Consumer complaint received 2025-11-06 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 ( EWS ) violated multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by refusing to block identity theft-related information after I provided a valid FTC Identity Theft Report and police report. 
Instead of complying with the mandatory blocking requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ), EWS improperly verified the fraudulent information with the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) , issued reinvestigation results, and failed to provide legally required disclosures under 1681g and 1681i. 

Details of What Happened I am a documented victim of identity theft. 
I submitted my FTC Identity Theft Report, police report, and photo ID to EWS regarding fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts and inquiries. 
Despite receiving these identity theft materials, EWS issued two letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, for Dispute Case IDs XXXX and XXXX, both stating : The reinvestigation into the accuracy of the reported information has been completed. It has been determined that the information contained in your file is accurate and complete as of the date it was furnished to Early Warning. 
Instead of blocking the fraudulent data within 4 business days as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ), EWS contacted the furnisher and performed a reinvestigation an unlawful action once an identity theft report has been submitted.

EWS failed to provide : 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the furnisher who verified the disputed data, as required by 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 2. Copies of the documents or information provided by the furnisher that EWS relied upon to verify accuracy ; 3. The method of verification ( MOV ) or description of how EWS authenticated the information ; and 4. Evidence of any separate investigation into the identity theft claim, which the FCRA requires when a theft report is submitted.

Instead, EWS used a standard reinvestigation process designed for normal disputes not for identity theft claims and then falsely concluded that the information was accurate and complete. 

Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act EWSs conduct constitutes the following violations : 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ) : Failure to block identity theft information within four business days of receiving a valid identity theft report.

2. 1681c-2 ( b ) : Improper reinvestigation and communication with the furnisher instead of immediate blocking.

3. 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ) : Failure to disclose the furnishers contact information and relevant documentation used in verification.

4. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) : Failure to provide the method of verification and a description of procedures used to determine accuracy.

5. 1681n and 1681o : Willful and negligent violations of the FCRA resulting in harm.

Harm Suffered As a direct result of EWSs unlawful conduct : My name remains associated with fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts. 
I have been denied legitimate credit opportunities, including vehicle financing and personal loans. 
I experienced emotional distress, time loss, and credit score damage.

EWSs improper reinvestigation and refusal to provide required verification details prevent me from identifying the source of the fraudulent information or pursuing correction. 

I am being understanding that its possible this is a result of work overload so this is my final attempt at resolving this before I bring all of the procedural violations in federal court for actual damages that I have been subjected to. 

Case Law * XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) - CRA must do more than rely on furnisher verification when consumer disputes identity theft. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) - Reporting same debt twice violates 607 ( b ) accuracy standards. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) - Failure to notify consumer within 5 days of reinsertion violates 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX 
XXXX ) - Procedural failure under FCRA is actionable even if the underlying data came from third parties. 

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - CRAs & turnishers must conduct eal investigations, not rubber-stamp. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) - ignoring consumer evidence = FCRA violation. 
. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) - consumers don't need a denial of credit to recover damages. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) - causation from inaccurate reporting upheld. 

Both you and the furnisher are in collusion and aiding identity theft. IM NOT GOING TO HOLD THE FURNISHER RESPONSIBLE .As the agency required to follow the letter of the law I will gladly add EWS to my current Lawsuit against XXXX  for FCRA VIOLATIONS. 

The CFPB alleges that CRAs do not take sufficient steps to intake, process, investigate, and notify consumers about consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports. Inaccurate or false information on consumer reports can threaten consumers ' access to credit, employment, and housing. 
" When consumers disputed errors on their credit reports, you conduct sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law, '' said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. " Credit reporting errors can have serious consequences for a family 's finances, and it is critical that credit reporting giants follow the law. '' It is evident that your profit-driven model compromises your legal obligation to remain neutral, instead favoring paying furnishers at the direct expense of consumers. This systemic bias results in widespread credit report errors and causes significant harm to innocent consumers like myself. 

You are now on legal notice that your continued reporting of these fraudulent accounts constitutes willful noncompliance with the FCRA, entitling me to statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages, court costs, and attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o.

The next communication will be papers being served for willfull negligence and non compliance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation