Consumer complaint received 2026-01-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt
Company: Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this rebuttal in response to the companys decision to close my prior CFPB complaint by placing the account into a cease-and-desist status while continuing to report the account as valid and accurate. This response does not constitute a fair, lawful, or complete resolution of the issues raised and fails to address the substance of my fraud and identity theft claim. 

While a cease-and-desist instruction may suspend collection activity, it does not resolve inaccurate credit reporting, does not cure the harm caused by fraudulent account reporting, and does not satisfy the obligations imposed when a consumer disputes an account as identity theft. The companys response therefore leaves the core dispute unresolved and shifts the ongoing burden and harm entirely onto the consumer.

1. A Cease-and-Desist Is Not a Resolution to Inaccurate or Fraudulent Reporting The companys response acknowledges the request for a cease-and-desist and confirms that collection activity has been suspended. However, the company simultaneously states that it has verified the account as accurate and will continue reporting it to the credit reporting agencies.

This position is fundamentally flawed. A cease-and-desist instruction addresses communication and collection conduct, not accuracy of reporting. When the dispute centers on whether an account belongs to the consumer at all, stopping collection activity while maintaining adverse credit reporting does not resolve the disputeit merely pauses one form of harm while allowing another to continue.

The primary injury in this matter is not unwanted communication ; it is the continued reporting of an account that I do not own. The companys response fails to address that injury.

2. Identity Theft Claims Require More Than Internal Verification The company states that its Account Protection ( Fraud ) team completed a fraud investigation and found no basis to support the fraud claim. This conclusory statement lacks transparency and does not demonstrate that a meaningful investigation occurred.

When a consumer asserts identity theft and provides notice of fraud, the standard is not whether the companys internal records reflect the account as valid. Internal account notes, automated verification systems, or data inherited from a prior creditor do not constitute independent proof of consumer liability.

A meaningful fraud investigation requires : Verification of how the account was opened Review of the original application or contract Confirmation of consumer identity at origination Evaluation of IP address, device data, signatures, or authentication methods Consideration of whether the account activity is consistent with the consumers known financial behavior The company has not provided evidence that such steps were taken, nor has it identified what documentation was reviewed to conclude that the account was not fraudulent. Simply stating that the account was verified is not sufficient when the consumer disputes ownership of the account itself.

3. Continued Reporting Without Proof Perpetuates Harm The company asserts that it is required by law to report factual information and that it verified were reporting the account correctly. This assertion misstates the companys obligations.

Credit reporting laws do not require a furnisher to report information that is disputed, unproven, or the subject of a fraud claim. To the contrary, furnishers are required to ensure maximum possible accuracy and to refrain from reporting information that can not be substantiated when challenged.

When a consumer disputes an account as identity theft, continued reporting without providing proof of liability shifts the risk of fraud entirely onto the consumer. This undermines the purpose of consumer protection laws and results in ongoing reputational and financial harm to someone who may not owe the debt at all.

The companys response acknowledges that it is no longer the creditor on the account, yet it continues to report the account and rely on information obtained from another entity. This raises further concerns about whether the company has access to original documentation sufficient to establish consumer liability.

4. A Cease-and-Desist While Maintaining Reporting Is Procedurally Unfair Placing an account into cease-and-desist status while refusing to correct or remove disputed reporting creates an inequitable outcome : The consumer remains harmed by negative credit reporting The company avoids further investigation by closing the complaint The burden shifts entirely to the consumer to file new disputes or complaints The underlying accuracy issue is never resolved This approach treats cease-and-desist as a substitute for compliance, when in fact it is merely a communication preference. It does not address whether the account belongs to the consumer, whether the reporting is accurate, or whether fraud occurred.

5. Failure to Address the Substance of the Dispute The original complaint raised substantive issues regarding : Account ownership Fraud and identity theft Lack of original documentation Continued reporting despite dispute The companys response does not meaningfully address these points. It does not explain : What evidence proves the account belongs to me What documentation supports the reporting Why the fraud claim was rejected Why continued reporting is appropriate despite dispute Instead, the response relies on generalized statements and policy language without engaging with the facts of the dispute.

6. Closure of the Case Without Resolution Is Inappropriate The prior CFPB case was closed with non-monetary relief based solely on the implementation of a cease-and-desist. This outcome does not resolve the dispute and should not be treated as final.

The account continues to appear on my credit reports.

The fraud dispute remains unresolved.

The harm continues.

For these reasons, I am creating a new CFPB case because the prior case was closed without correcting the disputed reporting or addressing the fraud claim in a substantive way.

7. What a Proper Resolution Should Have Included A fair and compliant response would have included one or more of the following actions : Temporary suppression or removal of the account pending investigation Provision of documentation proving consumer liability Clear explanation of the fraud investigation process and findings Correction or deletion of unverifiable reporting Written confirmation of the accounts status and ownership None of these were provided.

8. Ongoing Harm to the Consumer As a result of the companys decision to maintain reporting while closing the complaint, I continue to experience : Credit score damage Increased difficulty obtaining credit Reputational harm Time and emotional burden associated with repeated disputes This harm is ongoing and avoidable.

9. Conclusion The companys cease-and-desistonly response is procedurally inadequate, substantively deficient, and fails to resolve the core dispute. It does not address whether the account is mine, does not provide proof of liability, and does not cure the inaccurate reporting that continues to harm me.

Accordingly, I reject the cease-and-desistonly response as an insufficient resolution and submit this rebuttal to document that the issues raised remain unresolved. The continued reporting of this account warrants further review, investigation, and corrective action.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation