Consumer complaint received 2026-01-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX is furnishing a closed account in the amount of {$29000.00} to consumer reporting agencies without lawful validation, without proper identity verification, and under names that do not exactly match my full legal name, creating a mixed file / misidentification scenario in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and federal Customer Identification Program ( CIP ) requirements. 

Desp

ite five formal disputes, XXXX  has failed to correct or delete this account and continues to verify it without producing legally sufficient evidence. Mixed File & Name Misidentification This account is being reported using name variations that do not precisely match my full legal name as reflected on my Social Security card. Any deviation in name attribution constitutes inaccurate consumer data and strongly indicates a mixed file, where information belonging to another consumer has been improperly associated with my credit profile. 

Under the FCRA, data that can not be accurately attributed to the correct consumer must be deleted, not repeatedly verified. 

XXXX has failed to provide : Proof that the reported name exactly matches my full legal identity Documentation demonstrating safeguards to prevent mixed-file reporting Any evidence disproving misidentification Failure to Validate/ Sham Investigation In response to my disputes, XXXX has only produced a signed contract. This is not lawful validation and does not establish that : I was the individual who applied for the account My identity was verified at account origination Santander complied with mandatory CIP/KYC requirements under 31 CFR 1020.220 A signed contract without identity verification documentation can not lawfully support continued credit reporting. 

Santanders repeated reliance on the same insufficient documentation after multiple disputes constitutes a sham investigation, similar to conduct the CFPB has previously taken enforcement action against. 



FCRA Violations XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX conduct violates, at minimum : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) Failure to properly reinvestigate disputed information 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing information that is inaccurate or can not be substantiated 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation after notice of dispute After five disputes, continued verification without new, materially sufficient evidence demonstrates reckless disregard for accuracy and ongoing consumer harm. 



Unlawful Furnishing After Notice of Misidentification Once a furnisher is placed on notice of possible misidentification or mixed file, it may not continue reporting unless it can conclusively verify identity attribution. XXXX has failed to do so and continues furnishing the account regardless. 

This ongoing reporting is willful noncompliance

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