Consumer complaint received 2025-07-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX, XXXX of Comenity Capital Bank I am writing to dispute Comenity 's Capital Bank regarding the inaccurate and misleading credit reporting of the account ending in XXXX. Comenity, admits that it is no longer the creditor and that the account was sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Despite this, Comenity continues to furnish information to the credit bureaus under their name. This is materially misleading and violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to stop reporting once they no longer own or service a debt. It also violates 1681e ( b ), which mandates that information be reported with maximum possible accuracy. Comenity appears to believe that simply reporting the account as charged off, with a \ {$0.00} balance, and marked sold satisfies the law. That is incorrect. While creditors are required to report a \ {$0.00} balance when they charge off and sell an account, this does not absolve them of their duty to report with maximum accuracy or remove misleading data. Reporting an account under Comenitys name even with a \ {$0.00} balance falsely implies Comenity still has a financial interest in the account or maintains a relationship with me. This is misleading to creditors, insurers, and third parties reviewing my credit report. The fact that the account was sold and charged off must also be reflected by the removal or suppression of Comenitys tradeline altogether. Furnishers must ensure their reporting reflects not just balance figures but also accurate context. The continued presence of Comenitys name gives the appearance of ownership when no such relationship exists. Courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of consumers on this issue. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), courts held that reporting accounts under the wrong name after saleeven with a \ {$0.00} balanceis materially misleading and violates FCRA. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), damages were awarded for failure to correct misleading tradelines after notice. Comenity also claims they have a permissible purpose under the FCRA to report the data. That is legally flawed. The permissible purpose provision under 1681b applies to accessing credit reports not furnishing data. Furnishing data must comply with 1681s-2 and 1681e, which require accuracy and full context, not just technical compliance. Additionally, Comenity states that they have placed a cease and desist on the account status and that future collections will cease except where legally permissible. However, this position contradicts their ongoing credit reporting. If Comenity acknowledges they are no longer the creditor and have ceased all collection efforts, then continuing to report under their name only creates further confusion and misrepresentation. The tradeline should be removed entirely. A cease and desist on collections, while still reporting as if Comenity is the creditor, is misleading and undermines the purpose of the FCRAs accuracy standard. If Comenity is no longer collecting, no longer servicing, and no longer the creditor, then continuing to appear on my credit report as the source of this tradeline is false and harmful. Comenity has also stated that it is their policy to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. However, if that were true, they would not be furnishing data on an account they no longer own or service, nor would they have transferred or sold my non-public personal information to a non-affiliated third party. While Comenity may argue that I consented to certain data-sharing terms when I applied online, that does not excuse inaccurate or misleading credit reporting. Under the FCRA, even with consumer consent, a furnisher must ensure that all information is reported with maximum possible accuracy. Consent to share data during account origination does not authorize Comenity to continue furnishing tradeline information after they have sold the account and relinquished all ownership or servicing rights. Furthermore, any data-sharing with a non-affiliated third-party debt buyer like XXXXXXXX XXXX raises serious concerns under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), 15 U.S.C. XXXX, which prohibits such transfers without clear disclosure and a proper opt-out opportunity neither of which were provided. I am demanding that Comenity : 1. Immediately delete the tradeline reported under their name for account ending in 6716, as they no longer own or service the account. 2. Provide the full chain of title, showing the legal transfer and who now owns the debt. 3. Explain in writing the legal basis by which Comenity continues to furnish data on an account they confirm they no longer collect on or service. Their continued appearance on this account is misleading, unjustified, and in violation of FCRA 623 and 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681e ( b ), and GLBA privacy protections. If Comenity fails to delete this misleading tradeline or continues to furnish data under their name despite acknowledging they are no longer the creditor, I will have no choice but to seek legal remedy. This includes filing suit for willful and/or negligent noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. These sections provide for recovery of actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees for furnishing inaccurate or misleading information after receiving proper notice of dispute. I strongly urge Comenity to avoid further legal exposure by immediately removing this tradeline and ceasing all further furnishing of credit data related to this account.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation