Consumer complaint received 2025-10-17 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: LEXISNEXIS
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, LexisNexis Risk Solutions XXXX, a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ), unlawfully furnished a full consumer report to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), a third-party debt collector, without verifying a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ). This enabled unauthorized access to sensitive financial data, causing privacy invasion, emotional distress, and potential credit damage. XXXX had no legal interest in the alleged debt at the time, making the pull an illegal " pre-acquisition screening. '' Key Timeline and Actions : XX/XX/year> : LexisNexis furnished the consumer report to XXXX, resulting in a hard inquiry visible on credit reports ( evidence attached as XXXX XXXX ). No permissible purpose existed, as XXXX  did not own or have authority to collect the debt. 
XX/XX/year> : XXXX  purchased the alleged debt from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as XXXX  later admitted in writing ( evidence attached as XXXX, XXXX ). This confirms the XX/XX/XXXX pull occurred before any ownership, violating FCRA rules on debt collection purposes. 
XX/XX/year> : A formal compliance notice was sent to XXXX, explicitly warning that any report access must comply with FCRA 1681b and that unauthorized pulls are illegal ( evidence attached as Formal Compliance Notice Date.docx ). This prior notice demonstrates willfulness, as LexisNexis should have procedures to prevent such accesses. 
XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX Bank issued a sale notice confirming the debt transfer chain ( evidence attached as XXXX XXXX XXXX LETTER ON XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
XX/XX/year> : XXXX  sent an initial collection letter reaffirming the XX/XX/XXXX purchase date ( evidence attached as XXXX XXXX ). 
XX/XX/year> : A related complaint was filed with the CFPB against XXXX  ( Case # XXXX ). XXXX  responded on XX/XX/year>, admitting : " we purchased the above-referenced account on XX/XX/year> '' ( evidence attached as XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX XXXX. This admission proves the impermissible purpose but did not resolve the unauthorized access by LexisNexis. 
XX/XX/year> : A complaint was filed with the Texas Attorney General ( Complaint # XXXX ) regarding the same unauthorized access, referencing Texas Finance Code 392.001 et seq. and Texas DTPA 17.46 for deceptive practices. No resolution yet. 
Specific Violations by LexisNexis : Willful violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( a ) : Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to limit report furnishing to permissible purposes. LexisNexis did not verify XXXX  's claim, allowing access four days before ownership despite red flags. This is willful given the prior compliance notice and XXXX  's admission, warranting statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation plus punitive damages under 1681n. 
Negligent violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681b : Furnishing a report without permissible purpose. Under 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ), debt collectors need a current collection intentXXXX had none on XX/XX/XXXX. LexisNexis is liable for enabling this, subjecting them to actual damages under 1681o.

These actions also enabled deceptive debt collection under state laws, but the focus is federal FCRA breaches.

Harms and Impact : The unauthorized hard inquiry exposed credit history, leading to emotional distress, time spent disputing ( e.g., filing complaints, gathering evidence ), and potential credit score reduction affecting future loans or opportunities. No payments were made, no contracts signed, and no attorney retained or lawsuit filed yet. The company was not contacted directly about this issue prior to this complaint. 

Urgent Need for Immediate CFPB Investigation : The CFPB must immediately investigate LexisNexis 's procedures and collaboration with XXXX  due to conclusive evidence ( e.g., XXXX 's admission and timeline ) of systemic failures allowing illegal pre-screenings. This practice could harm thousands of consumers by enabling predatory debt buyers to access reports without purpose, risking widespread privacy breaches and unfair collection tactics. Expedited action is required under CFPB enforcement powers ( 12 U.S.C. 5511 ) to audit LexisNexis 's verification processes, impose penalties, and mandate reforms to prevent ongoing violations. Delaying could perpetuate harmevidence shows this was not isolated, as XXXX  's response failed to address root causes. 

Requested Actions : Conduct an immediate investigation ; order deletion of the XX/XX/year>, inquiry from all records ; require LexisNexis to implement enhanced verification protocols ; and provide compensation of {$10000.00} for privacy invasion, distress, time/expenses, and statutory damages.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief