Consumer complaint received 2025-05-10 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: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
I am writing in response to the rebuttal provided by Clarity Services , Inc., dated XX/XX/year>, through the CFPB Complaint Portal. Clarity 's response is both misleading and dismissive, and it fails to address the substance of my original complaint regarding inaccurate and unauthorized data reporting. 

The companys claim that my dispute was not sent directly by me or authorized by me is false and unsubstantiated. My dispute was lawfully submitted through the CFPB Complaint Portal, which is a recognized and legitimate method for initiating complaints and dispute actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Clarity 's refusal to act on my dispute based solely on its channel of submission represents a serious obstruction of my rights as a consumer.

Violations and Inconsistencies in Clarity Services Response : Failure to Reinvestigate the Disputed Information Under FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ), a credit reporting agency is required to conduct a reinvestigation when a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of any item. This reinvestigation must occur within 30 days regardless of whether the dispute is submitted through the CFPB.

Claritys refusal to investigate based on the method of delivery is a clear violation of this statute. Nowhere in the FCRA does it state that a consumer must contact the bureau " directly '' for their dispute to be valid.

Unsubstantiated Claim of Unauthorized Submission Clarity claims the dispute may not have been authorized by me, yet fails to provide any evidence of this allegation.

If Clarity had reasonable doubt, they
were obligated to attempt to verify the consumers identity, not to dismiss the dispute without further action.

Imposing Burdensome and Non-Mandated Verification Requirements Clarity insists I submit an excessive list of documents and identification in order to process a dispute. While identity verification is reasonable, the level of documentation demanded appears designed to discourage consumers and delay rightful dispute resolution. 

The FCRA does not require consumers to provide multiple utility bills, bank statements, or impose arbitrary rejection of common ID documentation, particularly when the dispute is already logged and traceable through a government-regulated portal ( the CFPB ).

Shifting Blame to Credit Repair Agencies The response goes to great lengths to caution me about credit repair companies a XXXX XXXX, as my complaint did not involve or mention such entities. 

This deflection tactic is not only irrelevant but also dismissive of a consumers legitimate concerns and diverts attention from Claritys legal responsibilities.

Refusal to Disclose How They Obtained My Information As sta
ted in my original complaint, I have never had any business relationship or transaction with Clarity Services , Inc. Yet they are maintaining a file and possibly distributing my consumer data to third parties.

Under FCRA 1681g ( a ) ( 2 ), I have the right to know the sources of the information in my file. Clarity has not identified how or from whom they received my data, further violating transparency obligations under federal law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation