Consumer complaint received 2025-07-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am a victim of identity theft, and Experian has repeatedly failed to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Despite receiving proper identity theft documentation and multiple disputes/complaints from XXXX through XX/XX/year>, Experian has engaged in a pattern of willful non-compliance : failing to block fraudulent accounts within 4 business days as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, conducting unreasonable investigations that ignore evidence, re-inserting information that was removed due to fraud without certification or notice ( violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ), and sending boilerplate denial responses instead of addressing the facts. Below is a chronological summary of Experians actions and failures, with dates and supporting references : XX/XX/year> : Experian confirmed in writing that the accounts I identified as fraudulent have been blocked and that the furnishers were notified. I relied on this notice, as FCRA 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ) mandates that a credit bureau shall block identity-theft-related information on a consumers report within 4 business days of receiving the consumers proof of identity, identity theft report, and dispute statement. However, Experian did not actually carry through on this obligation. Just weeks later, Experian reversed course without justification. 
XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/year> : Experian sent nearly identical form letters refusing to block the fraudulent accounts and demanding additional documentation that had either already been provided or is not required by law. For example, the XX/XX/XXXX letter states I must send a copy of avalid identity theft report from law enforcement or the FTC in order to have the information removed even though Experian was in possession of my FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting police report. This repetitive stalling tactic ( insisting on proper documents already supplied ) caused significant delay. By this time, well over 4 business days had passed with no block in place, a clear violation of FCRA 605Bs 4-day rule. Experians own records later confirmed that it had all necessary identity theft documentation on file, yet it failed to timely block the accounts. ( In CFPB Complaint # XXXX, filed XX/XX/year>, an Experian agent admitted by phone that Experian had all required documents but simply had not acted, even after over 3 months of delay. ) This demonstrates bad-faith non-compliance and a willful disregard of statutory deadlines. 
XX/XX/year> : Experian issued another form-letter response formally declining my request to block the fraudulent accounts. In this boilerplate denial, Experian claimed that either : your request to block was made in error, orwas based on a material misrepresentation, or you knowingly obtained goods/services as a result of the transactions. This generic accusation presented with no evidence or specificity is outrageously false and defamatory. I am the victim of the fraud, not the perpetrator. Experians blanket refusal to block the accounts ( while implying I lied about identity theft ) flagrantly violates 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2. Under that provision, a bureau may only decline or rescind a block if it reasonably determines that one of the narrow exceptions applies ( fraudulent block request, material misrepresentation by consumer, or consumer benefitted from the fraud ). Experian provided no specifics whatsoever just a list of all three possible exceptions and thus failed to make a good-faith determination. Moreover, FCRA 605B ( c ) ( 2 ) requires that if a block is declined, the consumer shall be notified promptly, in the same manner asreinsertions under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ). Experians XX/XX/XXXX notice did not meet those requirements, as it did not identify any particular evidence or furnisher supporting its reversal. In effect, Experian simply chose to side with the furnisher and un-block the information without conducting a reasonable review of my evidence. 
XXXX 2025 : Throughout the spring, I continued to dispute the fraudulent accounts and filed additional CFPB complaints as Experian persisted in stonewalling. Experian repeatedly responded with pro forma investigation notices and delays exceeding 3060 days with no resolution. FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) requires credit bureaus to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information within 30 days, or 45 days if I submit additional information during the process. Experian violated this requirement by dragging out the process well beyond the allowable timeframe. For example, in one complaint response Experian admitted it had begun processing [ the ] dispute but then took no action for over two months. As noted above, by XXXX ( roughly 3 months after my initial fraud report ), Experian still had not permanently removed the fraudulent accounts. Its inaction prompted me to file yet another CFPB complaint detailing Experians willful delay. In that complaint, I explained that Experian had disregarded the FCRAs 4-day blocking requirement and that over 3 months later it has still not complied. I also documented an XXXX phone call in which an Experian agent confirmed [ they ] have and have had all the required documentation to block the fraudulent accounts, yet those accounts remained on my report. This pattern shows Experians investigations were perfunctory and not in good faith essentially sham investigations that failed to properly review the identity theft evidence, echoing the CFPBs broader findings that Experian conducts inadequate dispute investigations. 
XX/XX/year> : After finally removing the fraudulent accounts ( under pressure ), Experian reinserted the very same fraudulent tradelines back onto my credit report. I received a notice on XX/XX/XXXX stating that information previously blocked has been reinserted based on additional information indicating ( again ) one of the three boilerplate reasons ( misrepresentation, error, or that I benefited from the fraud ). This reinsertion violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ), which strictly prohibits a credit bureau from reintroducing information that was deleted due to a dispute unless the data furnisher certifies that the information is accurate and complete, and the bureau notifies the consumer in writing within 5 business days. Experian did neither. The XX/XX/XXXX letter gave no specific certifying information it merely repeated the generic accusations and while it claimed a copy of my report was attached with furnisher contact info, Experian failed to provide any actual evidence or certification from the furnisher that the debt was not fraudulent. I never agreed in writing that the block was in error, nor did I obtain any goods or money from these fraudulent accounts yet Experian unblocked them anyway. Importantly, Experian did not provide proper notice of reinsertion as mandated. Under 1681i, a reinsertion notice must include the furnishers name and contact information and inform me of my right to add a statement of dispute. Experians cursory email did not meet these requirements ( simply directing me to check an attached report ). Reinserting a previously removed fraudulent account without strict adherence to FCRA procedures is a serious violation. Experian essentially put the burden back on the identity theft victim, rather than on the furnisher to prove the debts legitimacy, contravening the FCRAs protections. 
XX/XX/year> : After yet more complaints, Experian continued its pattern of non-compliance. I filed additional CFPB complaints as the fraudulent accounts reappeared and new Experian responses came in : XX/XX/year> : Experian sent a denial of block letter identical in substance to the XX/XX/XXXX notice. It acknowledged that the items were initially blocked ( and that the creditor was notified ), but then it determined again without evidence that either : the request to block was made in error, or was based on a material misrepresentation, or [ I ] obtained goods/services from the transaction. Therefore, Experian stated, we are declining your request to block one or more of the items. This form letter is virtually cut-and-paste from the earlier ones, demonstrating Experians continued refusal to properly investigate my fraud dispute. By sending the same boilerplate response, Experian failed to describe any specific investigation findings or explain why it believes I made an error or misrepresentation. This violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ), which requires the CRAs reinvestigation results and notice to the consumer to include a determination that the info is accurate or the dispute is frivolous, etc., and contact information for the furnisher none of which were provided beyond a template. The repetitive, templated nature of Experians replies shows a willful pattern of non-compliance and bad faith. 
XX/XX/year> : I received yet another Experian form response, this time paradoxically stating that the fraudulent items have been blocked and once again that my block request was being declined due to the same three boilerplate reasons as before ( error, misrepresentation, or consumers fault ). This confusing and contradictory message suggests that Experian might have temporarily blocked the items ( possibly due to one of my complaints or additional evidence ), but simultaneously decided to rescind the block immediately by accusing me of misrepresentation. Notably, Experian did not provide any new evidence for its decision. The XX/XX/XXXX letter is effectively a copy of the XX/XX/XXXX denial, recycling the same language that blames the victim. This indicates Experians willful refusal to honestly engage with the specifics of my case. Instead of investigating the clear fraud ( I provided police/FTC reports , identity verification, creditor correspondence indicating suspected fraud, etc. ), Experian has been fabricating reasons to avoid its obligations. 
XX/XX/scrub> 2025 : As of this date, Experian has still not permanently removed the fraudulent accounts from my credit file. I have now filed a total of 11 CFPB complaints against Experian between XXXX and XX/XX/year>, yet Experian persists in re-reporting the fraudulent debts. Each complaint yielded either no meaningful action or the same boilerplate denial. Experians pattern is one of willful non-compliance : it is disregarding clear federal mandates ( block within 4 days, 30-day dispute resolution, no reinsertion without certification, etc. ) and instead engaging in delay, obfuscation, and reinsertion of information it knows or should know is the result of identity theft. These actions have caused me ongoing harm : my credit score and reputation continue to suffer due to accounts that do not belong to me, and I have been denied credit opportunities as a result. Experians bad-faith handling of my case violates not only the FCRAs letter but also the spirit of consumer protection laws. Its conduct appears willful and reckless, meeting the standard for willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( which would expose Experian to actual, statutory, and punitive damages in a civil suit ). I am bringing this to the CFPBs attention because Experians repeated failures even after numerous disputes and complaints demonstrate that individual attempts at resolution have been exhausted.

In summary, Experian has failed to block fraudulent information within the required 4 business days, failed to reasonably reinvestigate my disputes ( simply parroting furnishers claims and sending me confusing or false results ), and improperly reinserted fraud-related accounts without certification or proper notice. Each time, Experian provided generic form responses rather than actually addressing the evidence I provided. This course of conduct over at least six months and eleven CFPB complaints evidences a willful pattern of FCRA violations. Experians behavior is not an isolated error but a consistent practice of ignoring legally mandated consumer protections, even after being repeatedly informed of the facts. Such bad-faith non-compliance not only frustrates the purpose of the FCRA but also inflicts ongoing damage on me, the consumer. I urge the CFPB to take notice of this pattern, as it may warrant supervisory or enforcement action beyond just my individual case.

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