Consumer complaint received 2025-12-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: DE

Complaint narrative:
Against : Experian Information Solutions, LLC ; TransUnion LLC ; Equifax Information Services LLC Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX Product : Credit Reporting / Consumer Reports Issue : Incorrect Information on Credit Report / Identity Theft / Failure to Block Fraudulent Data SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT I am a documented victim of identity theft and am exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( Section 605B ), 1681e ( b ), and 1681i.

Despite receiving my FTC Identity Theft Report ( No. XXXX, sworn XX/XX/XXXX ), proof of identity, and identification of fraudulent accounts and inquiries, Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax each failed to timely block fraudulent information within the four-business-day window required by federal law. 
Instead, the bureaus issued contradictory responses, relied on unsupported furnisher assertions, and continued publishing or processing disputed data that caused significant and unexplained credit score reductions. 
IDENTITY THEFT AND MULTI-STATE FRAUD INDICATORS There is documented evidence of fraudulent activity involving my name and Social Security number across multiple states, including California and Georgia. 
These inconsistenciesvisible through address histories, geographic usage patterns, identity-element mismatches, and creditor metadatatrigger a heightened duty of reasonable investigation under the FCRA. 
None of the XXXX nationwide consumer reporting agencies conducted such an investigation. Instead, each defaulted to boilerplate denials or furnisher verification, contrary to established federal case law. 
FAILURE TO BLOCK UNDER FCRA 605B Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, once a CRA receives a valid identity theft report and proof of identity, it must block the fraudulent information within XXXX business days, unless it possesses documented evidence that : The request was made in error, The report was materially false, or The consumer knowingly benefited from the transaction. 
None of the bureaus produced such evidence. 
Refusals were based on vague claims such as insufficient detail or information not currently reporting, which do not satisfy the statute and directly conflict with ongoing score impacts and internal dispute processing. 
This constitutes willful noncompliance under XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). 
UNREASONABLE REINVESTIGATION & PARROTING FURNISHERS Each bureau relied on furnisher responses without independently evaluating contradictory evidence, a practice expressly prohibited by federal courts. 
Relevant authority includes : XXXX XXXX Trans Union Corp., XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) XXXX v. XXXX & XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) A CRA can not simply parrot a furnisher when faced with clear indicators of identity theft or factual inconsistency. All three bureaus violated this standard. 
DOUBLE RECOVERY / UNJUST ENRICHMENT Several disputed tradelines were charged off, written off, sold, or otherwise compensated through federal insurance, tax treatment, or third-party collection arrangements. 
Despite this, the bureaus continued to publish delinquency histories and negative status codes, effectively enabling double recoveryallowing creditors to benefit twice from the same alleged loss. 
Once notified of this condition, continued reporting constitutes inaccurate reporting under 1681e ( b ) and exposes the CRA to liability as a knowing participant in unjust enrichment. 
SCORE DAMAGE WITHOUT LAWFUL BASIS Across all three bureaus, my credit scores experienced sharp and unexplained declines during periods where : No new credit was opened by me, No legitimate adverse activity occurred, and Disputed items were allegedly not reporting. 
This indicates continued internal processing, fragmented file handling, or reinsertion of disputed data without proper noticeeach a recognized FCRA violation. 
REQUEST FOR CFPB ACTION I respectfully request that the CFPB : Require Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax to demonstrate compliance with 605B, including proof of timely blocking or documented statutory exceptions. 
Review each bureaus reinvestigation procedures for unlawful reliance on furnishers. 
Examine potential split-file or fragmented-file conditions contributing to score damage. 
Address the practice of continued reporting after charge-off or compensation, implicating double recovery. 
Ensure corrective action and compliance monitoring across all three CRAs. 
Hard-copy notices and supplemental filings have already been sent directly to each bureau and to the CFPB.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation