Consumer complaint received 2025-12-01 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: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
I serve as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX under a valid LimitXXXX Power of Attorney. Pursuant to XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am obligated to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and exclusively in the best interests of my principal. 
After correcting the defect in the Limited Power of Attorney previously submitted with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Complaint XXXX, I am now submitting a new CFPB complaint that reflects the updated documentation and the following findings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX formally reserved the name " XXXX XXXX '' with the Georgia Secretary of Statea preemptive action demonstrating clear evidence of premeditation to evade legal accountability for mounting FTC antitrust charges. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX was incorporated in Georgia as a separate entitya deliberate act by XXXX XXXX XXXX to manipulate the corporate record and fabricate a false appearance of continuity. This incorporation was never intended to operate independently but to act as a placeholder for XXXX 's later filings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX amended its Articles of Incorporation to adopt the name " XXXX  XXXX '' a superficial rebranding designed to distance the company from its tarnished reputation. 
On the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( the separate entity incorporated 11 months earlier ) changed its name to " XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' This contradictory and circular name swap created two conflicting corporate identities existing in XXXX a split second on XX/XX/XXXX, two entities were both called " XXXX  XXXX '' simultaneouslyan unlawful duplication of names in direct violation of Georgia Business Corporation Code 22-301. 
This reckless name-swapping maneuver compromised XXXX 's legal continuity and introduced a fatal defect into its corporate record, effectively transforming the entity into a legally defective construct under Georgia lawa statutory nullity that extinguished the lawful existence of both names. Under Georgia Business Corporation Code 14-2-401 and 14-2-501, a dissolved or non-existent corporation can not lawfully contract. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX executed the XXXX XXXX and XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  ( Contract No. XXXX ). This agreement authorized XXXX XXXX to create and market consumer scoring products using XXXX 's database of credit bureau records. 
The contract granted XXXX XXXX direct access to XXXX 's entire credit file system, including trade line data, inquiry data, public records, and demographic information. XXXX XXXX was authorized to use this data to build " Scorecards '' numerical grading tables assigning values to consumer attributes, which were then combined to produce a consumer " Score. '' The contract provided that all scoring models developed would be for the sole use of XXXX, integrated into a jointly developed " XXXX XXXX. '' These products would be sold to XXXX  's subscribers, with profits shared between the two corporations. This agreement formalized the mechanism for mass consumer scoring, converting personal financial records into a quantifiable risk-assessment product sold to third parties, laying the commercial foundation for widespread adoption of credit scoring systems nationwide. 
The defect is that no such agreement could legally exist. By XXXX, XXXX  's corporate existence was already nullified by the unlawful name-swapping on XX/XX/XXXX. Again, under Georgia Business Corporation Code 14-2-401 and 14-2-501, a dissolved or non-existent corporation lacks authority to contract. 
Because XXXX  had ceased to exist as a lawful entity on XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX agreement was void XXXX XXXX. The FICO scoring model built upon itand all instruments derived from that modellack lawful foundation. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX and Trans Union LLC directly participated in the formation of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX limited liability company created in Delaware ( File Number XXXX ). 
XXXX 's third purported owner, " XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' never lawfully existed due to fatal defects in XXXX  's corporate lineage stemming from the XX/XX/XXXX name-swapping violations, rendering its claimed 33 % ownership void and fatally undermining the legality of XXXX 's formation. 
Under 6 Del. C. 18-201, an XXXX  must be formed by valid members. Because XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not legally exist, XXXX 's ownership structure was void, and the XXXX itself was statutorily defective from inception. 
The Supreme Court has confirmed that courts will not enforce contracts founded on illegality ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ). Under Georgia Code 20-504 ( 1981 ) the operative provision at the time of the XXXX FICO contractagreements opposed to public policy were void. Delaware law ( 6 Del. C. 2706 ) similarly voids agreements contrary to law. Under U.C.C. 3-303 ( b ), an instrument issued without value is unenforceable, and under U.C.C. 3-305 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ), enforcement of a negotiable instrument is barred where real defenses such as fraud in factum and illegality apply. 
XXXX 's formation was void XXXX XXXX. Every credit instrument derived from the XXXX infrastructure is void ab initio. 
The acquisition, use, and monetization of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's personal identifiersincluding his Social Security number, legal name, address, and historical payment datafor the purpose of generating and selling FICO and XXXX credit scores constitutes identity theft as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). Those identifiers were employed without lawful authority to create risk-valuation products, which were then used to originate, price, and securitize credit.

Under 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ), the unauthorized use of another person 's means of identification in connection with the receipt of any thing of value is identity theft. The resulting credit scores functioned as derivative, revenue-producing assets. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrument that, consistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's established business model as a subprime auto lender, was sold to investors through securitization. 
The use of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's personal identifying information to generate credit scores used to price this loan constitutes identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ), securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. 77q ( a ) and 78j ( b ), wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343, mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341, and commodities fraud under 7 U.S.C. 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) and 9 ( 1 ). 
Every instrument executed by " XXXX  XXXX '' after XX/XX/XXXX is contaminated by identity falsification, false representation of the legal person signing, concealment of the true corporate actor, and use of documents created through deception. This conduct constitutes : 18 U.S.C. 1001 ( false statements and documents ) 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( identity theft ) 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( mail fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( wire fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1956 ( money laundering of proceeds derived from fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 371 ( conspiracy to defraud ) 15 U.S.C. 77q ( a ) and 78j ( b ) ( securities fraud ) 7 U.S.C. 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) and 9 ( 1 ) ( commodities fraud ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX purports to have extended credit to XXXX XXXX XXXX through auto loan account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, secured by a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( VIN XXXX ). 
For the reasons listed above, I am filing this CFPB complaint through the CFPB Complaint Portal against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, documenting the systematic fraud underlying the auto loan secured by the XXXX XXXX XXXX titled to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
You are hereby notified : The loan was underwritten using FICO or XXXX credit scoring infrastructure. FICO scores are derived from the void XXXX " XXXX  XXXX  and XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  '' between XXXX XXXX XXXX and the legally defunct XXXX  XXXX. Under Georgia Business Corporation Code 14-2-401 and 14-2-501, a dissolved or non-existent corporation can not lawfully contract. Because XXXX  had ceased to exist as a lawful entity at the time of the XXXX agreement, the FICO contract was void XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX, XXXX was formed in XXXX with " XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX '' as a purported one-third owneran entity that never lawfully existed due to fatal defects in XXXX  's corporate lineage, rendering XXXX 's formation void XXXX XXXXXXXX. Every instrument derived from either fraudulent scoring infrastructureincluding the XXXX XXXX XXXX auto loanis XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Accordingly, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is directed to preserve, without alteration, all records, communications, metadata, origination documentation, underwriting files, credit scoring data, collection activity logs, security interest documentation, vehicle title records, and chain-of-custody materials relating to this loan and any credit reporting furnished to consumer reporting agencies. 
Under Maryland Commercial Law 12-103, 12-106, and 12-114, and principles of unjust enrichment recognized in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Settlements, XXXX, XXXX Md. XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ), when a loan is void ab initio due to fraudulent underwriting, all payments made under that void obligation are recoverable. A party who receives benefits under a void transaction must make restitution " in the manner and amount necessary to prevent unjust enrichment. '' The interest charged on loans originated through identity theft and void scoring infrastructure constitutes an unlawful extraction of value. Borrowers are entitled to complete restitution of all funds paidprincipal, interest, fees, and penalties.

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 explanation