Consumer complaint received 2025-07-20 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
This is a formal complaint against Equifax for unlawfully reinserting a previously deleted credit tradeline under a different creditor name, without notice, without proper verification, and with significant reporting inconsistencies. 

On XX/XX/2025, Equifax completed a dispute investigation and issued confirmation ( Ref. # XXXX ) that the disputed account from XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  was deleted from my credit file. This decision was based on my dispute supported by consumer-provided documentation, which Equifax confirmed met the threshold for deletion. 

However, on XX/XX/2025, a nearly identical account reappeared in my Equifax report under the new name XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ). This is clearly a rebranding of the same account previously deleted. It shows Balance : {$1300.00} Credit Limit : {$700.00} Payment History ( delinquencies starting XX/XX/2025 ) Account Age and Terms Yet Equifax never issued a reinsertion notice or provided any documentation justifying its reappearance. 

Violations and Failures by Equifax : XXXX. No Reinsertion Notice ( FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ) The FCRA requires that if a deleted item is reinserted into a consumers credit file, the bureau must send a written notice within XXXX business days. I received no such notification, and the reinsertion was made without my knowledge or consent. 
XXXX. No Verification or Ownership Documentation The new tradeline now lists XXXX XXXX as the creditor, yet neither Equifax nor the furnisher has provided : A method of verification as required under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) A legal chain of title or assignment showing that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  legally owns or services the account Any written evidence that validates the re-reporting of this debt after deletion XXXX. Deceptive Creditor Substitution The original furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) was removed after a successful dispute. Now, the same tradeline has been added under a different name, XXXX XXXX without closing the previous dispute record or transparently identifying the relationship between these entities. This creates confusion and is misleading under FCRA 607 ( b ), which requires maximum possible accuracy in reporting. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX and XXXX Reporting Inconsistencies The tradeline reflects : XXXX XXXX  delinquency but no charge-off date An open status despite showing months of nonpayment No account closure or collection transfer indicator Delinquency reporting as early as XX/XX/2025, but the account was allegedly reported in XX/XX/2025 which is chronologically impossible These inconsistencies contradict credit reporting standards and create an artificially negative impact on my credit profile. 

XXXX. Evidence of Furnisher Deception, Regulatory Evasion, and Unverifiable Reporting This account appears to have been rebranded and reinserted under a different furnisher name XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) as a deliberate attempt to bypass my prior dispute and deletion. On XX/XX/2025, Equifax issued confirmation ( Ref. # XXXX ) that the original tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  was permanently deleted from my credit file, based on consumer-submitted documentation and failure to verify ownership or reporting authority. 

Yet on XX/XX/2025, an account with identical data same balance, credit limit, delinquency pattern, and open date reappeared under a new name : XXXX XXXX. This is clearly not a new account. This is a relabeling and reinsertion of the same tradeline, carried out under a different creditor name to : Evade Equifaxs internal deletion flags Circumvent the FCRAs reinsertion notice requirement Deceive the consumer and regulators into believing this is a separate obligation If XXXX XXXX  is involved in servicing both versions of the account which is likely based on prior correspondence this amounts to a coordinated furnishing tactic to re-report unverifiable, previously disputed data using a different entity name. 

XXXX. No Valid Verification Possible Prior Deletion Proves It Was Unverifiable There is no legitimate way Equifax could have verified this account prior to re-adding it to my credit report in XX/XX/2025. On XX/XX/2025, Equifax permanently deleted the original tradeline ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) based on consumer-provided evidence, confirming that the information was unverifiable and did not meet FCRA reporting standards. 

Now, just XXXX XXXX  later, an account with identical data has reappeared under a new name ( XXXX XXXX ), with no new evidence, no change in ownership documentation, and no reinvestigation transparency. 

If this tradeline were truly verified, Equifax would have been obligated to : Flag the account internally as previously deleted Require manual validation and new documentation from the furnisher before accepting it Issue a formal reinsertion notice to me within XXXX business days of its return ( per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ) None of these steps occurred. 

Equifaxs own XX/XX/2025 reporting includes the notation : Account previously in dispute now resolved by data furnisher. 

This proves the deletion was valid and acknowledged, and that the furnisher simply reasserted the data without meeting the legal burden of proof. The credit bureau is not permitted to blindly accept a data furnishers claims after deletion ; they are required to obtain new, verified documentation before reinserting and to notify the consumer. This did not happen. 

Therefore, Equifax has : Violated FCRA reinsertion rules Failed to ensure data accuracy Knowingly allowed re-reporting of a deleted, unverified account This alone justifies immediate removal, an investigation into both Equifax and the furnisher, and corrective regulatory action. 

Why This Account is Unverifiable : No Charge-Off Date or Closure : The account is reporting as XXXX XXXX past due, yet Equifax shows no charge-off amount, no closed date, and no collection transfer, which contradicts normal credit reporting standards for severely delinquent accounts. 
Inconsistent Delinquency Dates : The account shows delinquencies beginning in XX/XX/2025, but also lists XX/XX/2025 as the report date meaning Equifax is reporting delinquencies before the account allegedly reappeared, which is not chronologically possible. 
No Documentation of Ownership : Neither Equifax nor the furnisher has provided any proof of legal ownership, servicing rights, or assignment from the original issuer ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX There is no chain of title or verification that XXXX has the authority to report on this debt. 
No Payment Activity or Valid History : Despite showing XXXX XXXX  past due and a {$1300.00} balance, the account has no actual payments posted, no charge-off entry, and no supporting billing or transactional detail. It reflects aging debt without transactional evidencemaking it unverifiable under FCRA and XXXX XXXX standards. 

XXXX and Regulatory Concerns : This behavior also constitute a XXXX violation under the Dodd-Frank Act. It is : Unfair because it causes consumer harm ( credit damage, loan denials ) without justification or benefit. 
Deceptive because it conceals the accounts origin and true dispute history. 
Abusive because it exploits the consumers lack of visibility into creditor-servicer relationships and limits their ability to challenge inaccurate information. 

This tradeline is clearly unverifiable and improperly reinserted. The furnisher has reintroduced deleted data under a different name without any legal or evidentiary basis. Equifax failed to ensure the data was valid, failed to notify me of reinsertion, and failed to detect that this was the same account previously deleted after a successful dispute. 

Requested Resolution : I am requesting Equifax immediate removal of the XXXX XXXX tradeline Provide a full method of verification, including the data furnishers name, authority to report, and documentation used Disclose who reinserted it and under what authority Explain why no reinsertion notice was sent to consumer Identify whether the reinvestigation was automated ( e.g., XXXX ) or involved a manual review of supporting documentation Evidence Attached : Equifax Deletion Letter dated XX/XX/2025 ( Ref. # XXXX ) Equifax Credit Report dated XX/XX/2025 Screenshots of the reappeared XXXX XXXX tradeline Payment history showing unverifiable delinquency timeline Account detail sections showing missing charge-off, closure, and ownership information

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief