Consumer complaint received 2025-10-12 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
i DISPUTED ACCOUNTS THAT WERE NOT BLOCKED OR WERE BUT THEN REINSERTED. 
Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ), a consumer reporting agency must block the reporting of any information that the consumer identifies as resulting from identity theft within 4 business days of receiving : Proof of identity, A copy of an identity theft report, Identification of the fraudulent information, and A statement from the consumer that the information is not theirs.

If a consumer submits proper identity theft documentation, the CRA must block the fraudulent information within 4 business days -unless they have proof it was submitted fraudulently.

Once I have provided these the burden of proof is on you not me or the furnisher. 

It is not my job to prove my innocence- it becomes your legal obligation to prove the account is not fraudulent. 

You can not just " believe '' the data furnisher - you must have conclusive evidence that : * I opened the account, and * I identity theft claim is false or fraudulent. 

Failure to Block is a Willful Violation As you are aware, the FCRA requires that credit reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report about consumers. Your agency has failed in this duty by continuing to report accounts that are fraudulent and not attributable to me. This is not only a gross failure in compliance, but also shows clear partiality toward data furnishers who pay you to report their informationregardless of its accuracy or legality.

If you Fail to Do This I will File a small claims suit or federal case for violations of : * 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( failure to reinvestigate properly ) * 1681c-2 ( failure to block identity theft info ) * 1681e ( b ) ( failure to ensure maximum accuracy It is evident that your profit-driven model compromises your legal obligation to remain neutral, instead favoring paying furnishers at the direct expense of consumers. This systemic bias results in widespread credit report errors and causes significant harm to innocent consumers like myself.

You are now on legal notice that your continued reporting of these fraudulent accounts constitutes willful noncompliance with the FCRA, entitling me to statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages, court costs, and attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. 

This is supported by case law including but not limited to : XXXX v. Experian XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( C.D. XXXX. XXXX ) The court held Experian liable for failing to block fraudulent accounts within 4 days of receiving a valid identity theft report and documentation. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The consumer was awarded damages for Equifaxs continued reporting of fraudulent data despite receiving an FTC affidavit and police report. 

What I Am Demanding if you fail to block them I am demanding The name of each furnisher of the disputed data and the method used to verify these items I Demand for Full Certified documentation from the furnisher affirming that the item is accurate, as required under FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ).

A copy of the original signed application or contract ( wet ink or electronic ) Any amendment, modification, or update of account documents Chain of custody records showing how those documents were stored, handled, or maintained 2. Authentication & Identity Verification Logs IP address ( es ), device identifier ( s ), timestamps, geolocation data used at account opening Logs of any OTP ( one-time passcode ) or 2FA ( two-factor authentication ) entries KBA ( knowledge-based authentication ) challenge responses ( if used ) Biometric or identityproof scans ( e.g. drivers license scans, selfie + ID verification, facial recognition logs ) Any logs, audit trails, or vendor reports relating to identity proofing at application 3. In-Person Verification Records ( if applicable ) Branch or store records verifying identity at a location Video surveillance or internal logs of in-person application ID verification logs, staff witness statements 4. Reinsertion Notice / Notification Documents 5. Internal Procedures, Policies & Audit Trails Your internal procedures or policy documents regarding reinsertion of blocked items Internal audit reports or oversight reviews relating to this reinsertion Any internal memo or communications regarding this specific account and identity theft claim 6. Transaction & Usage History of the Account Statements, payments, purchases, balance changes, and activity history Correlation of that activity with my known behavior ( e.g. location, timing ) 7. Signature Comparison or Validation If a signature is offered, a document comparing the signature from the application to my known signatures Any examiner or validation reports regarding the signature integrity * In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX ), the court reaffirmed that furnishers have a duty to conduct a careful and reasoned investigation, and that simply relying on internal data files without verifying external evidence may not be enough.

I Demand a copy Of a wet Signature inspected by a handwriting expert to note whether the signature is materially different.

If no original exists, this is a red flag against legitimacy I Demand logs that record the device. IP. geolocation.

timestamps, and authentication steps ( e.g. OTPs ).

I demand IP logs to see If they show usage from foreign IPs, unfamiliar devices, or inconsistent geolocation, I Demand anv image scans, face- proofing occurred at the time of match logs. or seifle within application logs. 

I demand branch records, video-surveillance logs. witness statements, If Furnisher Can not Provide these Verification Documents then the CRA ( you ) can not legally reinstate the account because there is no evidence the account was validly opened by me therefore per FCRA $ 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : If the disputed information can not be verified, the CRA must delete it..

The burden of proof that this was not a result of identity theft is on your agency to authenticate the documents any furnisher provides ( if they provide any ) and to rule out with confidence this was the result of identity theft and was opened or applied for by me. If they dont provide the requested records then you cant legally report this and be in the clear of 15 USC 1681eb.

Identity theft happens by any person having access to personal information and the use of fabricated documents to allow accounts to be opened while portraying another persons identity. Its alarming how easy it is with the data breaches and dark web allowing anyone to pay discreetly for this information or obtain fake identification documents You are also reminded that any republication or reinsertion of the disputed information without full compliance with the FCRAs reinsertion rules would constitute an additional violation and could escalate this matter to litigation. 

If you fail to comply with this request, I will file formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and consider filing suit in federal court for full damages allowed under the FCRA. 

This is your final opportunity to comply before further legal action is taken.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation