Consumer complaint received 2025-05-13 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Other personal consumer report
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Early Warning Services, LLC
State: ME

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Maine XXXX SSN : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX DOB : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Email : XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX To : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX And To : Early Warning Services , LLC Attn : Consumer Services XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, AZ XXXX Date : [ XX/XX/XXXX ] RE : Formal Dispute Under the FCRA Inaccurate and Misleading Reporting of Alleged Fraudulent Account Activity Dear Sir or Madam, I am submitting this formal dispute pursuant to my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, concerning the inaccurate and potentially unlawful furnishing of data associated with several accounts reported to Early Warning Services ( EWS ) by XXXX. I demand immediate reinvestigation, correction, and deletion of any unverifiable, inconsistent, or erroneous information. 

1. Inaccurate Fund Transfer Fraud Designation ( EWS Report ) EWS lists account # XXXX under XXXX with a Contribution Reason of Fund Transfer Fraud, dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

Issues : No supporting documentation has ever been provided to substantiate this grave allegation. 
Per FCRA 623 ( b ), data furnishers must provide evidence if a consumer disputes the accuracy or legitimacy of a fraud designation. 
All responses from XXXX merely include a signature card not transaction logs, surveillance footage, login/IP data, or police filings. 

Requested Action : Provide specific, documented evidence of the alleged fraud or immediately remove this designation from EWS. 

2. Contradictory Account Ownership Claims I have repeatedly disputed that I opened accounts : # XXXX ( Checking ) opened XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( Saver ) opened XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX ( Saver ) opened XXXX In multiple responses, XXXX : Acknowledges I alleged identity theft and even initiated a fraud claim ( XX/XX/XXXX ). 
Yet still claims no error and upholds the reporting as valid ( XX/XX/XXXX ). 

This contradicts internal policies, creates legal inconsistency, and fails to resolve the dispute per FCRA obligations. 

3. Major Timeline Error Consumer Removed Before Account Opened EWS states a Consumer Removed Date of XX/XX/XXXX, yet : Account # XXXX was opened five months later on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Account # XXXX was opened just one month before, on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Questions for Reconciliation : How can a consumer be listed as removed from EWS before or during active account openings? 
This creates a temporal data integrity violation and contradicts the validity of account origination reporting. 

4. Refer to Maker Check Does Not Prove Fraud EWS lists a {$25.00} returned check with the label Refer to Maker from XX/XX/XXXX. This : Is a non-fraud return code and commonly indicates a dispute or insufficient funds not fraud. 
Should not serve as basis for a Fund Transfer Fraud flag. 

Using this as justification for fraud classification constitutes a material misrepresentation of check activity. 

5. Lack of Notice of Negative Reporting Nowhere in XXXX documentation is there proof that : I was notified in writing that XXXX would report my account as fraudulent to Early Warning Services. 
Under FCRA and several state-level consumer protection laws, such notice is required when negative information is furnished. 

6. Pattern of Status Reversals Without Explanation EWS status history shows irregular fluctuations : Account # XXXX switched from Present to Overdrawn and back on multiple occasions within single days ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ). 
These rapid reversals suggest backend processing errors or automated overrides and raise questions about the validity of account risk assessments. 

7. Unsubstantiated Account Activity The EWS report includes : Hundreds of micro-transactions between XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Many of these appear to be small-dollar transfers ( e.g., {$11.00}, {$13.00}, {$25.00}, etc. ). 

This kind of behavior can signal : Account testing by fraudsters using compromised routing/account numbers. 
The account was used in a way inconsistent with consumer intent, especially if I did not authorize or recognize this pattern. 

If this is the case, then XXXX has : Failed to protect the account Reported the fraud against the victim ( me ) rather than the perpetrator 8. EWS and XXXX Ignored Identity Theft Procedures Despite reporting identity theft and providing : Personal details Address confirmations Correspondence and CFPB complaints XXXX refused to honor : 609 ( e ) of the FCRA, which mandates special handling of identity theft claims. 
They also did not block the reporting as required under FCRA 605B, when a fraud claim is reasonably substantiated. 

9. Unlawful Furnishing of Data Under FCRA 623 XXXX continues to furnish account data to EWS while a fraud dispute is unresolved. 
This creates continued harm to my financial profile and violates the duty to furnish only accurate and complete information. 

Request for Immediate Action Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I demand that : All XXXX accounts associated with me be thoroughly re-investigated. 
If XXXX can not provide verifiable, documented proof that I opened and used these accounts, the reporting to EWS be permanently deleted. 
A full reinvestigation be logged under FCRA 611, and results sent to me in writing within XXXX days. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation