Consumer complaint received 2025-06-18 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: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Expanded Complaint Against Experian for Willful Violations of the FCRA, UDAAP, and Systematic Refusal to Provide Method of Verification as Required by Federal Law To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This expanded complaint is submitted to follow up on my XX/XX/year>2025, filing regarding Experians handling of disputed information on my credit file. My CFPB complaint is XXXX. 

The original issue, which remains entirely unresolved, stems from Experians refusal to fulfill its legal obligation to provide the method of verification under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), despite my clear and lawful request. 

While Experian claims in its boilerplate reply that it completed an investigation and fulfilled its duties, the company has, in fact, failed to provide any meaningful details or documentary evidence about how my dispute was verified. Their generic response offers no transparency into their internal verification procedures and does not include any documentation from the furnisher or vendor, which renders their claim of compliance illusory.

I. Repeated Refusal to Provide the Method of Verification Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), a consumer reporting agency is required to provide the consumer with a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information, including the name, address, and telephone number of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information, and the method of verification. This is not optional. It is not discretionary. It is a statutory mandate.

Experians failure to fulfill this requirement is not an isolated oversight. It is part of a larger pattern of denial and evasion. Their boilerplate reply to my CFPB complaint makes vague references to contacting furnishers or vendors, without providing me, the data subject, any insight into which entity was contacted, what documents were reviewed, how my supporting evidence was weighed, or why the dispute was resolved in the furnishers favor.

When asked to explain what method was used to verify the account, Experian dodged the question and instead directed me to contact the furnisher directly. That is not the law. That is not the burden assigned to the consumer. The statute clearly makes the CRA ( consumer reporting agency ) responsible for verifying the data it maintains.

I am left to conclude that no actual verification took place, or that any such procedure is too flimsy to survive public scrutiny, so it is concealed behind legalistic fluff and form responses that are virtually identical across thousands of complaints.

II. UDAAP and the Weaponization of Boilerplate Experians practices rise beyond mere negligence ; they constitute a deceptive and abusive business practice in violation of UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) standards as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act.

When a consumer disputes an account in writing and explicitly requests the method of verification, it is both deceptive and abusive for Experian to : Respond with generic process language instead of an individualized explanation ; Repeatedly cite the consumers ability to contact the furnisher as a substitute for their own legal duties ; Obfuscate the dispute outcome through form language that appears compliant but withholds all meaningful insight ; Imply that all disputes are adequately investigated when, in fact, no case-specific evidence has been produced.

These tactics are not merely evasivethey are designed to suppress consumer rights through exhaustion. They erode trust in the credit reporting system, create harm through continued publication of inaccurate data, and force consumers like medisabled, low-income, without legal counselto either give up or undertake excessive burdens to correct simple errors.

Experian knows most consumers wont escalate further. That is the business model. The assumption is that people will give up. But I will not. I am documenting every denial, every deflection, and every hollow response they give in order to build a larger record of systemic wrongdoing.

III. The Human Toll : I Am Not a File Number Experians impersonal replies reflect a corporate culture that treats people as data points, not as human beings. I am a XXXX XXXX  living on fixed income. I do not have the luxury of navigating complex legal processes every time one of the Big Three credit agencies refuses to do their job. I have one life. I do not get a second version of it. When Experian reports inaccurate data and then refuses to remove it or even explain their process, it causes real harm. 

Ive been denied credit. Ive suffered XXXX  and XXXX  over errors that I know are wrong. Ive had to defend my identity, my integrity, and my solvency against machines that dont care whether I live or dieas long as the data feeds continue and the furnisher relationships are preserved. 

Experian has weaponized complexity and bureaucracy to create a system in which ordinary people can not fight back. The FCRA was written to prevent exactly this kind of imbalance. Yet here I am, months later, still receiving empty replies that say thank you for your concern but provide nothing of value.

IV. Repeated Violations of FCRA 611 Let me be clear : This is a violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), and it is ongoing. Experian can not satisfy its statutory duty to verify disputed information through a generic letter. It must state who verified the item, what evidence was used, and how the dispute was resolved in favor of the furnisher.

This provision exists to ensure transparency and to allow consumers a meaningful opportunity to correct their records. By ignoring it, Experian is not merely being bureaucraticit is operating in knowing defiance of federal law.

I have provided Experian with multiple opportunities to fulfill this obligation, and they have chosen instead to send templated replies that do nothing but recite publicly available summaries of the dispute process. That is not verification. That is a refusal to verify.

V. Call for Regulatory Action I am requesting that the CFPB escalate this matter beyond the complaints database. Experian is clearly failing to comply with its obligations under the FCRA. And worse, it is systematically and intentionally deceiving consumers about their rights and its responsibilities.

I urge the Bureau to : Open an enforcement action against Experian for repeated FCRA violations ; Investigate Experians standard operating procedures for handling verification requests ; Examine whether Experians template-based responses constitute deceptive practices under UDAAP ; Require that Experian provide all method-of-verification information for this and other disputes in compliance with federal law.

VI. Final Note : I Am Not Alone There are countless others like me who have been denied justice by Experians opaque and mechanical dispute process. Their system is optimized for efficiency, not accuracy. For liability protection, not consumer truth. I am one of many, but this complaint is mine. I will continue to escalate, expose, and litigate if needed, because I will not let my financial identity be managed by a XXXX box that refuses to account for its decisions. 

My dispute remains unresolved. The data remains inaccurate. The method of verification remains secret. And Experians reply remains unacceptable.

I trust the CFPB will take this matter seriously and initiate the appropriate actions. Thank you for your time and public service.

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