Consumer complaint received 2025-05-06 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: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
This is a formal and final rebuttal to TransUnions failure to investigate, correct, or lawfully handle the inaccurate reporting of XXXX hard inquiries dated between XXXX XXXX XXXX These inquiries were all generated from a single auto loan shopping event, yet TransUnion continues to report them as separate and unrelatedartificially inflating my inquiry count, damaging my credit score, and violating multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and UDAAP standards. 

It is incredibly frustrating that, over a year later, I am still being forced to dispute these same obvious and well-documented errors. Despite multiple disputes over the past year, TransUnion has failed to take corrective action. Had a proper and formal reinvestigation been done when I initially raised this issue, we would not still be here. Your prolonged inaction reflects not only gross incompetence, but a willful and negligent disregard for federal law and basic consumer protection obligations. 

I. Specific Legal Violations and Evidence 1. FCRA 623 Furnishing Inaccurate Information These 18 hard inquiries arose from one auto loan shopping event.  Under both FICO and XXXX models, such inquiries are to be grouped to avoid penalizing the consumer. TransUnions failure to do so constitutes the furnishing of knowingly inaccurate information. 

Rebuttal : The issue is not whether the inquiries occurred, but rather how TransUnion misrepresented and displayed them in a punitive, fragmented manner that inflated my perceived credit risk.

2. FCRA 611 Failure to Reinvestigate Despite repeated disputes, TransUnion did not conduct a reasonable investigation, provide supporting documentation, or correct its reporting.

15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : The agency shall conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Rebuttal : It is not the consumers job to investigate TransUnions errors. Your failure to investigate is a direct violation of federal law and is the sole reason we are still disputing this a year later.

3. FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to Ensure Accuracy You failed to apply reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the information reported. 

A CRA shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy Rebuttal : Reporting XXXX inquiries from two dealerships is neither accurate nor reasonable. It reflects a systemic failure to follow basic procedural safeguards. 

4. UDAAP Violations Unfair and Deceptive Practices The reporting includes : XXXX XXXX  listed twice ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX XXXX listed under multiple aliases Multiple inquiries triggered by dealership systems presented as separate credit-seeking events Rebuttal : These duplications should have been detected by any competent CRA system XXXX Failure to resolve or consolidate them indicates gross procedural negligence or deliberate indifference. 

II. Implausible Volume Two Dealerships, XXXX Inquiries? 

I only visited two dealerships during this period : XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. Each dealership submitted my credit application to lenders through common indirect auto finance platforms ( such as XXXX or XXXX ). These platforms consolidate applications and inquiries through a single digital source. 

It is not plausiblenor justifiablethat these visits would result in XXXX separate hard inquiries. This pattern is either the result of : Improper duplicate reporting, A failure to group lender network inquiries, or Willful misclassification by TransUnion. 

Had TransUnion followed the logic of the credit scoring models it supports ( FICO and XXXX ), these would have been grouped into one inquiry. 

XXXX. Evidence of Rate Shopping Under Federal Scoring Models Both FICO and XXXX define rate shopping clearly : FICO : Groups auto loan inquiries within 45 days into XXXX scoring event XXXX : Groups them within XXXX  days These inquiries were : All made within a 7-day window Tied to auto financing Sourced from dealership networks TransUnion is a direct partner with these scoring models and is expected to adhere to their grouping and de-duplication standards. 

IV. TransUnions False Deflection of Responsibility When I disputed these inquiries, TransUnion instructed me to contact each individual lender. That response is legally unacceptable and intentionally misleading.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires TransUnion to conduct its own reinvestigation FCRA 607 ( b ) holds you responsible for accuracy and formatting, not just data intake Rebuttal : You are not a passive conduityou are the data processor.

You are responsible for how data is formatted, displayed, and verified. 
Telling me to chase down XXXX lenders is a legal deflection and an admission of your failure to act. 

V. Harm Caused Suppressed Credit Score : Direct impact on approval likelihood and terms Loan Denial and Higher Interest Rates : Caused by the appearance of excessive credit-seeking behavior Emotional Distress and Financial Damage : Wasted time, lost opportunity, and prolonged stress Rebuttal to Delay Excuses : Whether these inquiries fall off after 12 months is irrelevant. They already caused real damage during critical loan application periods. The law does not allow TransUnion to wait out its own violations. 

VI. Demands I demand that TransUnion : 1. Immediately consolidate all XXXX hard inquiries into one grouped event 2. Remove all duplicative or mislabeled inquiries 3. Conduct a documented reinvestigation with human review 4. Notify any third parties who accessed my report during this period of the correction 5. Compensate me for statutory and actual damages under FCRA 616 and 617, and applicable UDAAP provisions VII. Final Notice of Escalation If TransUnion fails to act within XXXX calendar days, I will escalate this matter to : The Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) The State Attorney General Legal counsel for civil litigation I will pursue all available remedies, including statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as public accountability for your repeated violations. 

I expect a human-led, documented reinvestigation, immediate correction, and a written resolutionnot another template denial.

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 non-monetary relief