Consumer complaint received 2025-07-26 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Oliphant United, Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
RE : Formal Complaint and Rebuttal Oliphant USA LLC CFPB Case XXXX XXXXXXXX Account : Oliphant USA LLC XXXX XXXX ( originally XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal rebuttal to Oliphant USA LLCs response dated XX/XX/XXXX. Oliphant is currently reporting a debt to XXXX and XXXX  that I do not owe and that was previously deleted following a valid FTC Identity Theft Report. Their continued furnishing of this tradeline under a new name and number is unlawful and has caused me significant harm. Below I outline violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), and FDUTPA.

1. FCRA 1681e ( b ) Inaccurate Reporting Without Verification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681e ( b ), any entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency must : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.

Oliphant failed to meet this requirement. In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they based their reporting on an email address match alone and did not verify critical personal identifiers, including my : Social Security number ( SSN ) Date of birth ( DOB ) Residential address Any signed agreement or contract They also ignored the identity theft documentation I previously submitted, which triggered a heightened legal duty to verify accuracy. 

By reporting this account without confirming these key data points, Oliphant failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the information was accurate and belonged to me. Courts have consistently held that failure to verify personal identifiers especially in cases involving identity theft claims violates 1681e ( b ). This has resulted in real harm to me, including credit damage and emotional distress, and supports deletion of the tradeline and potential civil liability under 1681n ( willful ) and 1681o ( negligent ) violations.

2. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) - ( C ) Improper Reinsertion Without Required Notice or Certification Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ), onc
e a consumer has successfully disputed and removed an account from their credit file, a furnisher or credit reporting agency may not reinsert that information unless they meet strict legal conditions : 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : A deleted item may only be reinserted if the furnisher certifies 
that the information is complete and accurate.

1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) : If an item is reinserted, the consumer reporting agency must notify the consumer within five ( 5 ) business days, disclosing the source of the information and informing the consumer of their right to dispute again.

In this case, I previously submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation, which led to the removal of the original XXXX XXXX tradeline from my credit report. 

Later, Oliphant USA LLC re-reported the same debt under : A new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ), A new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and Without disclosing any relationship to the deleted XXXX XXXX account. 

This was a functional reinsertion of the same disputed debt. However, neither Oliphant nor the consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fulfilled the following legal requirements : No certification that the reinserted information was complete and accurate ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ).

No written notice sent to me within 5 business days of reinsertion ( as required by 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ). 

No explanation that the new tradeline was connected to the previously deleted account. 

This conduct is deceptive and unlawful. Rebranding the same invalid debt under a new name and account number appears to be an intentional attempt to evade FCRA reinsertion safeguards, effectively re-aging a disputed, time-barred, and fraudulent debt.

By failing to follow the required reinsertion protocol, Oliphant and the CRAs have violated the FCRA and contributed to contin
ued harm to my credit profile and financial standing. This supports my request for deletion of the account, investigation by the CFPB, and any relief available under FCRA 1681n and 1681o.

3. FCRA 1681b No Permissible Purpose for Reporting or Accessing My Credit File Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681b, a person or entity may only obtain or furnish a consumer report for specific, lawful, and permissible purposes. These purposes include : A credit transaction initiated by the consumer Collection of a legitimate, valid debt Written authorization from the consumer A court order or applicable subpoena Oliphant USA LLC reported a derogatory tradeline to Experian and Equifax without satisfying any of these legal bases. I never initiated a transaction with Oliphant. I have no agreement, contract, or communication with them. I have never authorized them to access, use, or furnish my personal credit information. 

Moreover, the alleged debt they are reporting is : Fraudulent, as confirmed by my FTC Identity Theft Report Previously deleted by Experian after my dispute Still unvalidated by Oliphant, who admits they merely " requested '' validation from the servicer Without a valid and verifiable creditorconsumer relationship, and in the face of unresolved identity theft claims, Oliphant had no permissible purpose under 1681b to furnish or verify this tradeline with any credit reporting agency.

Their continued credit reporting in this context constitutes a violation of FCRA 1681b ( f ), which states : A person shall not use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section. By failing to meet this standard, Oliphant exposed m
e to : False negative information on my credit report Lower credit scores and financial opportunity losses Emotional and reputational harm This violation supports my request for permanent deletion of the tradeline, regulatory investigation, and damages under FCRA 1681n and 1681o for willful or negligent violations.

4. FDCPA 1692g ( b ) Reporting Without Validation Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( b ), if a consumer disputes a debt in writing within 30 days of receiving notice, the debt collector must : Cease all collection activity, including reporting to credit bureaus, Until they have obtained verification of the debt, and Have mailed a copy of such verification to the consumer. 

This is a mandatory requirement. The law does not permit a debt collector to continue attempting to collect directly or indirectly without first validating the debt in response to a written dispute. 

In this case, I filed a formal identity theft dispute and submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting documentation. Despite this, Oliphant continued reporting the account to XXXX and XXXX In their response dated XX/XX/XXXX, they admitted they only requested validation from the servicer ( XXXX XXXX ) and provided no confirmation that the debt had been verified nor did they send me any written validation. 

This continued credit reporting constitutes a form of indirect debt collection. Courts have consistently recognized that furnishing or updating a tradeline with a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) is a collection activity under the FDCPA. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where the court held that such reporting while a dispute is pending and before validation is provided violates 1692g ( b ).

Because Oliphant : Received a written dispute, Failed to validate the debt in writing, and Continued to report and maintain the tradeline, They have clearly violated FDCPA 1692g ( b ).

This violation : Justifies permanent deletion of the accoun
t, Supports regulatory enforcement, and Entitles me to relief under FDCPA 1692k, including : Statutory damages ( up to {$1000.00} ), Actual damages for emotional or financial harm, Attorneys fees and costs, if pursued in court.

5. FDCPA 1692g ( a ) Failure to Send Required I
nitial Validation Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692g ( a ), a debt collector must provide a written validation notice to the consumer within five ( 5 ) days of their initial communication. This notice must clearly include the following disclosures : The amount of the debt ; The name of the current creditor ; A statement of the consumers right to dispute the debt within 30 days ; A statement that the collector will provide verification or a judgment upon written request ; A statement that the collector will identify the original creditor upon request, if different.

Oliphant USA LLC failed to provide me with any such written notice. I was never sent a communicationby mail or otherwisecontaining these disclosures. I only learned of Oliphant 's involvement after discovering their derogatory tradeline on my credit report. 

Credit reporting itself is recognized as an initial communication for purposes of FDCPA compliance because it constitutes a collection attempt through reputational damage. Therefore, Oliphant had a legal obligation to send me a 1692g ( a ) notice within five days of reporting the debt to the CRAs. They did not.

This omission violated one of the most fundamental protections in the FDCPA. Without this notice : I was not informed of my dispute rights ; I had no idea who the alleged creditor was or what amount they claimed ; I was deprived of my right to request validation or the name of the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX ). 

This violation is not merely proceduralit caused real harm by allowing Oliphant to furnish negative credit data while withholding my statutory right to contest the debt.

This violation of 1692g ( a ) supports : My request for deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement by the CFPB, and My right to seek damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory damages, actual harm, and attorneys fees if pursued in court.

6. FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) Misrepresenting the Character, Amount, or Legal Status of the Debt Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) prohibits a debt collector from falsely representing : The character of a debt, The amount of a debt, or The legal status of a debt.

Oliphant USA LLC has violated this provision by including court fees in the reported balance of a debt that h
as never been the subject of a legal action or court judgment.

To my knowledge : I have never been sued by Oliphant USA LLC or XXXX XXXX XXXX have never received service of process, been summoned, or appeared in court regarding this matter, No judgment has been issued against me in connection with this alleged debt.

Despite this, Oliphant reported an inflated balance that exceeds the original charge-off amount including what they identify as court fees. This falsely suggests that : A court has entered a judgment against me, The debt has been legally adjudicated, and The amount owed includes legally imposed costs.

This is a misrepresentation of both the amount and legal status of the debt under 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ).

Courts have consistently held that the inclusion of court costs or legal fees without an actual lawsuit or judgment is a deceptive and unlawful practice under the FDCPA. In XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, the court ruled that representing attorneys fees or legal charges as part of a consumer debt without proper explanation or legal authority violated 1692e.

Here, Oliphant : Failed to provide any legal justification or supporting contract showing their right to collect court fees, Offered no proof of legal proceedings to justify such charges, and Furnished this misleading information to credit reporting agencies, where it remains visible to lenders and the public. 

This creates a false sense of legal finality and urgency, and damages my reputation and creditworthiness based on claims that are legally unfounded.

This violation of 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) supports my request for : Permanent deletion of the tradeline, Regulatory enforcement action, and Statutory and actual damages under FDCPA 1692k.

7. FDCPA 1692f ( 1 ) Collection of Unauthorized A
mounts Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 1692f ( 1 ), a debt collector may not attempt to collect : Any amount ( including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation ) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

In this case, Oliphant USA LLC has added court fees to the balance of the alleged debt that they are reporting to XXXX and XXXX  However : I have never been served with a lawsuit, I have never appeared in court, No judgment has been entered against me, and Oliphant has never provided a copy of any contract or agreement authorizing court-related charges.

Without a court order or contractual basis, the inclusion of court fees is unlawful. These charges are neither authorized by the original XXXX XXXX agreement nor awarded by any legal proceeding. 

Courts have routinely found that the attempt to collect fees not authorized by a contract or permitted by law is a strict violation of 1692f ( 1 ). For example, in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, even the attempt to collect small unauthorized fees was found actionable. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute intent is not required. If an unauthorized amount is sought, a violation exists.

By inflating the balance of the alleged debt in this way, Oliphant is attempting to collect an amount that exceeds any legal or contractual authority. This conduct : Misleads CRAs and potential lenders, Exposes me to false financial liability, and Directly violates federal law. 

This supports my demand for : Permanent deletion of the account, Regulatory enforcement under the FDCPA, and Damages under FDCPA 1692k, including statutory and actual damages.

8. FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) Attempting to Enforce a Time-Barred Debt Under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ) 559.72 ( 9 ), it is unlawful for a debt collector to : Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.

In this case, Oliphant USA LLC is attempting to collect and report a debt that is clearly time-barred under Florida Statutes 95.11 ( 2 ) ( b ), which sets a 5-year statute of limitations for actions based on written contracts. 

Based on my records and available credit history : The original XXXX XXXX account was charged off in XXXX or earlier, and No payments or acknowledgments have been made since that time to revive the debt, The tradeline appears to have been reinserted under Oliphants name after the statute of limitations had already expired.

Despite the debt being legally unenforceable, Oliphant continues to : Report it to XXXX and XXXX Represent the amount as current and collectible, and Omit any disclosure that the debt is beyond Floridas statutory limitations period. 

This is a clear attempt to enforce rights that no longer legally exist a direct violation of 559.72 ( 9 ).

Courts interpreting this section of the FCCPA have consistently ruled that : Collectors must not misrepresent or attempt to enforce time-barred debts, Failing to disclose that a debt is unenforceable can itself be deceptive, Credit reporting is considered a form of collection activity.

By engaging in this conduct, Oliphant is misleading me, CRAs, and potential creditors into believing the debt is valid, recent, and legally enforceable when it is not. This deception has caused me real financial and reputational harm. 

As such, I request : Immediate deletion of this tradeline from all CRAs, Investigation and enforcement by the CFPB and Florida Attorney General, and Relief under FCCPA 559.77, including damages, costs, and attorneys fees.

payment history : 9. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) Missing or Misstated DOFD and Payment History ( Re-Aging Violation ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), furnishers are strictly required to report the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date accurately. These fields are essential for determining the reporting period of a negative account. Specifically : 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) prohibits reporting collection accounts more than seven years plus 180 days from the DOFD.

1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) similarly restricts charged-off account reporting after that period. 

In my case, the original XXXX XXXX account was charged off prior to XXXX, and the debt should therefore be nearing or already beyond the statutory reporting limit. However, Oliphant USA LLC : Reported an inaccurate open date of XX/XX/XXXX, Omitted or misstated the DOFD, Failed to include the last payment date, and Provided no documentation or XXXX XXXX-compliant data to support the legitimacy or age of the tradeline. 

These omissions and alterations effectively re-age the account, making it appear newer and more damaging to my credit than it actually is. This tactic is illegal under the FCRA and has been the subject of multiple enforcement actions by the CFPB and FTC. 

Furnishers are also required to comply with XXXX XXXX credit reporting standards, which mandate proper furnishing of : Field XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Payment History Profile Field XXXX Account Status Field XXXX Special Comment Codes, including dispute, fraud, or identity theft flags ( e.g., XB, XH ) Oliphants failure to report these fields and their misrepresentation of the accounts age has likely caused my credit score to be lower than it would be with accurate reporting. Worse, it allows a time-barred and previously deleted debt to stay on my file longer than the law allows.

This conduct : Violates FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ), Circumvents the statute of limitations on credit reporting, Undermines the integrity of the credit system, and Constitutes an additional basis for deletion, regulatory enforcement, and damages. 
I request the CFPB investigate whether Oliphant improperly re-aged this account and failed to furnish the required DOFD and payment history fields in accordance with both FCRA and XXXX XXXX standards. 
10. XXXX XXXX and FCRA Violations Rebranding and Concealing a Previously Deleted Debt Oliphant USA LLC is furnishing data to Experian and Equifax regarding the same underlying account that was previously reported and deleted by XXXX XXXX. However, rather than identifying the debt properly, Oliphant has : Reported the debt under a new tradename ( Oliphant USA LLC ) and a new account number ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ), Failed to include any reference to the original creditor, Reported a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, which is disconnected from the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ), Omitted required XXXX XXXX fields, including : Field XXXX XXXX, Field XXXX Payment History Profile, Field XXXX Accurate Account Status, and Field XXXX Dispute/Fraud Coding ( e.g., XB or XH ) These omissions and misrepresentations violate XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including : FCRA 1681e ( b ) failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy, FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to correct or update inaccurate information after receiving notice of dispute, FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ) - ( 5 ) potential re-aging of obsolete information This conduct conceals the history of identity theft and prior deletion of the account and gives the misleading appearance that a new, legitimate account exists, when in fact it is the same previously removed debt rebranded, reinserted, and re-aged. 

These tactics mislead credit reporting agencies, lenders, and other users of my credit file. I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate whether Oliphants reporting practices conform to XXXX XXXX standards and whether they violated their legal obligations under the FCRA by failing to furnish complete, accurate, and non-misleading data.

11. FDCPA 1692c ( c ) Cease and Desist Notice and Enforcement This letter constitutes formal written notice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1692c ( c ) that I refuse to pay the disputed debt and demand that Oliphant USA LLC immediately cease all further communication with me regarding this matter.

Pursuant to 1692c ( c ), once a consumer notifie
s a debt collector in writing to cease communication, the collector may only contact the consumer : To confirm that further collection efforts will stop, or To inform the consumer of specific legal remedies that may be pursued Any further attempts to collect this alleged debt including but not limited to letters, calls, emails, or continued credit reporting will constitute a separate and actionable violation of the FDCPA. 

I dispute the validity and ownership of this debt in full. I have submitted an FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. I have no relationship with Oliphant, and I have received no proper validation. I will not engage in further communication unless required to defend myself in a legal forum.

I am formally requesting that Oliphant : Cease all direct or indirect collection activities, including credit rep
orting, Mark the account as disputed and blocked due to identity theft, and Refrain from selling, transferring, or assigning the account to any third party Any failure to comply with this cease and desist notice will be considered willful noncompliance under the FDCPA and may give rise to further regulatory complaint and/or civil action.

12. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) & 1681s-2 ( b ) CRA and Furnisher Reinvestigation Failures Under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), both consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) and furnishers of information have strict reinvestigation obligations when a consumer submits a dispute. 

When I disputed this account with XXXX  and XXXX  I included : A valid FTC Identity Theft Report, Written details outlining the fraudulent nature of the debt, and Evidence that the original tradeline had previously been removed from my credit file If Oliphant USA LLC responded to the CRA dispute by confirming the account without : Conducting a meaningful investigation, Reviewing the identity theft documentation I submitted, or Verifying the accuracy of fields such as XXXX, last payment, and original creditor information, then they violated FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).

Likewise, if the CRAs failed to delete or correct unverifiable data within the 30-day period, they violated FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ).

Both the CRA and the furnisher are obligated to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, Review all relevant evidence submitted by the consumer, and Update or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable data A mere check-the-box confirmation without substantive review is legally insufficient. This failure has allowed false information to remain on my report, contributing to : Lower credit scores, Reputational harm, Credit denials, and Ongoing emotional distress These failures support my request for deletion of the tradeline, enforcement action by the CFPB, and relief under FCRA 1681n and 1681o. 
13. FDUTPA 501.204 Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Oliphant USA LLCs actions constitute clear violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204, which prohibits any unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.

Specifically, Oliphant engaged in the following deceptive and unfair practices : Rebranding a previously deleted account ( originally from XXXX XXXX ) and furnishing it under a new tradename and number, without disclosing its origin, deletion history, or disputed status. 

Assigning a misleading open date of XX/XX/XXXX, while omitting the true Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) and last payment date creating the false appearance of recency. 

Adding court fees to the balance despite there being no legal judgment, court action, or supporting contract. 

Reporting a time-barred debt as if it were legally enforceable, without notifying me or the CRAs that the debt is beyond Floridas 5-year statute of limitations. 

Failing to apply the appropriate XXXX XXXX dispute and identity theft codes, such as XXXX or XXXX, misleading the credit bureaus into believing the account is undisputed and valid. 

Continuing to report and collect on this account without providing written validation or responding to identity theft documentation despite their obligations under both federal and Florida law. 

Under FDUTPA : It is not necessary to prove intent only that the practice was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. 

These acts and omissions were material, misleading, and harmful to me as a Florida consumer. 

FDUTPA covers any commercial conduct including debt collection and credit reporting that causes injury through deceptive methods. 

As a result of these practices, I have suffered : Damage to my creditworthiness, Denial of financial opportunities, Emotional distress and reputational harm, and The cost of ongoing efforts to correct a re-aged, unlawful, and invalid tradeline. 

This pattern of concealment, unauthorized charges, and failure to disclose essential account information is not merely technical it is deceptive and unlawful under Florida law. I respectfully request that the CFPB refer this matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office, and that appropriate regulatory action be taken to hold Oliphant accountable under FDUTPA.

14. Pattern of Abusive and Systemic Noncompliance The conduct exhibited by Oliphant USA LLC in my case is not an isolated event, but part of a well-documented pattern of abusive and unlawful practices affecting consumers nationwide. Numerous public complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and consumer rights organizations reveal systemic violations that mirror my own experience.

Consumers consistently report that Oliphant : Attempts to collect debts that are not owed Re-ages or rebrands previously disputed or deleted accounts Continues reporting tradelines without proper validation Adds unauthorized fees to balances Fails to respond to identity theft disputes Harasses consumers despite cease and desist notices Examples of Public Consumer Complaints : Oliphant Financial , LLC is aggressively attempting to collect an alleged debt of {$5500.00} from me. I have sent a formal dispute letter via certified mail demanding full validation of this debt, as is my right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Despite my dispute, their collection efforts constitute harassment. 
XXXX  Complaint ( bbb.org ) They are trying to collect on a debt that is over 10 years old and already settled. I never received any notice, and they just reported it to the credit bureau as if it were new. 
Public Complaint Summary ( thelangelfirm.com ) I disputed the debt with Oliphant and they never responded, yet they continue to update the tradeline monthly, lowering my credit score. I provided identity theft documentation and still no response.

Public Legal Forum Report ( consumerlawfirmcenter.com ) Oliphant is using zombie debt collection practices. They placed a tradeline on my credit report for a debt I never heard of and never validated. This company is guilty of violating consumer notification before striking my credit.

CFPB Public Complaint This pattern reveals a recurring
failure to comply with : FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681c FDCPA 1692g ( a ) - ( b ), 1692e, 1692f, 1692c ( c ) FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) FDUTPA 501.204 These repeated practices are not simple errors they reflect a business model that profits from the unlawful suppression of consumer rights and regulatory evasion. They demonstrate reckless or willful noncompliance, elevating the seriousness of Oliphants legal exposure under both federal and Florida law.

I respectfully request that the CFPB : Recognize these acts as part of a larger pattern of abuse Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney Generals Office for further enforcement under FDUTPA Impose corrective measures, civil penalties, and require permanent deletion of the unlawful tradeline 15. Potential Improper Disclosure of Personal Identifying Information It appears that XXXX XXXX may have improperly disclosed my sensitive personal identifying information ( PII ) including my Social Security number, date of birth, address, and contact information to Oliphant USA LLC after I had submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and formally disputed the debt as fraudulent. 

In Oliphants JXX/XX/XXXX response, they stated that XXXX XXXX declined the fraud claim due to an email match. However, Oliphant also admitted they had no signed contract, no account records, and no verified identity match. This strongly suggests that my full identity information was shared without my consent and without a permissible legal basis. 

This raises potential violations of the following laws : FCRA 1681b ( f ) Use of consumer information without a valid, permissible purpose Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Unauthorized sharing of non-public personal information ( NPI ) between a financial institution and a non-affiliated third party If XXXX XXXX  shared my identity data with a third-party debt buyer after the account had been disputed, deleted, and identified as fraudulent, such sharing may constitute a breach of consumer privacy and data protection laws. 

I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate whether XXXX XXXX or Oliphant violated federal privacy protections by disclosing or using my personal information after the debt had been flagged as fraudulent. Any findings should be referred to the FTC, appropriate privacy regulators, and state-level data protection authorities as warranted. 
Personal Impact and Harm Statement In summary, the actions of Oliphant USA LLC have caused me serious and measurable harm. They have reported a debt I do not owe one that was previously removed from my credit reports after I submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and dispute documentation. They failed to provide validation, misrepresented the nature and age of the debt, added unauthorized fees, and reinserted the tradeline under a new account number without proper notice. These actions violate multiple provisions of the FCRA, FDCPA, FCCPA, and FDUTPA, as well as XXXX XXXX industry standards. 

Because of Oliphants conduct, I have experienced : Significant and unjustified damage to my credit score Denial of credit and increased borrowing costs Emotional stress and frustration from repeatedly disputing a matter that had already been resolved A loss of confidence in the integrity of the credit reporting system The unauthorized use and possible disclosure of my personal information I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau take immediate action to : Require the permanent deletion of this account from all consumer reporting agencies ( CRAs ) Investigate and sanction Oliphant USA LLC for repeated and systemic violations of consumer protection laws Refer the matter to the Florida Attorney General for FDUTPA and FCCPA enforcement Require all data furnishers involved to comply with FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) and XXXX XXXX guidelines I reserve the ri

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation