Consumer complaint received 2025-08-20 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: Upstart Holdings, Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE. THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE. THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE. Upstart is falsely marking my complaints as duplicates in order to XXXX CFPB oversight and stay out of regulators eyes. They are abusing the system and retaliating against me with new, inaccurate credit reporting every time I dispute. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I filed CFPB complaint XXXX because Upstart reported XX/XX/XXXX as 30 days late before the XX/XX/XXXX due date. That complaint is still open. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I filed another complaint ( XXXX ) about a completely different violation. XXXX  had opened a reinvestigation on XX/XX/XXXX without my authorization, and Upstart responded by attaching a false natural disaster/affected by declared disaster remark to my tradeline. This was not part of the XXXX complaint. The XXXX complaint was about premature late reporting in XXXX. The XXXX complaint was about XXXX new reinvestigation and Upstart retaliating by adding a false disaster remark in XXXX. Different facts, different timeframes, different conduct. 

Instead of addressing the XX/XX/XXXX complaint, Upstart told CFPB it was a duplicate of the XXXX XXXX. The CFPB then closed it on that basis. Upstart 's statement stating the XX/XX/XXXX complaint was a duplicate, is false. 

The XX/XX/XXXX complaint involved new and separate violations that occurred after my XXXX complaint was filed. XXXX  and XXXX  were also part of that XXXX complaint, and they did not treat it as a duplicate both had it listed as part of their open reinvestigations. They were also part of the XXXX complaint, which proves the XXXX filing contained new information. By calling it a duplicate, Upstart was able to avoid any review of those new violations and continue retaliating against me unchecked. Coincidence? I dont think so. 

While CFPB had my XX/XX/XXXX complaint closed as a duplicate, Upstart retaliated again. On XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX  file shows XX/XX/XXXX already coded 90 days late even though my due date was XX/XX/XXXX and a 30-day delinquency can not be reported until XX/XX/XXXX. This happened during an active XXXX  reinvestigation, and XXXX  allowed this false update to be posted while my dispute was still open. 

This is not just inaccurate, it is deliberate retaliation. Upstart is using the duplicate excuse as a shield to keep retaliating with new negative reporting. XXXX  is complicit by allowing mid-dispute derogatories to be added in violation of the FCRA. They know regulators wont look twice if everything is marked a duplicate, so they are exploiting that loophole to punish me for disputing. 

I am requesting CFPB to investigate Upstarts abuse of the duplicate-closure process, hold them accountable for repeated FCRA and XXXX XXXX XXXX, and require the permanent deletion of the entire Upstart tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies. Equifax has already deleted it due to earlier violations, and the misconduct continues with Experian and TransUnion. The only fair and lawful resolution is full deletion.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation