Consumer complaint received 2025-09-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is not a duplicate. It raises new factual issues and new evidence not part of my prior CFPB filing ( # XXXX ). The updated Equifax reports dated XX/XX/XXXX still show the XXXX tradelines coded as both Charge-Off and Paid/Closed {$0.00} balance, with unlawful XXXX last payment and status update dates. These refreshed updates are new violations occurring after my last complaint, and they continue to cause new harm to my creditworthiness and mortgage costs. 

I am filing this complaint against Equifax Information Services LLC and XXXX Card Services ( XXXX  ) regarding three XXXX credit card accounts that were fully paid on XX/XX/XXXX during my mortgage refinance. Despite full payoff, Equifax continues to publish these tradelines with contradictory and misleading coding that makes it appear I defaulted again in XXXX. 

The accounts ( # XXXX, # XXXX, # XXXX ) are each reported as Charge-Off while also coded as Paid and Closed with {$0.00} balance. The Date of First Delinquency is in XXXX, yet Equifax refreshes the Date Reported into XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX furnished XXXX XXXX last payment/status update dates, which Equifax accepted and published XXXX 

This is misleading and unlawful : FCRA 605 ( c ) : The reporting period must run from the original DOFD, not a later payoff or update. Using 2025 dates unlawfully re-ages the tradelines.

FCRA 1681e ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( b ) : Accuracy requires avoiding misleading impressions. Reporting my accounts as if I defaulted in 2025 is materially false.

Metro 2 Standards : Paid/closed charge-offs must be coded Paid/Closed {$0.00} balance with the DOFD preserved, not refreshed as new derogatory events. 
Contradictory Coding : An account can not simultaneously be Paid and Closed and Charge-Off.

Legal Authority : Courts have held that technical accuracy is not a defense when reporting misleads creditors : Saunders v. BB & T, 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ) technically accurate but misleading reports violate the FCRA.

Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., 257 F.3d 409 ( 4th Cir. 2001 ) accuracy requires avoiding misleading impressions.

Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 584 F.3d 1147 ( 9th Cir. 2009 ) furnishers must correct misleading reporting.

Shimon v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC , 994 F.3d 88 ( 2d Cir. 2021 ) ongoing derogatory coding of a resolved tradeline can be misleading. 

Furnisher Admission : In an OCC complaint I filed, XXXX admitted furnishing XXXX XXXX last payment and status update dates even after I paid these accounts in full on XX/XX/XXXX. This proves XXXX is actively re-aging resolved accounts, and Equifax is publishing the false updates. 

Harm : Because of this unlawful re-aging, my credit report shows as if I defaulted again in XXXX. This directly harmed me : My refinance interest rate was increased by 0.51.0 %, adding {$25000.00} {$50000.00} in cost. 
My credit score is suppressed and I face ongoing credit denials. 
It creates reputational damage by misrepresenting my financial behavior as if I still owe XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief