Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 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: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Capital One XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, VA XXXX RE : Accounts ending : XXXX and XXXX To Whom It May Concern, I submit this letter as a formal rebuttal to Capital One Bank ( USA ) , N.A.s response provided to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding the above Subject e-referenced accounts. Capital Ones conclusions are unsupported by competent evidence, legally deficient, and contrary to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. 
I. Capital Ones Investigation Was Not Reasonable as Required by Law Capital One asserts it performed an investigation and concluded the accounts belong to me based primarily on public-record associations with an address and phone number and the fact that mail was not returned. This does not constitute a reasonable investigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). 
Federal courts have repeatedly rejected this exact type of reasoning : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) A furnisher violates the FCRA when it merely confirms information against its own internal records without conducting a substantive investigation. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) When a consumer alleges identity theft, a furnisher must do more than rely on superficial indicators such as matching addresses. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) A furnisher must have sufficient evidence to verify that the consumer is actually responsible for the account ; assumptions are insufficient. 
Capital Ones reliance on public-record linkage and non-returned mail is precisely the type of cursory and unreasonable investigation these cases prohibit. 
XXXX. Online Applications Without Signed Contracts Do Not Establish Liability Capital One admits that : Because the accounts were opened online, there are no signed copies of an application to provide. 
The absence of a signed agreement or authenticated proof of identity is fatal to Capital Ones position. Furnishers must be able to substantiate ownership with competent evidence, not assumptions. 
XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) A furnisher must possess evidence sufficient to establish the consumers liability, not merely assert it. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) The FCRA requires more than a rubber stamp verification process. 
Capital One has produced no IP logs, device identifiers, identity-verification records, or authentication data tying me to the alleged online applications. 
III. Use of Address and Phone Number Is Legally Insufficient and Misleading Capital One claims the accounts belong to me because the address and phone number used were linked to [ me ] by public records. 
This logic is legally flawed. Identity thieves routinely use accurate personal information. Courts have expressly recognized this fact : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Consumer reports must be accurate and not misleading ; reliance on incomplete or assumptive data violates the FCRA. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) XXXX information that omits material facts or creates a misleading impression is actionable. 
Public-record association does not prove authorization, consent, or actual account ownership. 
IV. Prior Communications Do Not Waive an Identity-Theft Claim Capital One alleges that I contacted them regarding account ending in XXXX and did not dispute ownership at that time. This assertion is irrelevant and legally improper. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) A consumers prior communications do not relieve a furnisher of its duty to reasonably investigate once a dispute is raised. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Furnishers must evaluate the substance of the dispute, not selectively rely on earlier interactions. 
There is no legal doctrine under the FCRA whereby a consumer forfeits identity-theft protections due to earlier contact. 
V. Continued Reporting Constitutes Willful and/or Negligent Noncompliance Capital Ones continued reporting of these accountsdespite notice of fraud and inability to produce binding proofconstitutes at least negligent noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681o, and given notice through the CFPB process, rises to willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) Willfulness includes reckless disregard of statutory obligations. 
VI. Formal Demand I hereby demand that Capital One : 1. Immediately delete both accounts from all consumer reporting agencies ; 2. Cease any furnishing of information related to these accounts ; 3. Provide written confirmation of deletion ; 4. Preserve all records, logs, and metadata related to the alleged account openings for litigation hold purposes. 
Failure to comply will result in continued CFPB escalation, Attorney General complaints, and potential federal litigation seeking statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and costs. 
All rights are expressly reserved. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation