Consumer complaint received 2025-10-15 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: Early Warning Services, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Early Warning Services , LLC Consumer Relations Department XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX XXXX Ssn : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Re : Reinsertion of Previously Blocked Identity Theft Information Notice of FCRA Violations To Whom It May Concern, This letter serves as formal pre-litigation notice of multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., by Early Warning Services ( EWS ) regarding the reappearance of information previously deleted or blocked as fraudulent from my consumer file. 
1. Prior Deletion Based on Identity Theft Documentation On or about [ insert date ], I submitted to EWS both : A valid FTC Identity Theft Report, and A law enforcement ( police ) report, along with written identification of the fraudulent accounts and/or inquiries appearing on my EWS consumer file. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ) ( FCRA 605B ), EWS properly deleted or blocked that information, acknowledging it resulted from identity theft.

2. Reinsertion Without Certification or Notice Subsequently, EWS reinserted the same fraudulent information that had previously been deleted.

This reinsertion occurred without any written notice to me and witho
ut providing any certification that the information was accurate, as required by law.

Such conduct violates 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ), which clearly states : If any information is deleted from a consumers file the information may not be reinserted unless the furnisher of the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate. The consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion within 5 business days.

EWSs actions also violate 605B ( c ) ( 2 ), which explicitly prohibits the reporting or reinsertion of information previously blocked due to identity theft, absent proof of accuracy and proper consumer notice.

3. Legal Authority and Case Law Courts have consistently held that CRAs have a non-delegable duty to ensure the accuracy and lawful handling of consumer data once identity theft documentation is provided : Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3d Cir. 1997 ) : The court held that a CRA must do more than passively rely on furnishers and must conduct independent, reasonable procedures to assure accuracy.

Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 ( 9th Cir. 2008 ) : Reinsertion of information without adequate verification or notice to the consumer constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA.

Sloane v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC , 510 F.3d 495 ( 4th Cir. 2007 ) : A CRAs failure to honor identity theft documentation and prevent re-reporting of fraudulent information was found to support claims of emotional distress and punitive damages. 

EWSs conduct mirrors the same unlawful reinsertion behavior addressed in these cases.

4. Notice of Intent to Pursue Legal Remedies EWSs reinsertion of previously deleted fraudulent information constitutes willful and negligent noncompliance with the FCRA, including violations of : 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ) & ( c ) ( 2 ) Failure to block and maintain the block of identity theft information, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Unauthorized reinsertion without certification or notice, 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. 

These violations have caused and continue to cause emotional distress, credit denials, and reputational harm. 

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 XXXX. 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 ) XXXX. 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 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 relying on internal data files without verifying external evidence may not be enough.

Accordingly, I demand that EWS : 1. Immediately and permanently delete all information previously identified as resulting from identity theft ; 2. Provide written confirmation of deletion within 10 business days ; and 3. Retain documentation of these actions in compliance with 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( iii ). If I do not receive written confirmation within 10 business days of receipt o
f this letter, I will consider EWS to be acting in bad faith and will proceed with formal legal action in federal court seeking all remedies available under 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, and 1681p, including actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys fees.

5. Enclosures Copy of FTC Identity Theft Report Copy of Police Report Evidence of current reinsertion Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TX XXXX [ XXXX [ Email : XXXX ]

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation