Consumer complaint received 2025-06-07 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: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Formal Rebuttal to XXXX CFPB Complaint Response New Complaint in Connection with CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Connected FDIC Complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # : XXXX Date : XX/XX/XXXX Please allow this complaint ( written as a rebuttal to the previous CFPB complaint ) to serve as a new CFPB complaint against XXXX. Based on the new information and evidence provided by XXXX in its response, the defenses stated by the company are all willful acknowledgements that the company remains in noncompliance of Federal consumer protection laws. 

This complaint is written as a rebuttal to XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPB case number connected to this new complaint is : XXXX. Under federal law, XXXX is restricted from derogatory reporting unless an account is at least 30 days or more past due and proper notice has been issued of derogatory reporting. XXXX procedures are permitted to continue internally at XXXX when under 30 days past due, however I have never been lawfully in a derogatory status ( I have not once been 30 days or more past due since opening this account in XX/XX/XXXX ). Therefore, XXXX remains in willful violation with XXXX law for every instance it has placed and continues to maintain a derogatory XXXX XXXX XXXX Suspended remark on my credit file for any period of time in all of XXXX. 

In XXXX CFPB response, the fintech company shockingly admitted to willful noncompliance with federal law. Each instance of this violation is up to a {$1000.00} statutory penalty, before punitive damages are assessed. The longer XXXX remains in willful violation, the higher the penalty XXXX become. 

In addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, an FDIC complaint was filed against XXXX Bank, XXXX banking partner, for failure to oversee and correct willful consecutive violations of federal consumer protection laws through its third-party partner, XXXX. The FDIC XXXX XXXX is for this complaint is : XXXX. 

________________________________________ To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This letter is in response to XXXX XXXX reply to my CFPB complaint regarding their ongoing practice of furnishing CLS ( Credit Line Suspended ) remarks on my credit reports. Their response not only fails to justify its actions, but it also actually admits to engaging in unlawful and deceptive credit reporting practices in violation of federal consumer protection laws. 
XXXX, a fintech company operating in partnership with XXXX XXXX, is leveraging this bank partnership not for consumer benefit, but as a shield to exploit exemptions from state usury laws and evade compliance and strict oversight of federal consumer protection laws. As XXXX willingly admits in its CFPB complaint response, in every instance of the disputed CLS reporting, XXXX remains in willful violation with federal law. XXXX has designed this mechanism of adding the derogatory CLS remark, as a coercive tactic, under the radar or understanding of the CRAs, to suppress consumers creditworthiness and circumvent Federal limits for how and when a furnisher can report derogatory information on a consumers credit file.

Under federal law, no derogatory information may be furnished to a credit reporting agency unless a consumer is at least 30 days late on a credit obligation and has been notified of such reporting. This principle is codified in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which mandates that furnishers must report data accurately and not punitively. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly and admittedly reported " Credit Line Suspended '' ( CLS ) remarks, on my tradeline under circumstances where I was not 30 days or more late, thereby unlawfully creating a derogatory status for a fully compliant account that should be reported as in good standing. In the following sections, I will outline specific circumstances surrounding XXXX defenses, therefore proving blatant violation of FCRA. As a result, I will demand immediate resolution from XXXX by removing CLS past and present remarks from my credit files. XXXX failure to comply will result in my seeking statutory and punitive damages in Federal Court. 
The Derogatory Nature of the CLS Remark Since the opening of this account in XXXX, I have never been 30 days past duenot once. Despite this, XXXX has repeatedly reported CLS derogatory remarks, damaging my creditworthiness in violation of federal and Florida law. I first unsuccessfully disputed this code in XX/XX/XXXX, when applying for a car loan and receiving this feedback from the bank, and again several times with the furnisher since XX/XX/XXXX. 
This practice has had real-world consequences : In XX/XX/XXXX, I was denied credit by XXXX XXXX due solely to the presence of the XXXX remark which was due to an active credit report dispute I filed with XXXX. 
After over 30 days with no resolution following a dispute I submitted to XXXX, I was forced to withdraw my dispute simply to get the CLS remark removed. 
Immediately after the CLS remark was removed, I was approved for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, proving that the CLS was the sole derogatory factor. 
XXXX has utilized its CLS internal designation as a weaponized credit suppression tactic against consumers, unlawfully penalizing me when my account is in good standing for reasons of disputing inaccuracies, being less than 30 days past due, or having no available creditas a result of its unconscionable fees rate not usage though my account was fully complaint under federal law and should have been reported as in good standing. 
CRAs themselves have acknowledged the XXXX remark as being the reason for the adverse designation. Notably : TransUnion confirms the CLS remark alone causes the account to be flagged as derogatory, by listing it as an Adverse Action Account. TransUnion specifically places this account in a separate listing of accounts and flags the remarks as the only item that is causing the account to report derogatorily. 
XXXX, upon removing the CLS remark from a dispute I filed directly with the CRA, reclassified the account as positive ( in green ) and in good standing, which was previously flagged in red as derogatory prior to the removal of the CLS remark.

Separate and apart from the CLS remark itself being a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX would still be in violation of federal law for its failure to notify me, the consumer, prior to furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the CLS remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law. 
In reviewing XXXX response to my CFPB complaint, the below highlights ( XXXX ) statements made by XXXX written reply which openly admits to willful violations of federal law in every instance a CLS remark has been reported on my credit file since the opening of this account in XX/XX/XXXX. These statements are as follows : ________________________________________ Statement 1 : CLS Reporting for Non-Delinquent, Non-Negative Accounts " A Line of Credit can be reported as suspended if a customer is unable to request a cash draw. If a customer does not have available credit, has a past due balance, or is disputing information on their credit report as of the report date, the line of credit will be reported as suspended. '' XXXX 's response is a direct admission of wrongdoing. I have never been 30 days or more late on this account, yet XXXX admits to reporting the CLS remark for the following unlawful reaons : When I was less than 30 days past due When I was merely over the internal credit limit When I lawfully initiated a credit reporting dispute. 
XXXX has admitted to blatantly unlawful practices in each instance. 
Applicable Federal Law Violations : 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishers must not report inaccurate or misleading information. CLS is clearly misleading and derogatory when the account is not lawfully delinquent.

2. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) If a consumer account is disputed or under investigation, reporting adverse information and not clearly indicating it is disputed is a violation.

3. FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) Federal law prohibits furnishing adverse data that is inaccurate or incomplete, especially before an account is 30 days delinquent.

4. FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) A furnisher must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to the consumer before or no later than 30 days after furnishing negative information to a consumer reporting agency. XXXX failed to provide such notice in every instance it reported the XXXX remark, further compounding its willful noncompliance with federal law XXXX. CFPB XXXX XXXX Lenders and furnishers are expected to avoid deceptive reporting and ensure that the data they provide does not mislead creditors or harm consumers unjustly. 
Applicable Florida State Law Violations : 1. Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), Fla. Stat. 501.204 Furnishing misleading or derogatory information to CRAs about accounts not 30 days delinquent is both deceptive and unfair, especially when used to pressure consumers or restrict access to credit. 
2. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), Fla. Stat. 559.72 ( 9 ) It is illegal to assert the existence of a legal right that does not exist ( e.g., the right to report derogatory data based on internal suspension policies when no delinquency exists ). 
________________________________________ Statement 2 : CLS Reporting For Lawful Disputes Initiated by the Consumer " On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contacted XXXX to dispute information on their credit report. The dispute remained open when the XX/XX/XXXX report was sent to the credit reporting agencies, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended. In XX/XX/XXXX XXXX addressed XXXX concerns. '' This is patently false. XXXX did not resolve my concerns. 
In reality : After initiating the dispute in XX/XX/XXXX, I engaged in a lengthy, unresolved call with a XXXX supervisor. 
Over 30 days passed with no resolution. 
I was ultimately forced to withdraw my dispute just to have the damaging CLS remark removed. 
Once the CLS remark was finally removed from my Experian report, I was immediately approved for an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
This statement by XXXX admits to the unlawful use of CLS remarks when a consumer exercises their federal right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information on their credit report. In this instance, I was simply requesting that the account type be corrected to report the account as Line of Credit account, instead of the incorrect reporting as an overdraft checking account. Instead of placing a neutral and legally required remark indicating that the account is under investigation, XXXX furnished a CLS remark, which is treated by CRAs as a derogatory flag, causing adverse action outcomes. 
Instead of following these procedures, XXXX used the CLS remark as a punitive mechanism. This coercive action was designed to suppress my lawful dispute rights. I was not 30 days or more late at any time since account opening. XXXX use of CLS in response to a lawful dispute constitutes a willful and retaliatory violation of consumer protection laws. 
Additional Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Furnishers are required to indicate that an item is under dispute and not penalize the consumer. Reporting derogatory data during a dispute without labeling the data as disputed is a direct violation. 
FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) : Requires data be corrected or removed when a dispute is not resolvedNetCredit instead chose to continue to validate the inaccurate information, harming my credit file until I capitulated.

FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Reasonable procedures must be followed to ensure maximum possible accuracy ; a derogatory status due to an active investigation is inaccurate by definition.

Retaliation for Exercising Legal Rights : No federal or Florida law allows furnishers to retaliate against consumers for initiating lawful disputes. XXXX use of derogatory remarks to compel withdrawal is coercive and unlawful. 
________________________________________ Statement 3 : CLS Reporting for Internal Credit Limit Exceedance " Since Nadias account balance exceeded her credit limit, XXXX 's line of credit was reported as suspended in the XX/XX/XXXX report to the consumer reporting agencies. '' Once again, XXXX justifies the use of a derogatory remark based solely on internal credit limitsnot legal delinquency. My account was not 30 days late. My balance exceeded the limit due to accrual of fees or interestnot late payments or spending. No statute supports that this condition justifies a derogatory status. 
In fact, a consumers credit utilization is reflected by balance-to-limit ratios and does not warrant suspension remarks unless the account is delinquent. 
As of XX/XX/XXXX, I have paid {$2200.00} in fees for the year on this account in just XXXX months, and my cash advance balance was {$3600.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I had paid {$4100.00} in fees for the year, with a year-end cash advance balance of {$1800.00}. These excessive feesfor a {$4000.00} line of credit -- paired with derogatory reporting on a current accountare not only unlawful, but unconscionable. 
Applicable Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 and CFPB Reporting Guidelines Reporting a derogatory CLS notation when the account is not in default is misleading and unlawful.

FDUTPA Reporting such remarks based on arbitrary triggers like being slightly over a limit is patently unfair and abusive under Florida law. 
________________________________________ XXXX XXXX Model : Evading State Usury Laws XXXX operates its Line of Credit product through a third-party arrangement with XXXX XXXX  XXXX using its Utah-based charter to circumvent Floridas consumer protection laws. Without XXXX XXXX, XXXX fees and interest model would clearly violate : Florida Statutes 687.03 : Usury limits for loans under {$25000.00} capped at 30 %. 
Fees far exceeding 100 % APR, disguised as draw or origination charges or advance fee, compound the exploitative nature of the product. In my case, I paid over {$6300.00} in fees in under 18 months for a {$4000.00} line of credit, a product that yielded far less in principal. 
This model is increasingly identified as a " rent-a-bank '' scheme and is currently under immense scrutiny by the CFPB, FDIC, and OCC and the State of Florida.

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