Consumer complaint received 2025-11-19 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Kikoff Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
In regards to Kikoff, Your most recent reply once again fails to rebut the legal deficiencies I have repeatedly identified. Repeating the same narrative does not transform an inaccurate, incomplete, or improperly authorized tradeline into a lawful one. Your response also misstates multiple provisions of federal law and ignores the statutes that restrict furnishing consumer information, reporting derogatory data, disclosing transaction history, and the legal thresholds for permissible purposes. 

Your claim that electronic acceptance is legally valid and serves as written authorization is not the central issue in dispute. The issue remains that you have no signed contract, no original application bearing my handwritten signature, no physical authorization to furnish or obtain personal financial information, and no proof of a permissible purpose under 15 U.S.C. 1681b. An internal click-wrap agreement does not satisfy the statutory definition of written instruction and does not override federal privacy protections. 

Your furnishing of derogatory payment history and the charge-off status constitutes transmission of protected transactional data without lawful authorization under 15 U.S.C. 6802 ( a ) ( b ), Regulation P, the Privacy Act of 1974, and 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( f ). Each transmission of data without a verifiable permissible purpose is a separate statutory violation. 

Your statement that there has been no violation of the FCRA, GLBA, TILA, the Privacy Act, or FACTA is not supported by evidence. That conclusion is not yours to make, and the facts establish otherwise. When a company furnishes derogatory information without lawful authorization, fails to provide evidence of a permissible purpose, and disseminates account data to third parties without a legally sufficient agreement, each act constitutes an individual violation of federal law. 

Your explanation regarding charge-offs and IRS Form 1099-C is irrelevant. A charge-off remains a form of debt discharge, representing a conversion of the account into a certificate of indebtedness. Reporting a charged-off status while simultaneously asserting that I still owe a balance is inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive under 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ). You can not classify a debt as uncollectible for your internal accounting while reporting it as currently due on my consumer report.

You assert that all payment and status information reported is accurate. Accuracy is not the sole standard. Completeness, verifiability, and documentary proof are required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. You have provided neither the original signed contract, the transaction
records, a lawful chain of title, proof of permissible purpose, nor evidence of lawful written consent at any time prior to furnishing data.

Your attempt to label future disputes as duplicate is also unlawful. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ), a dispute can only be deemed frivolous if you issue a written explanation describing the specific information you require to proceed. You have not provided such notice. Any attempt to categorize disputes as duplicate without complying with statutory requirements constitutes willful non-compliance.

Notice of Prior Opportunity to Cure You have already been served with notice of dispute and provided multiple lawful opportunities to cure your violations. Your refusal to conduct a proper reinvestigation, provide required documentation, or correct incomplete and inaccurate reporting demonstrates willful disregard for federal law. This rebuttal serves as your final notice prior to the initiation of formal litigation and regulatory escalation.

Demand for Correction I hereby demand that you delete the derogatory remarks, late payments, and charged-off status while retaining the positive history of the tradeline. You are required by federal law to correct inaccurate, unverified, incomplete, or unlawfully furnished data.

Failure to comply will result in immediate escalation, including but not limited to : Formal complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, FDIC, IRS, and the Missouri Attorney General Civil action seeking statutory damages, actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees under FCRA, GLBA, and applicable state law A request for full investigation of your data handling, reporting practices, disclosure practices, and storage of consumer information You are expected to respond within 14 days.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation