Consumer complaint received 2025-08-30 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Public record information inaccurate
Company: LEXISNEXIS
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
I am in receipt of Lexis Nexis correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  regarding my disputes of bankruptcy case numbers XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. After review, I must state plainly : your verification is legally inadequate, does not satisfy the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and leaves you no choice but to permanently delete the disputed bankruptcies from my consumer file. 

LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is unlawfully reporting and maintaining bankruptcy records that remain unverified, inaccurate, and incomplete, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. LexisNexis has admitted it acts as a reseller of consumer information from other sources, including nationwide CRAs and bulk public records. Despite this, LexisNexis continues to report unverifiable bankruptcies by relying solely on XXXX  and non-unique identifiers such as last-4 SSN and DOB. Federal law makes clear : a reseller CRA is fully responsible for ensuring accuracy, conducting proper reinvestigations, and deleting unverifiable information. 

Facts of the Case 1. I disputed bankruptcy records ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ) in my LexisNexis file. 
2. On XX/XX/XXXX, LexisNexis responded that it verified the records using XXXX  and matches to last-4 SSN and DOB. 
3. LexisNexis admitted it removed Case No. XXXX, proving unverifiable data can and must be deleted. However, it continues to report XXXX and XXXX despite no valid verification. 
XXXX. XXXX  records are redacted under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure XXXX, which prevents the use of full identifiers and makes true verification impossible. 
5. LexisNexis has claimed its role is limited because it is a reseller of bulk public records and CRA data. However, as a reseller CRA, LexisNexis is still fully bound by the FCRAs reinvestigation and accuracy requirements.

Violations of Federal Law 1. FCRA 1681i Reinvestigation The FCRA requires a consumer reporting agency, including resellers, to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information. Simply parroting XXXX  data and recycling CRA information is not a reasonable reinvestigation. Courts have held that CRAs must go beyond automated matching to independently verify disputed information.

2. FCRA 1681e ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy LexisNexis must follow procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of information in its reports. Matching only last-4 SSN and DOB fails this standard because these are not unique identifiers and are widely shared. By reselling unverified and inaccurate information, LexisNexis is compounding the inaccuracy across multiple platforms and harming consumers.

3. FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Deletion Requirement If information can not be verified, the law requires permanent deletion. LexisNexis already deleted Case XXXX. XXXX when it could not verify it, but refuses to delete the others under the same standard. This is a clear and willful violation of 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). 

4. FCRA 1681i ( f ) Duties of Resellers Resellers like LexisNexis have a duty to either reinvestigate directly or to forward consumer disputes to the source CRA with all relevant information. Failure to do so violates federal law. By recycling unverifiable bankruptcy data without ensuring it is accurate or properly verified, LexisNexis is violating this provision.

Rule 9037 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Bankruptcy records are intentionally redacted to prevent misuse of personal identifiers. XXXX reliance on XXXX  as verification is invalid because redacted records can not prove identity. Using PACER this way violates the FCRAs accuracy mandate. 
Case Law Supporting Consumer Rights XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) : A CRA can not simply parrot another source. It must perform a reasonable and independent verification of disputed information. LexisNexiss reliance on XXXX  fails this standard. 

XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : CRAs are liable for reporting information that is unverifiable or inaccurate. LexisNexiss reporting of unverifiable bankruptcies falls squarely under this precedent. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : The court held that a CRAs duty to reinvestigate requires more than forwarding disputesit must conduct a meaningful investigation. As a reseller, LexisNexis can not hide behind other CRAs ; it must take active steps to ensure accuracy. 

Harm to Consumer LexisNexiss unlawful conduct has caused significant and ongoing harm, including damage to my creditworthiness and financial reputation, interference with my ability to obtain loans, housing, and financial services, and emotional and financial distress due to continued reporting of serious derogatory information that can not be verified.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation