Consumer complaint received 2025-12-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Public record information inaccurate
Company: LEXISNEXIS
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
Respondents XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. 

Both entities are consumer reporting agencies as defined under 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ) and are subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

A. False and Inaccurate Bankruptcy Reporting XXXX  and LexisNexis are reporting a bankruptcy that was never adjudicated and was dismissed and statistically closed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. 

Under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), consumer reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. 

A dismissed, non-adjudicated bankruptcy is not a valid bankruptcy outcome and its continued reporting is factually false and legally misleading. 

I have submitted official documentation from the Bankruptcy Court confirming dismissal and closure. Despite this : XXXX  continues to report the bankruptcy LexisNexis continues to furnish the same inaccurate public record data This constitutes reporting of information that is inaccurate and unverifiable, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) and 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ).

B. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation I have submitted multiple formal disputes to XXXX  and LexisNexis. 

Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), once a dispute is received, a CRA must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate. 

XXXX has repeatedly issued generic responses stating the information was verified, while failing to disclose : The source of verification The method used How a dismissed, unadjudicated bankruptcy could be verified as accurate This violates 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which requires disclosure of the method of verification upon request. 

The fact that XXXX and XXXX  deleted the same bankruptcy immediately using identical documentation further demonstrates that XXXX and LexisNexis failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, constituting willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n or, at minimum, negligent noncompliance under 1681o.

C. Continued Reporting of Disputed Information Despite ongoing disputes and submission of court documentation, XXXX  has continued to report the bankruptcy without proper notation or deletion.

This violates 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) and 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), which prohibit continued reporting of information known to be inaccurate or misleading. 

D. Unauthorized and Unverifiable Credit Inquiries XXXX is reporting 22 inquiries on my consumer credit report that I do not recognize and did not authorize. 

Under 15 U.S.C. 1681b, a consumer report may only be accessed for a permissible purpose.

Under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( a ), XXXX  is required to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure reports are furnished only for permissible purposes. 

XXXX has failed to : Identify the entities that accessed my report Provide proof of authorization Establish permissible purpose Continued reporting of these inquiries without verification constitutes a violation of 1681b, 1681e ( a ), and 1681i.

E. Demonstrable Consumer Harm As a direct and proximate result of these violations : I have been denied housing I have been denied an auto loan My credit profile has suffered substantial and ongoing damage This establishes actual damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 1681o ( a ) ( 1 ). 

F. Pattern Consistent With CFPB Enforcement The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently sued XXXX, alleging that XXXX unlawfully : Failed to properly investigate disputes Maintained inaccurate information Relied on automated, unsupported verifications The conduct I describe mirrors those allegations precisely. 

Attached to this complaint is a XX/XX/year> Order issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee, signed by a United States Bankruptcy Judge, which expressly confirms that the XXXX XXXX case associated with my name was previously dismissed and subsequently statistically closed The Order states that an Order has been previously signed by a Bankruptcy Judge dismissing the XXXX  XXXX case and that the matter was later closed solely for administrative purposes after approval of the trustees final report. This Order establishes that the bankruptcy was never adjudicated and never resulted in discharge or relief. Despite being provided this official court documentation during multiple disputes, XXXX  continues to report the bankruptcy as valid and verified. 

This demonstrates that XXXX failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i, failed to assure maximum possible accuracy under 1681e ( b ), and continued reporting information that is materially misleading. The fact that Equifax and TransUnion deleted the same bankruptcy upon receipt of this Order further confirms that XXXX verification process was unreasonable and deficient.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation