Consumer complaint received 2025-04-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to formally address the ongoing noncompliance of your agency in relation to my identity theft report, which I previously submitted in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Despite having sent multiple letters, your agency has repeatedly rejected my identity theft report on the grounds that it was not filed by a law enforcement agency. This decision is not in compliance with the FCRA and fails to recognize the guidance provided by identitytheft.gov as mandated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). 

As you are aware, the FCRA at Section 605B and the guidance provided by the CFPB under identitytheft.gov clearly outline the process for filing an identity theft report. The CFPB specifically states that victims of identity theft can file a report directly through identitytheft.gov, which then becomes a valid identity theft report under the FCRA. Nowhere does the FCRA require this report to be submitted by law enforcement for it to be valid.

Furthermore, under FCRA Section 617, your agency is legally required to investigate and resolve any identity theft dispute in a timely manner, and you are prohibited from deciding unilaterally what is valid or invalid when it comes to an identity theft report that has been properly filed. Your refusal to acknowledge this report based on your own standardsrather than what is set forth in federal lawis a clear violation of the FCRA. 

Legal Precedent : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : This case underscores the importance of proper handling of disputes related to credit reporting and emphasizes that credit reporting agencies can not disregard information simply based on their own internal policies when federal law mandates a specific process. 
XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : This case reinforced that credit reporting agencies must follow FCRA regulations, including investigating claims of identity theft in accordance with the law, and can not arbitrarily determine what constitutes an acceptable identity theft report. 
XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) : This decision clarified that a credit reporting agency is obligated to accept documents submitted by the consumer, as long as they meet the legal requirements for disputing inaccurate information under the FCRA. 

XXXXDEPT OF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OFED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OFED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPTOF EDXXXX, XXXXDEPT OF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPTOF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX XXXX XXXX/DEPTOF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OFEDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OFED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX XXXX XXXX/DEPT OFED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPTOF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF ED XXXX, XXXXDEPTOF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPTOF ED XXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF EDXXXX, XXXX/DEPT OF ED XXXX,

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