Consumer complaint received 2025-11-16 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: Early Warning Services, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
In response to the continued mishandled of my XXXX  file You have said that the furnishers reporting was accurate and complete.

1. The identity theft block ( 15 U.S.C.

1681c-2 ) does NOT depend on whether the information is " accurate. '' No exception for " accurate '' information exists.

Accuracy is irrelevant once the consumer provides : 1.A valid identity theft report 2.Identification 3. A statement identifying the fraudulent accounts Once those are provided, the CRA must block - period.

2. Congress understood that fraudsters can open " accurate-looking '' accounts.

Identity thieves : use the real consumer 's SSN use correct DOB Use stolen or fabricated documents may pass automated " identity quizzes '' may even use stolen driver 's licenses So an account can be " accurate '' in the sense that : the data furnisher followed its procedures the application passed verification -the account truly exists But still 100 % fraudulent for FCRA purposes.

Congress explicitly recognized this in the 2003 FACTA amendments that created the identity theft block. 3. Furnishers can only verify what they know- not who actually opened the account.

A furnisher 's " verification '' simply means : They confirmed internal records They matched identifying information They believe the data corresponds to an actual account But furnishers can not independently verify the identity of the person who submitted the application years later.

Therefore, their verification does not resolve identity theft.

4. The CRA has no discretion to ignore an identity theft report in favor of a furnisher 's response.

The CRA can not say : " The furnisher verified it, so we don't have to block it. '' That directly violates $ 1681c-2 ( a ), which mandates blocking regardless of furnisher verification, unless one of the narrow exceptions applies 5. Courts have repeatedly recognized this distinction.

Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC A furnisher 's internal checks do not resolve whether the account belongs to the consumer.

Hutton v. Equifax Accuracy of data is irrelevant to whether the consumer actually opened the account.

Humphrey v. TransUnion Identity theft block requires deletion even when the reported account is otherwise accurate.

These cases affirm that :. " accuracy '' does not equal " belonging to the consumer '' identity theft disputes trigger enhanced duties 6. I he dispute here is NOT about accuracy. It is about ownership.

Your argument : You are NOT disputing whether the account exists.

You are NOT disputing whether the furnisher 's records show correct data.

V You ARE disputing whether you opened the account.

And under the FCRA : Ownership disputes Identity theft disputes. Fraud disputes all trigger block obligations, not " accuracy reinvestigations. '' In summary Even if the furnisher confirms that the account is " accurate '' according to its internal records, that verification does not override a consumer 's identity theft claim. Congress recognized that identity thieves can open accounts that pass verification procedures, use authentic personal data, and appear accurate in a furnisher 's system. The FCRA therefore requires CRAs to block information resulting from identity theft upon receipt of a valid identity theft report, regardless of the furnisher 's position. See 15 U.S.C.

1681c-2. The issue is not whether the account data is accurate in a technical sense, but whether the account belongs to the consumer.

Once a consumer denies ownership and submits an identity theft report, the CRA must block the account even if it was " accurately opened '' in the furnisher 's system. Furnisher verification can not override statutory block rights, and reliance on such verification constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA.

This is letter 4. After this I Will prepare for Federal court using evidence of non compliance and willfull negligence as 4 times is enough effort and chances given to allow you to permanently fix this

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation