Consumer complaint received 2025-07-21 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute with Equifax regarding a dismissed XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy ( Case # XXXX ), originally filed on XX/XX/XXXX and formally dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Equifax responded stating that the public record item was verified as reporting correctly, based solely on data provided by XXXX, a third-party data aggregator. This process violates multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Metro 2 reporting standards, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), and principles of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) under UDAAP. 
1. FCRA 607 ( b ) Equifax failed to ensure maximum possible accuracy by relying on XXXX instead of verifying directly with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court ( XXXX ). The court does not furnish data to Equifax, nor to XXXX for commercial resale. 
2. FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 3 ) XXXX is not a lender, servicer, or authorized agent. There is no evidence of permissible purpose for XXXX to store, distribute, or verify this legal record. 
3. FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A-E ) and 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) Equifax failed to provide the original source of verification, the method used, identity of the verifier, date/time of retrieval, or a full reinvestigation procedure as required by law.

4. FCRA 605 ( a ) This was a dismissed bankruptcy, not a discharged one. Since no debt was discharged, it is not subject to the same 10-year retention timeline. Reporting this as if it were a completed bankruptcy is materially misleading and legally inappropriate.

5. GLBA Violation XXXX collected and transmitted financial and legal data without providing proper notice or consent, violating consumer financial privacy rights under GLBA.

6. Metro 2 Compliance Violations Metro 2 guidelines mandate specific coding for dismissed bankruptcies. This record lacks proper compliance condition codes ( such as code 89 for dismissed bankruptcies ) and is being retained beyond its permissible timeline. 7.
AI and Automated Verification Systems There is clear evidence that Equifax used automated processing systems ( including e-OSCAR or similar AI modules ) to conclude this dispute without meaningful human review. This practice, combined with the failure to provide any procedural audit trail or timestamped verification record, constitutes a violation of transparency requirements under FCRA and FTC guidance.

I am formally requesting the following : Immediate deletion of this dismissed bankruptcy record.

Disclosure of all data sources, timestamps, and audit logs used in the verification process.

Identification of the AI or automated system used to process this dispute.

Metro 2 coding documents used by Equifax in relation to this bankruptcy record.

Proof that XXXX is a compliant furnisher under FCRA with a permissible purpose to act in this capacity.

If the issue is not resolved, I am prepared to escalate to : Civil action under FCRA 616 and 617.

JAMS arbitration for failure to comply with dispute resolution law.

Formal complaints to the State Attorney General and FTC.

Additional legal actions for potential UDAAP violations and reputational harm.

This complaint is submitted under full reservation of rights and all applicable legal frameworks including but not limited to Natural Law, UCC 1-103, UCC 1-308 , FCRA, GLBA, TILA, ECOA, and Metro 2 reporting compliance .

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation