Consumer complaint received 2025-09-02 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint FCRA 1681c-2 Identity Theft Dispute Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX SSN ( Last XXXX ) : XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Drivers License : XXXX Accounts to be Removed I, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX the following : I am a victim of identity theft. 
The following accounts and inquiries on my credit reports are fraudulent and not authorized by me : ( 1681c-2 ( 4 ) ) TransUnion Collections : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX ; Balance {$610.00} Closed Accounts : XXXX Card ; Open ; XXXX ; Balance {$0.00} Hard Inquiry : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Equifax Collections : XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Open ; XXXX ; Balance {$610.00} Closed Accounts : XXXX XXXX Card Ser ; Open ; XXXX ; Balance {$0.00} Open Accounts : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ; XXXX ; Balance {$3500.00} Hard Inquiry : Factual Data Consume XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Experian Collections : XXXX XXXX Systems ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Balance {$610.00} Hard Inquiry : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Statement of Facts Complainant has submitted a valid FTC Identity Theft Report, government-issued identification, and a sworn written statement declaring the above-listed accounts and inquiries fraudulent. This submission satisfies all statutory requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ) and triggers the CRAs obligation to block such information within XXXX business days. 
Although this is the first formal dispute under 1681c-2, case law demonstrates that CRAs have a recurring tendency to misclassify identity theft disputes as generic accuracy disputes under 1681i, thereby avoiding their blocking obligations. Courts have held this practice to be unlawful : Cortez v. Trans Union , LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 71214 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) ( CRAs have a grave respon

sibility to handle disputes accurately ). Norman v. Trans Union , LLC, 669 F. Supp. 3d 351 ( E.D. Pa. 2023 ) ( CRAs can not narrowly interpret obligations or refuse disputes involving non-furnisher data ).

Kaplan v. Trans Union , LLC, No. 2:24-cv-2438 ( E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2024 ) ( CRAs must honor 1681c-2 blocking requests and not route them improperly as reinvestigations ).

Given this documented industry tendency to misclassify disputes, Complainant respectfully insists that the subject dispute be processed correctly under 1681c-2, with the required ACDV Code 007 ( true identity theft, account fraudulently opened ), not as a generic 1681i dispute.

Counts Count I Failure to Follow Rea

sonable Procedures ( 1681e ( b ) ) Application : CRAs allowed reporting of fraudulent accounts and inquiries, failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.

Authority : Paulino v. Western Funding II Inc., 737 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 134243 ( S.D. Fla. 2024 ) Erickson v. First Advantage Background Servs. Corp., 981 F.3d 1246, 125253 ( 11th Cir. 2020 ) Damages : Potential denial of credit, reputational harm, and emotional distress ( Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359, 369 ( 5th Cir. 2001 ) ).

Relief Sought : Del

etion of inaccurate accounts and updated reports issued. Count II Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation ( 1681i ( a ) ) Elements ( Lazarre v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1329 ) : Inaccurate or incomplete reporting Consumer notified CRA Dispute was not frivolous or irrelevant CRA failed to reasonably reinvestigate Failure caused damages App

lication : The dispute is not frivolous or irrelevant. Complainant provided : Government-issued drivers license Mail with current address FTC Identity Theft Report These establish both identity and validity of the dispute. Any classification as a generic reinvestigation would be unreasonable.

Authority : Lazarre v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 780 F. Supp. 2d at 1329 Norman v. Trans Union , LLC, 669 F. Supp. 3d 351 ( E.D. Pa. 2023 ) Cortez v. Trans U

nion , LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 71214 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) Relief Sought : Deletion of fraudulent accounts and issuance of corrected reports.

Count III Failure to Block Identity Theft Information ( 1681c-2 ) Elements : Proof of identity submitted Valid identity theft report submitted Specific accounts and inquiries identified Statement made that accounts are not mine Application : Complainant satisfied every statutory requirement under 1681c-2 ( a ) by providing a drivers license, proof of address, and a sworn identity theft report. The CRAs must block the accounts within XXXX business days.

ACDV Coding Requirement : This dispute must be coded in e-OSCAR as ACDV Code 007 ( claims true identity fraud, account fraudulently opened ). Do not process this as a generic reinvestigation under 1681i. ACDV 007 triggers mandatory 1681c-2 blocking. If 007 can not be used, the CRA must apply the functionally equivalent identity theft code and confirm in writing. 
XXXX : XXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Experian XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, at * XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Immediate and permanent deletion of fraudulent accounts, confirmation of XXXX XXXX coding, and updated reports issued.

Count IV Impermissible Access / Permissible Purpose Violation ( 1681b ) Elements : A CRA furnished my report to a third party ; The third party lacked a permissible purpose under 1681b ; I suffered harm.

Application : TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian furnished my credit report to entities without my consent or any lawful purpose, violating 1681b.

Authority : 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( f ) Reports may only be furnished for a permissible purpose. 
Heagerty v. Equifax XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
XXXX v. Equifax XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
King v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
XXXX v. E-Backgroundchecks.com, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), affd XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). 
Damages : Credit denials, reputational harm, emotional distress.

Relief Sought : Identification of all entities that accessed my report within 24 months ; Deletion of unauthorized inquiries/accounts ; Updated reports. 

Impact & Damages Denial of credit and potential financial harm Emotional distress, anxiety, and reputational harm Punitive damages necessary to punish and deter willful violations ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX of XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) )

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation