Consumer complaint received 2025-12-15 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Public record information inaccurate
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is submitted after an extensive documented history of disputes CFPB complaints and reinvestigation requests regarding the continued reporting of a single bankruptcy that remains inaccurate inconsistent and legally unverifiable across Equifax Experian and TransUnion. Despite clear notice detailed evidence and multiple opportunities to correct the record all parties involved have failed to meet their statutory obligations under federal law. The bankruptcy at issue is being reported under multiple
conflicting identifiers including XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX with inconsistent reporting dates court descriptions and reference formats across the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies. A public record can not lawfully exist in multiple contradictory forms if it is being accurately and properly reported. These internal inconsistencies alone establish that the data lacks integrity and fails Metro2 accuracy and consistency standards.

Each bureau has admitted either explicitly or through its CFPB response that it relies on third party public record vendors or resellers to obtain bankruptcy data. Federal bankruptcy courts do not furnish consumer bankruptcy data to credit reporting agencies. This means the information being reported is not obtained from an original source capable of certifying accuracy completeness or lawful attribution. Data scraped accessed or relayed through vendors does not constitute verification under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

I formally requested a method of verification under 15 USC 1681i including identification of the source relied upon the procedures used to verify accuracy and documentation supporting the reported fields. None of the bureaus provided docket level documentation timestamps certified court records or Metro2 field level validation. Instead each bureau issued generic conclusory statements that the item was verified without explaining how verification was achieved or addressing the documented discrepancies. This is not a lawful reinvestigation.

Experian explicitly stated in its CFPB response that it contacted a public record vendor to verify the bankruptcy and that such vendors may collect data directly from courts. This statement is materially misleading. Accessing a public record database or courthouse index does not equate to verification of consumer credit data nor does it validate how that information is interpreted formatted aged or reported. This admission confirms reliance on circular third party verification rather than original source confirmation.

Equifax similarly admitted that it may use business vendors to obtain public record information and that verification is achieved by reviewing the most recent filing associated with the disputed information. This response fails to explain how Equifax ensured the information was accurately matched to my identity or why conflicting data fields exist across bureaus if the record is accurate. It also fails to address my documented exposure in the Equifax data breach which materially increases the risk of mixed file errors and misattribution.

TransUnion likewise relied on third party sourced information and failed to provide any lawful method of verification or documentation establishing maximum possible accuracy. None of the bureaus addressed why the same bankruptcy appears with different reference numbers court naming conventions and reporting fields across their systems.

This pattern demonstrates a systemic failure where unverifiable public record data is recycled between vendors and bureaus without original source verification. Continued reporting after repeated disputes and CFPB complaints constitutes reckless disregard for accuracy obligations and willful noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

As a direct result of these failures I have suffered repeated credit denials higher interest rates reduced access to financial opportunities and significant emotional distress. My credit profile continues to be suppressed by a major derogatory item that can not be lawfully substantiated despite extensive notice and documentation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation