Consumer complaint received 2024-11-06 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: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, A victim of identity theft, request removal and deletion of the listed account name on my Equifax credit report.The following company name on my equifax credit report is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I XXXX XXXX XXXX, A victim of identity theft, request removal and deletion of the listed account name on my Equifax credit report.The following company name on my equifax credit report is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

I am writing to formally dispute a fraudulent inquiry on my credit report, specifically the XXXX hard inquiries from XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX. I did not authorize these inquiries and I am a victim of identity theft.Equifax has complied and proceeded to remove the following inquiries from my credit report all while Equifax chooses to willingly participate in fraudulently activities.All of the exhibits needed are will be below. Despite previously disputing this inquiry, I have not received a satisfactory resolution. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), you are required to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputes. Your failure to do so constitutes a violation of my rights as a consumer.Equifax Credit Reporting Services [ Equifax Address ] CC : Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) Michigan State Attorney General Chair of the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Subject : Formal Demand for Removal of Fraudulent Inquiries and Correction of Credit Report Violation of FCRA Requirements To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally and urgently demand the immediate removal of fraudulent inquiries made under the company name XXXX on my Equifax credit report, specifically the entries dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. These entries were made without my authorization, and as a documented victim of identity theft, I have supplied Equifax with substantial evidence supporting my claim. Given the severity of these fraudulent activities, I find Equifaxs response thus far grossly inadequate and in direct violation of my consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

Despite my repeated efforts to notify Equifax of these fraudulent entries and to initiate the dispute process, Equifax has failed to meet its obligations as mandated under the FCRA. Not only has Equifax neglected its duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into my claims of identity theft, but it has also continued to rely on an automated dispute system, e-OSCAR, that is known to perform only a superficial check of disputed entries. Such reliance on an automated, cursory investigation system in cases involving specific evidence of identity theft is not only improper but constitutes a severe breach of Equifaxs legal obligations to protect the accuracy of my credit report.

Given these repeated failures, I am now formally documenting each legal violation under the FCRA that Equifaxs inadequate handling of my dispute represents, supported by relevant case law and specific citations. Equifaxs lack of adherence to federal consumer protection statutes can not and will not be tolerated, and I am fully prepared to take further action if Equifax fails to meet my demands. 

Legal Violations Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Equifaxs inadequate investigation process and continued reliance on automated dispute verification through the e-OSCAR system are clear violations of multiple provisions under the FCRA. I will outline each applicable section of the FCRA in detail, citing relevant case law to demonstrate how Equifaxs actions constitute a failure to comply with federal law in handling identity theft disputes such as mine.

1. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation ( 15 U.S. Code 1681i ) Under Section 611 of the FCRA ( 15 U.S. Code 1681i ), credit reporting agencies like Equifax are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information once notified by the consumer of potential inaccuracies. A reasonable investigation, as upheld by case law, must involve more than automated or superficial verification ; it requires credit bureaus to review and consider any supporting evidence provided by the consumer and to investigate disputed information thoroughly. 

In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court underscored that reliance on the e-OSCAR system for automated verification was inadequate in handling disputes, as the system only communicates basic codes between credit bureaus and furnishers of credit data without actually investigating the claims made by the consumer. The court found that XXXX reliance on e-OSCAR was not sufficient to satisfy the FCRAs reasonable investigation standard, particularly in cases involving detailed claims and documentation of identity theft. Similarly, Equifaxs decision to handle my dispute solely through e-OSCAR, without conducting a thorough investigation or reviewing the evidence I have provided, fails to meet the FCRAs mandate for a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information. 

Additionally, in XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX ruled that credit bureaus are not permitted to simply verify information with the furnisher, particularly when detailed evidence has been submitted by the consumer. The court highlighted that the FCRA requires a meaningful and independent investigation, not mere parroting of the data provided by the furnisher. By relying solely on e-OSCAR and failing to investigate my specific claims of identity theft, Equifax has similarly violated its duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as mandated under the FCRA. 

2. Failure to Block Fraudulent Information in Cases of Identity Theft ( 15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 ) Section 605B of the FCRA ( 15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 ) provides specific protections for victims of identity theft, mandating that credit reporting agencies block information identified as resulting from identity theft when the consumer has submitted an identity theft report. Under this section, once I provided Equifax with a documented FTC Identity Theft Report and supporting evidence of fraud, Equifax became obligated to block the fraudulent inquiries on my credit report. My FTC Identity Theft Report, which clearly states my claim of identity theft, coupled with the documentation I provided, should have resulted in the immediate removal of these inquiries. 

In XXXX v. XXXX & XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX held that once a consumer provides evidence of inaccuracies or identity theft, credit bureaus must conduct a reinvestigation that goes beyond automated responses, especially in identity theft cases. The court made it clear that identity theft cases demand a higher standard of investigation, which Equifax has failed to uphold. The ongoing presence of fraudulent XXXX inquiries on my credit report, despite my submission of an official Identity Theft Report, is a clear violation of Section 605B. Equifax has failed to honor its statutory duty to block the disputed fraudulent items from my credit report and has thereby breached my rights under the FCRA.

3. Inadequate Verification of Disputed Information ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ) Section 623 of the FCRA ( 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ) mandates that furnishers of information, such as XXXX, have an obligation to report accurate information to credit reporting agencies. However, the FCRA also imposes on credit bureaus an obligation to ensure the accuracy of this information, particularly after a dispute has been raised by the consumer. By failing to properly verify or remove the XXXX inquiries, Equifax has enabled the continued reporting of inaccurate and fraudulent information on my credit report. 

The XXXX XXXX XXXX ruling in XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  established that credit bureaus can not simply defer to furnishers of information for verification when there are detailed allegations of fraud or identity theft. Furthermore, in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX held that credit bureaus must undertake more than a cursory investigation and can not rely solely on the data provided by furnishers, especially in cases where the consumer has disputed specific inaccuracies with supporting evidence. Equifaxs reliance on e-OSCAR to verify the XXXX inquiries without a meaningful review of the evidence I provided constitutes a violation of Section XXXX and further illustrates Equifaxs noncompliance with the FCRA. 

Demand for Immediate Action and Legal Consequences for Non-Compliance Equifaxs continued failure to address this dispute is not only a violation of federal law but also a direct disregard for my consumer rights. By knowingly allowing inaccurate and fraudulent entries to remain on my report, Equifax risks further liability under FCRA standards. Case law such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), and XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ), emphasizes that credit bureaus automated systems like e-OSCAR do not satisfy the FCRAs requirements for dispute resolution in cases of identity theft, and Equifaxs failure to undertake a manual investigation in my case clearly demonstrates its failure to comply with federal requirements. 

I therefore demand that Equifax take the following actions immediately : Permanently remove the XXXX inquiries dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX from my credit report. 
Conduct a full, manual investigation of my dispute beyond e-OSCAR, in compliance with FCRA standards.

Provide me with written confirmation of these actions within 15 days of receiving this letter.

If Equifax fails to comply with these demands within the specified timeframe, I will have no alternative but to pursue all available legal options. This includes filing a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and initiating legal action under 15 U.S. Code 1681n and 1681o for violations of the FCRA. These statutes allow for both actual and statutory damages as well as attorneys fees for noncompliance with FCRA provisions.

Equifax has a responsibility to uphold fair and accurate reporting, and failure to meet these standards under the FCRA will not be tolerated. I expect full compliance and a prompt response.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief