Consumer complaint received 2025-10-21 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: TX

Complaint narrative:
PENDING LITIGATION I HAVE AGAIN SUBMITTED MY THEFT DOCUMENTS AND IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN 4 DAYS, THE FCRA LAWS REQUIRE YOU TO BLOCK NOT INVESTIGATE OR DENY BLOCKING OR SEND DELAY LETTERS. 
The bureaus have either -Denied my request to block fraudulent information despite having received a valid FTC and/or Police Identity Theft Report, or -Reinserted previously blocked fraudulent information into my credit file without providing proper notice or supporting documentation. 

In both instances, your actions violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

1. Failure to Comply with 1681c-2 ( a ) ( c ) : Mandatory Blocking & Disclosure Once a consumer provides an identity theft report, the CRA must block the reporting of that information within four business days. The law does not permit you to delay or refuse blocking based solely on a furnishers unsubstantiated statement that the account is accurate.

If you deny a block under 1681c-2 ( c ), you are required to provide written notice explaining : - The specific reason for the denial ; - The name, address, and phone number of any furnisher relied upon ; - The evidence or documents you relied on to reach your conclusion ; and - The method of authentication used to determine that the identity theft report was invalid. 

To date, you have provided none of this required information, which constitutes a clear violation of 1681c-2 ( c ) ( 3 ), 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ), and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).

2. Illegal Reinsertion Without Certification Violation of 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) If you have reinserted previously blocked or deleted items, the FCRA mandates that : - The furnisher must certify the information is complete and accurate ; - You must notify the
consumer within five ( 5 ) business days of reinsertion ; and- You must provide the name, address, and phone number of the furnisher and the documents relied upon. 

No such certification or notice was provided to me, which constitutes an unlawful reinsertion and an independent violation of the FCRA. 
3. Legal Precedent Courts have consistently held that a CRA may not rely solely on a furnishers unverified confirmation to maintain or reinsert disputed data : - Graziano v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., 2022 WL 219324 ( E.D. Pa. 2022 ) : The court held that a CRA acts negligently and possibly willfully when it relies exclusively on a furnishers conclusory verified accurate response without obtaining documentation or investigating
independently.

- ONeal v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-05026 ( N.D. Ga. 2020 ) : Denial of a fraud block after valid police report constituted a plausible FCRA violation.

- Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 ( 9th Cir. 2008 ) : A CRA can not avoid liability by relying blindly on a furnishers verified report without performing reasonable verification.

4. Demand for Compliance Accordingly, I demand that you : 1. Immediately and permanently delete all fraudulent and reinserted items from my credit file ; 2. Provide me, within five ( 5 ) business days, copies of all : - Furnisher certifications or communications you relied upon ; - Any verification documents obtained from the furnisher ; and - Your internal records showing the method of verification and date of reinsertion ; XXXX. Provide written confirmation that all illegal reinsertions have been deleted and will not reappear.

Failure to comply will be treated as willful noncompliance under 1681n, entitling me to statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees. 

If you fail to delete these and choose to go against the law and investigate 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 XXXX. Authentication & Identity Verification Logs IP address ( es ), device identifier ( XXXX ), 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 signatur

e is offered, a document comparing the signature from the application to my known signatures Any examiner or validation reports regarding the signature integrity * In Suluki v. Credit One Bank ( 2d Cir. 2025 ), the court reaffirmed that furnishers have a duty to conduct a careful and reasoned investigation, and that simply relyin
g on internal data files without verifying external evidence may not be enough.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation