Consumer complaint received 2025-07-21 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: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
I. Summary of Complaint This non-duplicative complaint addresses ongoing, willful, and negligent violations by XXXX XXXX Bank  ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX Bank, XXXX Bank, XXXX, Bank of America ( BOA ), XXXX Bank ( collectively, Creditors ), and XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX collectively, CRAs XXXX regarding the handling of my credit reports. These entities have : Reported
and maintained unverified, inaccurate negative items and inquiries ( from XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Bank, XXXX, BOA, XXXX XXXX ) on my credit reports, stemming from identity theft and fraudulent accounts, despite disputes since XX/XX/XXXX. 

Failed to provide full legal validation of these items, including forward flow agreements, sale agreements, original account documents, and detailed investigation techniques used to " validate '' debts. 

Unlawfully reinserted previously removed negative items without proper notice or verification. 

Refused to delete all dispute notations from my credit reports for the past 24 months ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), damaging my creditworthiness. 

These actions violate federal and state consumer protection laws, equitable principles, and contractual obligations, causing severe financial harm ( e.g., loss of {$100000.00} XXXX XXXX, referenced in prior chats ), emotional distress, and reputational damage. I demand : Full Validation : Provide complete validation for every negative item and inquiry, including original account documents, forward flow agreements, sale agreements, and a detailed explanation of investigation techniques used to " validate '' each debt. 

Permanent Removal : Remove all unverified items permanently from my credit reports across all CRAs. 

Dispute Deletion : Delete all dispute notations from XXXX XXXX XXXX on my XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  reports. 

Maximum Damages : Pay statutory, actual, and punitive damages for violations, including reinsertions, as authorized under law. 

This complaint is distinct from prior filings ( e.g., CFPB Complaint ID XXXX ) by emphasizing the Creditors and CRAs failure to disclose investigation techniques, new reinsertion violations, and the ongoing retention of dispute notations, while demanding comprehensive equitable relief. 

XXXX. Factual Background Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have disputed inaccurate negative items and inquiries on my XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX credit reports, attributed to identity theft and fraudulent accounts linked to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Bank, XXXX, BOA, and XXXX XXXX. Key facts include : Dispute History ( XXXX XXXX ) : I notified CRAs and Creditors of fraudulent accounts and erroneous inquiries via certified mail ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ) and CFPB complaints ( e.g., ID XXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Disputes included evidence of identity theft ( e.g., police reports, updated credit reports showing corrections ). 

Creditor Noncompliance : Creditors claimed to " validate '' negative items ( e.g., late payments, charge-offs, collections ) and inquiries but failed to provide : Original account agreements signed by me. 

Forward flow agreements or sale agreements for transferred debts. 

Detailed descriptions of investigation techniques, including data sources, verification processes, and personnel involved. 

Responses ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX, to CFPB complaint ) were inadequate, lacking required documentation and transparency. 

CRA Noncompliance : CRAs failed to conduct reasonable investigations, reinserted removed items without notice, and retained dispute notations, harming my credit score. 

Updated credit reports ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX ) showing corrections were ignored, and no CRA provided details on how investigations were conducted. 

Harm Suffered : Financial harm : Loss of {$100000.00} XXXX XXXX ( referenced in prior chats, XX/XX/XXXX ) and other credit denials due to inaccurate reporting. 

Emotional distress : Stress from financial instability and reputational harm. 

Ongoing credit damage : Dispute notations and reinserted items lower my credit score, limiting lending opportunities. 

XXXX. Legal Violations The Creditors and CRAs have committed willful and negligent violations of the following laws and equitable principles, supported by case law : A. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

1681s-2 ( b ) Duty of Furnishers to Investigate ( Creditors ) : Creditors failed to conduct reasonable investigations after receiving dispute notices, neglecting to provide forward flow agreements, sale agreements, or detailed investigation techniques ( e.g., data sources, verification methods, or personnel involved ).

Case Law : Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP ( 584 F.3d 1147, 9th Cir. 2009 ) Furnishers must conduct thorough investigations and provide transparent validation ; failure incurs liability.

1681i Duty of CRAs to Investigate : CRAs failed to reasonably investigate disputes, relying on unverified Creditor data and failing to disclose investigation techniques ( e.g., automated systems like e-OSCAR or manual reviews ).

Case Law : Cushman v. Trans Union Corp. ( 115 F.3d 220, 3d Cir. 1997 ) CRA
s must independently verify disputed data and document investigation processes.

1681i Reinsertion of Removed Items ( CRAs ) : CRAs reinserted previously removed negative items without providing notice or verifying accuracy, violating FCRAs reinsertion rules.

Case Law : Henson v. CSC Credit Services ( 29 F.3d 280, 7th Cir. 1994 ) Reinsertion without notice and verification entitles consumers to damages.

1681n Willful Noncompliance ( Creditors & CRAs ) : Reckless disregard of dispute obligations, failure to disclose investigation techniques, and reinsertion of items constitute willful noncompliance, entitling me to statutory damages ( {$100.00} {$1000.00} per violation ), actual damages, and punitive damages.

Case Law : Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr ( 551 U.S. 47, 2007 ) Reckless disregard qualifies as willful, triggering punitive damages.

1681o Negligent Noncompliance ( Creditors & CRAs ) : Negligent failure to remove unverified items, delete dispute notations, and disclose investigation techniques caused financial and emotional harm.

Case Law : Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC ( 520 F.3d 1066, 9th Cir. 2008 ) Emotional distress from inaccurate reporting is compensable under FCRA.

B. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.

1692g ( b ) Debt Validation ( Creditors ) : Creditors failed to provide complete validation ( e.g., forward flow agreements, sale agreements, investigation techniques ) for alleged debts, continuing collection activities.

Case Law : Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo ( 174 F.3d 394, 4th Cir. 1999 ) Collectors must cease activity until providing full validation, including transparent investigation details.

1692e False or Misleading Representations ( Creditors ) : Reporting unverified debts and inquiries to CRAs, without disclosing investigation techniques, constitutes false representations.

Case Law : Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services ( 460 F.3d 1162, 9th Cir. 2006 ) Reporting unverified debts violates FDCPA.

C. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.

1691 ( d ) Adverse Action Notification : Creditors failed to provide specific notices for adverse actions ( e.g., credit denials or reductions ) based on disputed data, violating ECOA.

Case Law : Fischl v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. ( 708 F.2d 143, 5th Cir. 1983 ) Specific, accurate notice is mandatory for adverse actions.

D. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. & Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026 ) 1026.6 Account Disclosures : Creditors failed to disclose how disputed credit data and validation processes would impact account terms, breaching TILAs transparency requirements. Case Law : Koepplinger v. Seterus, Inc. ( D.N.J. 2018 ) Non-disclosure of material changes
violates TILA.

E. Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) 12 U.S.C. 5536 Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) : Reporting unverified items, reinserting removed data, retaining dispute notations, and withholding investigation techniques constitute unfair and deceptive practices.

Case Law : CFPB v. Citizens Bank ( 2023 ) Persistent consumer harm triggers CFPB enforcement and penalties.

F. Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ( Ohio Rev. Code 1345.01 et seq. ) 1345.02 Unfair or Deceptive Acts : Creditors and CRAs failure to correct inaccuracies, remove dispute notations, and disclose investigation techniques is deceptive under Ohio law.

Case Law : Brown v. Lyons ( 43 Ohio Misc. 14, 1974 ) Deceptive practices causing harm entitle consumers to treble damages.

G. Equitable Principles Unclean Hands Doctrine : Creditors and CRAs, by acting in bad faith ( ignoring disputes, reinserting items, withholding investigation details ), are barred from equitable defenses.

Case Law : In re Adelphia Recovery Trust ( 634 F.3d 678, 3d Cir. 2011 ) Bad faith precludes equitable relief.

Estoppel : Creditors can not rely on disputed data after failing to validate it with transparent investigation techniques, estopping them from reporting or collecting.

Case Law : Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co. ( 324 U.S. 806, 1945 ) Inequitable conduct estops parties from benefiting.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation