Consumer complaint received 2025-11-22 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: LEXISNEXIS
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
* * * * THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE REQUEST. THIS IS A NEW FILING * * * * This is not a duplicate request under CFPB rules. This is a rebuttal to LexisNexis failure to perform a lawful reinvestigation, failure to authenticate properly, and failure to provide required documentation under the FCRA. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Re : Rebuttal Response to LexisNexis Statement CFPB Case No. XXXX This is not a duplicate request. 

To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I am submitting this rebuttal in response to the statement provided by LexisNexis regarding my complaint. This filing is not a duplicate. It is a formal correction and challenge to LexisNexis inaccurate, incomplete, and contradictory response. 

I reviewed their letter dated XX/XX/year> ( attached ), and the response fails to meet the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Several key issues must be addressed : LexisNexis contradicted itself regarding authentication. 
They claimed they could not authenticate my identity, yet they : listed all my disputed addresses listed my inquiries listed multiple tradelines initiated disputes mailed an identity theft packet If authentication truly failed, they should not have taken any action on my file. Their statements conflict, which raises compliance concerns. 

LexisNexis provided no verification documentation whatsoever. 
Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), they are required to provide : the furnishers business name address phone number and the procedure used to determine accuracy They provided none of this. 
Listing information is NOT the same as verifying it. 

They did not provide proof of permissible purpose. 
LexisNexis states they only share information with a permissible purpose but offered : no documentation no audit trail no requesting party records no contracts This is a violation of FCRA 604, 609, and 610. 

They failed to address or correct the disputed information. 
LexisNexis did not delete or correct any of the inaccurate addresses, inquiries, or tradelines from my original dispute. 

All originally disputed items must be deleted under the FCRA. 
LexisNexis did not verify any disputed information. 
Because they : claimed they could not authenticate me provided no documentation offered no furnisher verification provided no permissible purpose ALL disputed items must be removed under FCRA 611 and 605B. 
Unverified data can not remain on a consumer file. 

They demanded excessive identity documents not required by law. 
A CRA can not refuse dispute results by demanding identification beyond what was already used. 
This is a delay tactic, not lawful procedure. 

Their response does not resolve or address the concerns in my original complaint. 
This rebuttal is to ensure the CFPB understands the deficiencies in LexisNexis actions and the violations present. 

LexisNexis is also rejecting certified mail that was initially sent XX/XX/year>. see attached. 

Requested Action by CFPB : I respectfully request that the CFPB require LexisNexis to : provide the complete verification procedure provide documentation for all disputed items supply the permissible purpose and data-sharing logs remove all information that can not be verified cease improper authentication demands provide a corrected file comply fully with all FCRA requirements The LexisNexis response attached to this rebuttal does not meet federal standards and does not resolve my dispute. 

Thank you for your continued assistance. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Attachment : LexisNexis Response Letter ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX )

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation