Consumer complaint received 2025-07-13 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: Sezzle Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/year>, I made a purchase using my Sezzle Anywhere virtual card, which I later returned through XXXX XXXX. Although the item was refunded, the refund failed to clear properly and was not applied to my Sezzle balance. As a result, a 30-day late payment was reported to the credit bureaus. 

On XX/XX/year>, after receiving a credit alert, I contacted Sezzle and then followed up with XXXX, who confirmed that the refund had been issued to the original payment method ( my Sezzle virtual card ). That same day, I emailed Sezzle Support explaining the situation. Over the following weeks, I had multiple phone calls with Sezzle representativeseach of which was recorded. In one of those calls, a representative named XXXX assured me the matter would be escalated and that the 30-day late mark would be removed. However, I never received any follow-up as promised. When I called back a few weeks later, I was informed that the account had already been reviewed and closed, and that no further action would be taken. 

On XX/XX/year>, I sent a formal dispute letter to Sezzles credit reporting department via USPS Express. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response via email from Sezzles credit reporting team stating that the account had been verified as accurate, and that I could dispute the information with the credit bureauswhich I had already done previously. This email did not include any documentation or explanation of the investigation. I followed up that same day, asking clarifying questions and again expressing my willingness to resolve the issue amicably by correcting the late mark. As of XX/XX/XXXX, this follow-up email to XXXX remains unanswered. 

Following Sezzles direction, I also disputed the tradeline with all three major credit bureausXXXX XXXX and XXXX. All three investigations were closed within several days, with the account marked as verified as accurate. The 30-day late mark still remains, and no documentation or verification has been provided to support its accuracy.

As of the drafting of this complaint, I have obtained updated credit reports showing that XXXX  now
reflects the 30-day delinquency for XX/XX/year>, while XXXX  and XXXX  list it for XX/XX/year>, which XXXX  previously had on file for XX/XX/year>. These inconsistencies in reporting not only contradict Sezzles claim of accuracy but also raise serious concerns of noncompliance with the FCRA. Furnishers of information have a legal obligation under FCRA 623 to provide complete and accurate information to all credit reporting agencies. The discrepancies, and changes to existing historical reporting of the months, combined with the lack of supporting documentation and the failure to correct or clarify the data after multiple formal disputes, appear to constitute a violation of those statutory obligations.

I have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with Sezzle over the course of several months. Their lack of follow-through, limited communication, and failure to provide any supporting documentation has left me with no choice but to escalate the matter through this formal complaint.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation