedly raised in my disputes.

1. Failure to Establish Lawful Permissible Purpose ( FCRA 604 ) Critically, none of your responses address whether LexisNexis had a lawful permissible purpose to access, obtain, or furnish this bankruptcy information.

For this reason, I again demand that you identify the following, in writing : The specific permissible purpose relied upon under 15 U.S.C. 1681b The identity of the party that requested or received this information The date on which the permissible purpose arose The certification relied upon to justify access or disclosure Absent proof of a valid, consumer-specific permissible purpose, your continued handling and dissemination of this information violates FCRA 604 and 607.

2. Failure to Verify with the Primary Source You continue to assert that the bankruptcy was verified through PACER. As I have already demonstrated with written confirmation from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the court does not verify, certify, or validate records for consumer reporting purposes. PACER is a public information access portal, not a verifying authority.

Reliance on PACER particularly where records are legally redacted and contain only partial identifiers does not constitute verification under FCRA 611. Repeating that PACER is the system of record does not cure this defect.

3. Inadequate and Unreasonable Reinvestigation Your responses merely describe your internal reinvestigation procedures. They do not demonstrate that a reasonable, dispute-specific investigation was conducted, nor do they show that you evaluated the evidence I submitted.

Federal courts are clear that a reinvestigation requires more than parroting third-party data. If the accuracy of the information can not be independently verified with the primary source, then the law requires deletion.

Furthermore, since Lexis Nexis never adequately fulfilled their legal responsibility to conduct the reinvestigation properly, then it was never completed within the legally-allowed timeline requirements, which would also necessitate the bankruptcys deletion from my credit file.

4. Method of Verification Demand Pursuant to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ), I formally request a complete method of verification that meets the legal demand of doing so with the primary source including : The actual source contacted The name or department of any human verifier The specific documents reviewed The manner in which identity was conclusively established A generic reference to PACER or automated matching is insufficient and non-responsive.

5. Notice of Required Action Because this record, 1 ) Lacks demonstrated permissible purpose. 2 ) Has not been verified by the primary source. 3 ) Can not be conclusively matched using reliable identifiers.

It is unverifiable according to the legal standard, and as a matter of law, it must be deleted.

If this matter is not resolved within 15 days, I will consider all available remedies, including further regulatory complaints and legal action, without additional notice.

This letter is sent in good faith and without waiver of any rights. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation