Consumer complaint received 2025-09-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: Kikoff Inc.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
NOT DUPLICATE- This complaint concerns Kikoff Lending LLC and its ongoing deceptive, unfair, and abusive practices that weaponize credit reporting against consumers.

1. Deceptive Product Design Misrepresentation Kikoff advertises itself as a safe credit builder. In reality, the Credit Account is nothing more than a {$60.00} subscription loan that can not be used as real credit. Their response in prior complaints that the tradeline is available for purchases in Kikoffs store proves the deception : there is no true line of credit, only a closed ecosystem that provides no consumer value.

Counter to Rebuttal : Kikoff will argue this is legitimate credit because it reports. But legitimacy under the FCRA is not about whether a number is reported it is about accuracy and fairness. Selling a subscription and disguising it as revolving credit is materially misleading advertising under UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).

2. Misleading Credit Reporting Kikoff routinely reports late payments that stem from technical failures ( app login issues, inability to update payment info after card theft ). They previously claimed our system shows no evidence of error. That defense fails. 

Counter to Rebuttal : A company can not insulate itself by saying we saw no error internally. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), furnishers must avoid reporting information they know or should know is misleading. The absence of an internal error code does not erase the consumers documented inability to access the system. The CFPBs XXXX  Circular makes clear : even technically correct but context-free reporting is unlawful when it creates a misleading impression.

3. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation In prior disputes, Kikoff replied : We reviewed and found no evidence. That is not a reasonable investigation under 1681s-2 ( b ).

Counter to Rebuttal : Case law ( Cushman v. TransUnion, 115 F.3d 220 ( 3d Cir. 1997 ) ) forbids furnishers from merely parroting internal data. A reasonable investigation requires contacting the consumer, considering provided evidence, and reconciling contradictory facts. Kikoff has never done this they simply default to our system shows late.

4. We Must Report Accurately False Defense Kikoff claims they are required to report late payments. That is a misstatement of law. The FCRA requires accuracy, not blind punishment. Reporting a late caused by a defective app is materially misleading, not accurate.

Counter to Rebuttal : The CFPBs XXXX  guidance explicitly warns that accurate but misleading reporting violates the FCRA. Kikoff can not hide behind the phrase accurate reporting when context shows the tradeline is misleading by design.

5. Pattern and Practice XXXX  Complaints Kikoffs misconduct is systemic, not isolated. The XXXX XXXX XXXX  complaint history contains TONS of nearly identical complaints from other consumers who : Couldnt update payment methods Were trapped by app errors Were shocked to find a credit builder tradeline destroy their score with derogatories Counter to Rebuttal : Kikoff can not claim my experience is unique. The public XXXX  record shows this is a pattern and practice of harm, putting Kikoff on notice. Continuing the
same behavior after repeated complaints demonstrates reckless disregard for consumer protection laws.

6. Disproportionate Harm = Abusive Practice One Kikoff late outweighs years of supposed benefit. The lates linger 7 years, blocking credit, housing, and employment. The harm is grossly disproportionate to the trivial {$60.00} balance. 

Counter to Rebuttal : Kikoff may argue consumers accept terms. But consent does not immunize abusive conduct. Under Dodd-Frank 1031, a practice is abusive if it takes unreasonable advantage of consumer reliance. Selling credit building that predictably results in credit destruction is the definition of abusive.

Requested Relief Immediate deletion of all negative Kikoff tradelines across all bureaus.

Full CFPB enforcement investigation into Kikoffs deceptive product and reporting model.

Restitution and penalties for financial harm caused.

Referral to state Attorneys General and the FTC for additional enforcement under state UDTPA laws.

Bottom Line : Kikoffs rebuttals are predictable legitimate credit, accurate reporting, no system evidence, we must report. Each is legally hollow. The XXXX  complaints prove systemic harm. The FCRA and UDAAP standards prove their model is unlawful. The CFPB should treat this not as an isolated consumer dispute, but as a pattern of abusive practices warranting enforcement action.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation