Consumer complaint received 2025-09-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX has filed comprehensive disputes against Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax regarding multiple inaccuracies, unauthorized entries, and unverifiable data present in his credit reports. Across all three bureaus, he identified a series of hard inquiries that he asserts he never authorized, including those from Ally Financial, Consumer Portfolio Services, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and others, with dates ranging between late XXXX and XXXX. He stressed that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681s-2 ( b ), no credit bureau or creditor has the right to access his credit report without a legitimate, documented permissible purpose, and each of these inquiries lacked any proof of authorization or supporting credit applications. In his communications, he demanded the immediate removal of these inquiries and warned that their continued presence constituted not only a violation of the FCRA but also aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028A, since they involved the unlawful use of his personal information. 

In addition to the inquiries, XXXX challenged the reporting of an account with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which appeared closed with a XXXX balance but contained serious inconsistencies across bureaus regarding the account type, opening dates, credit limits, and high credit figures. He pointed out that Metro 2 compliance standards, as established by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), require accurate, complete, and verifiable reporting across all data fields, and the discrepancies in this account demonstrated noncompliance. He argued that such inaccuracies undermine the integrity of his credit profile, damage his creditworthiness, and create misleading impressions for lenders. He was clear that he did not seek an update or correction of this account but demanded its permanent deletion, as its continued reporting constituted willful noncompliance. 

Beyond accounts and inquiries, XXXX identified numerous errors in his personal information that, if uncorrected, could lead to commingling of his file with another consumers record. These included incorrect names such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, none of which matched his legal name, which is XXXX XXXX XXXX. He also found inaccurate addresses listed on his reports, including entries for XXXX XXXX in XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX. He clarified that his sole and accurate residence is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Maryland XXXX, and that any alternative addresses should be permanently removed. Additional inaccuracies included erroneous employer information, such as listings for XXXX the XXXX XXXX, and discrepancies in his date of birth. XXXX emphasized that the FCRA, particularly Section 611, requires bureaus to ensure that personal identifying information is accurate, current, and verifiable, and that Metro 2 standards leave no room for deviation or incomplete reporting in these fields. 

Throughout his disputes, XXXX grounded his arguments in law and compliance obligations. He cited the FCRAs clear mandate for reasonable investigation of disputed items, Metro 2 standards for industry-wide reporting accuracy, and federal statutes governing identity theft. He also referenced the consequences of continued misreporting, including civil liability under 15 U.S.C. 1681n for damages caused by inaccurate reporting, such as defamation of character, reputational harm, invasion of privacy, and impairment of creditworthiness. In multiple letters, he warned the bureaus that their repeated failures to correct his file despite prior disputes represented reckless disregard for his rights as a consumer, which the law treats as willful noncompliance. 

Ultimately, XXXX XXXX was consistent and absolute : the permanent deletion of all unauthorized inquiries, unverifiable accounts, and inaccurate personal data from his credit files. He gave the bureaus a thirty-day window to comply, in line with statutory timelines, and stressed that partial corrections or superficial updates would not be accepted as remedies. He also notified the bureaus that any failure to act would result in formal complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the Maryland Attorney Generals Office, along with potential civil litigation seeking monetary damages. His disputes reflect not just dissatisfaction with clerical errors but a broader allegation of systemic failure to uphold the duties imposed on consumer reporting agencies by federal law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief