Consumer complaint received 2025-05-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
Complaint for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Introduction Nature of the Action : Plaintiff XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter Plaintiff ) brings this Complaint against XXXX Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) for repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq., XXXX for failure XXXX  comply with industry XXXX XXXX reporting standards. Plaintiff alleges that Experian has persistently reported inaccurate XXXX fraudulent information on his credit report XXXX failed XXXX conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputed information, in violation of federal law. Despite multiple disputes XXXX a prior identity theft report, Experian has continued XXXX report erroneous account information, causing ongoing harm XXXX Plaintiffs credit reputation XXXX  financial well-being. 
Summary of Violations : XXXX wrongful conduct includes : ( a ) reporting charged-off accounts with ongoing past-due balances, which is inconsistent with FCRA accuracy requirements XXXX  XXXX XXXX guidelines ; XXXX b ) failing XXXX  reinvestigate and correct these inaccuracies within the time frame required by law ; ( c ) refusing XXXX provide Plaintiff with the documentation or description of its investigation as required ; and ( d ) effectively performing only cursory, automated investigations that merely parrot furnishers responses, contrary XXXX the FCRAs mandate of a genuine, reasonable investigation caselaw.findlaw.com caselaw.findlaw.com. These practices have been condemned by courts XXXX regulators alike, including in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described XXXX dispute handling as sham investigations that flout federal law consumerfinance.gov. 
Purpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a federal civil action ), XXXX seeks XXXX compel Experian XXXX immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file XXXX XXXX ensure full compliance with the FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Plaintiff further puts Experian on notice that failure to comply within XXXX  days will result in legal action in federal court, where XXXX will seek all available relief, including statutory XXXX punitive damages for Experians willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing XXXX demand direct attention from XXXX compliance XXXX  legal departments. 
Jurisdiction and XXXX  Jurisdiction : This XXXX has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, because XXXX claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. XXXX violations of XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) give rise XXXX a private right of action for which XXXX seeks relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be proper under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. 
XXXX : XXXX is proper in this XXXX under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) because XXXX resides in this XXXX XXXX the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. Experian regularly conducts business in this XXXX XXXX maintains substantial contacts here. Experian, as XXXX of the nations largest consumer reporting agencies, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this XXXX XXXX throughout the XXXX XXXX. Given that the harm to Plaintiffs credit report was felt in this XXXX, venue is appropriate for the adjudication of this dispute. 
Intradistrict Assignment : ( If applicable under local rules. ) The events described herein occurred primarily in XXXX XXXX of Plaintiffs residence ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ). Accordingly, assignment XXXX  the XXXX XXXX of this XXXX would be proper. 
Parties Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX XXXX is a natural person and consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, Maryland. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ), in that he is an individual about whom Experian prepares and furnishes consumer credit reports. Plaintiff has at all relevant times been the victim of false and inaccurate credit reporting by Experian, which has adversely affected his XXXX XXXX, credit opportunities, and peace of mind. 
Defendant : Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX ( Experian ) is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in XXXX XXXX, California. Experian is a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) as defined by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( f ) : it regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports XXXX XXXX parties for monetary fees. Experian does business nationwide, including substantial business in the XXXX of Maryland. At all relevant times, Experian acted through its agents, employees, or representatives, who were in the scope of their employment XXXX  under Experians supervision XXXX control. 
Non-Party Furnishers : Various creditor institutions and debt XXXX furnished the information at issue to Experian. These furnishers include, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( collectively, the Furnishers ). While not named as defendants in this complaint, the Furnishers are mentioned XXXX the extent that Experian relied on their information XXXX  responses. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ), these Furnishers have XXXX to investigate XXXX correct disputed information when notified by a CRA. Experians conduct in this case is intertwined with the XXXX failures XXXX correct the false data ; Experians actions effectively facilitated XXXX continued those statutory violations by the Furnishers. 
Factual Allegations XXXX XXXX XXXX  Fraudulent Accounts ( XXXX ) : In XXXX, Plaintiffs identity was stolen by an unknown imposter, who opened at least XXXX credit accounts in Plaintiffs name with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX personal credit card XXXX XXXX business credit account ). These accounts were opened without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent. The imposter accumulated debt on the accounts and then defaulted, resulting in the accounts being reported as delinquent XXXX eventually charged off by XXXX XXXX. Because these accounts were fraudulent, all information related XXXX them on Plaintiffs credit report is inherently false XXXX not attributable to XXXX. 
XX/XX/XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXXt Complaint : On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff submitted a formal XXXX XXXXt report XXXX  complaint XXXX Experian ( through the CFPB complaint portal ) regarding the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts. In that complaint ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), Plaintiff invoked FCRA XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, which requires consumer reporting agencies XXXX block information resulting from XXXX XXXX within XXXX business days upon receiving proof of XXXX XXXX from the consumer. XXXX provided Experian with the necessary information, including a police report/affidavit attesting XXXX the identity theft, XXXX  requested that Experian block XXXX remove all information pertaining XXXX the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX his credit file. 
Experians Failure XXXX Block Fraudulent Accounts : Despite Plaintiffs proper identity theft notice, Experian failed XXXX block or delete the fraudulent accounts within the mandated time. Experian either did not respond at all within the XXXX-day window or responded inadequately, allowing the fraudulent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX remain on Plaintiffs credit report beyond XX/XX/XXXX. By not promptly removing these known XXXX XXXX  accounts, Experian violated FCRA XXXX XXXX  allowed patently inaccurate XXXX  damaging information XXXX continue reporting on Plaintiffs credit file. This failure forced XXXX XXXX continue disputing the accounts in subsequent months. 
XX/XX/XXXX Experian Credit Report Obtained : On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff obtained a current copy of his Experian credit report. Upon review, XXXX discovered that Experian was still reporting multiple accounts with serious inaccuracies and FCRA violations, including but not limited to the following : XXXX XXXX Accounts : The fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts from XXXX were still present on the report. They were listed as XXXX accounts ( indicating the creditor wrote off the debt as uncollectible ) yet each account was also showing an active past-due balance. In other words, Experian was reporting these accounts as both charged-off and currently past-due, which is internally inconsistent. A legitimately charged-off account should not continue to carry an accruing past-due amount under standard reporting practices. Experians reporting falsely suggested that XXXX currently owed delinquent balances on these accounts, when in fact the accounts were fraudulent and should have been removed entirely. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX Account : Experian was reporting an installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX that had been charged off after alleged non-payment. Here again, Experian listed the XXXX account with a status of XXXX XXXX while simultaneously indicating a significant past-due balance remaining. The presence of a past-due balance on an account flagged as a charge-off is contrary to the XXXX XXXX reporting standards XXXX by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX guidelines require that once an account is charged off, the account should reflect a XXXX current balance and no ongoing past due amount ( since the debt is no longer an open receivable on a current schedule ). Experians reporting of the XXXX account violated this standard by showing the account as if payments were still actively delinquent post-charge-off. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Experian was also reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( XXXX XXXX ) account with inaccurate status. This account was listed as a charge-off with a past-due balance of several XXXX dollars. If this account was legitimately charged off by XXXX XXXX, it should not have a continuing past due amount in the manner a currently delinquent account would. The reporting created a misleading impression that XXXX had an open, delinquent balance with XXXX XXXX, when in reality the account was closed XXXX charged off ( or, potentially, was also impacted by identity theft or prior disputePlaintiff had previously contested its accuracy ). 
Other Accounts and Inaccuracies : In addition to the above, other accounts on Plaintiffs Experian report showed similar discrepancies ( charge-off notations with continuing balances, inconsistent dates or amounts, etc. ). Each of these inaccuracies represents a failure by Experian to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiffs credit file as required by XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). For example, at least XXXX collection account continued to be reported even after the underlying debt was resolved, and several accounts did not reflect notices of dispute that XXXX had lodged, which Experian is required to note on the report per XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ). For brevity, this Complaint focuses on the primary accounts listed above, but XXXX alleges that any and all disputed accounts on his Experian report contain errors that Experian negligently and willfully failed to correct. 
Impact of XXXX XXXX : The inaccurate information described in Paragraph XXXX was highly damaging XXXX XXXX. XXXX report portrayed XXXX as significantly more delinquent XXXX high-risk than he actually is. The reporting of multiple active past-due balances on charged-off accounts made Plaintiffs credit profile appear as if he had multiple severe, unresolved delinquencies at the same time. This has adversely affected XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has led XXXX credit denials or offers on far worse terms than XXXX would otherwise qualify for. Moreover, the continued presence of fraudulent accounts ( the XXXX XXXX cards opened by identity thieves ) on the report means XXXX is effectively being penalized for crimes committed by others, a harm the FCRA specifically intended to prevent through XXXX. Plaintiff has suffered credit damage, loss of credit opportunities, and considerable emotional distress ( including stress, anxiety, and frustration ) as a direct result of Experians reporting failures. 
XX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs Dispute to Experian : Promptly after reviewing the XX/XX/XXXX credit report, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a detailed dispute XXXX Experian, challenging the inaccurate accounts. Plaintiff utilized the CFPBs consumer complaint portal XXXX lodge this dispute ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX forwarded XXXX  Experian shortly thereafter ). In his dispute, XXXX clearly identified each erroneous account and explained why the reporting was incorrect or inconsistent with the FCRA XXXX XXXX XXXX standards. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute highlighted that Experian was : Reporting charge-off accounts with an active past-due balance, which is a contradiction XXXX an FCRA violation ( failing to maintain accuracy ) as well as a XXXX XXXX violation. XXXX cited XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( requirement for consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information ) XXXX noted that this standard was breached by the blatant errors on his report. 
Potentially reporting information that was the result of identity theft ( in reference to the XXXX XXXX accounts ) which should have been blocked under XXXX. XXXX reminded Experian of the prior identity theft notice XXXX the continued improper inclusion of those accounts. 
Failing XXXX note previous disputes/investigations. XXXX referenced that he had disputed the same accounts before ( in XXXX ), XXXX Experians reinvestigation obligations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX had not been met, as the results remained incorrect. He emphasized that Experian must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item, contact the Furnishers with all relevant information, XXXX delete or correct any information that can not be verified as accurate. 
Possibly ignoring supporting documentation. Plaintiff attached and/or referenced supporting documents in the CFPB complaint ( such as correspondence, prior dispute results, the identity theft police report, billing statements showing discrepancies, etc. ), and insisted that Experian review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone. 
In this XX/XX/XXXX dispute, Plaintiff expressly requested that Experian : ( a ) delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; ( b ) remove or correct the past-due balance reporting on any charged-off accounts ( including XXXX and XXXX Card ) so that they are accurate or deleted if unverifiable ; and ( c ) provide Plaintiff with a copy of the updated report and an explanation of the investigation results. Plaintiff also indicated that if the accounts were verified as accurate, he wanted to be provided with the method of verification XXXX documentation that Experian relied upon, pursuant XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ). 
Experians XXXX XXXX XXXX Reinvestigate : Upon receiving Plaintiffs dispute, Experian was legally required XXXX conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of the disputed items. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ), a consumer reporting agency must reinvestigate disputed information on a consumers report within XXXX  days of receiving notice of the dispute ( with a possible XXXX extension if the consumer provides additional relevant information during the XXXX period ). By law, Experian was required XXXX XXXX notify the Furnishers of the dispute, provide them all relevant information about the dispute, review XXXX consider all information provided by XXXX, XXXX  then delete or modify any information that is found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the reinvestigation resulted in no change, Experian was obligated XXXX send XXXX a notice of the results XXXX, upon request, a description of the procedure used XXXX determine the accuracy XXXX completeness of the information ( the method of verification ) per XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) XXXX ( XXXX ). These FCRA provisions impose a grave responsibility on Experian XXXX  do more than simply take a creditors word if the information could be inaccurate caselaw.findlaw.com. 
Experians Failure XXXX  Timely Respond ( No Response in XXXX Days ) : Experian did not provide any response or results of investigation within the XXXX period following Plaintiffs XX/XX/XXXX dispute. By law, the reinvestigation should have been completed by approximately XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days after the dispute was communicated to Experian ), or by XX/XX/XXXX if a XXXX extension applied due XXXX additional information provided by XXXX. Those dates passed with no communication from Experian. Plaintiff received no update in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the status or outcome of his dispute. This silence itself was a violation of FCRA XXXX. XXXX failure to reinvestigate and respond within the statutory timeframe is a clear violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), which mandates prompt handling of consumer disputes. Indeed, XXXX conduct forced XXXX to take further action, as described below. 
XX/XX/XXXX Delayed Experian Response : On XX/XX/XXXX roughly XXXX days after XXXX dispute Experian provided a belated response through the CFPB XXXX, which Experian characterized as the results of its investigation. In this response ( which XXXX received on that date ), Experian claimed XXXX have verified the disputed accounts as accurate and made no meaningful changes XXXX the report. Experian did not delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; it did not remove the past-due balance fields on the charge-off accounts ; and it did not otherwise correct the misinformation. Essentially, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response indicated that the data was verified as accurate by the source. The response was cursory and failed to specifically address the evidence XXXX had provided. Furthermore, Experian did not provide any of the underlying documents or details of the verification process. It did not, for example, supply Plaintiff with copies of any verification forms or correspondence from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. Nor did it explain how a charge-off with a past-due balance could be deemed accurate under industry standards. 
No Method of Verification Provided : Plaintiff, upon receiving Experians XX/XX/XXXX response, noticed that Experian did not include a method of verification letter or description. On XX/XX/XXXX ( the same day the response was received ), XXXX requested via follow-up communication that Experian provide a detailed description of the procedures used XXXX verify the disputed information, as is his right under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). Experian failed to comply with this request. Experian did not send any further explanation of how it conducted its reinvestigation. It provided no information about who at the XXXX was contacted, what information was given XXXX the Furnishers, or what the XXXX replied with. This lack of transparency violated XXXX obligation to provide the method of verification upon request, an important consumer right designed to allow individuals to assess whether the credit bureaus investigation was reasonable. By withholding this information, Experian hindered Plaintiffs ability XXXX further challenge or correct the errors, effectively stonewalling his dispute. 
Experians XXXX on Automated Procedures : From the substance of Experians XX/XX/XXXX investigation results, it is evident that Experian relied solely on automated processes ( e.g., e-OSCAR ) and the XXXX electronic responses in handling Plaintiffs dispute. XXXX response to the CFPB complaint was generic and gave no indication of any human review of Plaintiffs documentation. Upon information and belief, Experian simply sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) form through the e-OSCAR system to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and then blindly accepted their responses that the accounts were verified as reported. Experian did not exercise any independent judgment or scrutiny, even though the face of the data contained glaring inconsistencies ( such as a charge-off with an ongoing balance ). In essence, Experians investigation was no investigation at all it was an automated forwarding of information and regurgitation of whatever the Furnishers responded with. 
Failure to XXXX a Reasonable Reinvestigation : XXXX handling of the dispute fell far short of a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA XXXX ( a ). A reasonable investigation would have entailed, at minimum : recognizing the obvious red flags in the data, seeking clarifications from XXXX about the charge-off status vs. balance discrepancy, and independently verifying the identity theft claims ( for example, by reviewing the police report, comparing signatures, or examining account application records for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Experian did none of this. It merely confirmed the information with the source and took no further steps, which courts have held XXXX be inadequate. In XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX held that simply sending a form XXXX the creditor XXXX doing nothing more is insufficient a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers in a reinvestigation caselaw.findlaw.com. Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX held that a reinvestigation that merely parrots the creditors position can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute. 
caselaw.findlaw.com Experians conduct here mirrors the discredited practices in those cases. It shifted the burden back XXXX  XXXX XXXX the Furnishers, rather than actually resolving the dispute, thus violating the core purpose of XXXX. 
CFPB XXXX of XXXX XXXX Practices : XXXX pattern of handling disputes in this automated, perfunctory manner is not only a violation of the FCRA as interpreted by the courts, but it has also drawn regulatory scrutiny. On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB filed a public enforcement action against Experian, alleging that Experian does not take sufficient steps XXXX... investigate ... consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports. 
consumerfinance.gov The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stated that Experian was conducting sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law. 
consumerfinance.gov The experiences of the XXXX in this case exemplify the very misconduct that the CFPB identified. XXXX failure XXXX genuinely investigate Plaintiffs dispute especially in the context of identity theft XXXX  blatant reporting errors aligns with the XXXX allegations that XXXX systems prioritize speed and automation over accuracy and fairness. This regulatory action underscores that XXXX violations in Plaintiffs case are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of willful non-compliance. 
Continued Reporting of Disputed Accounts : As of the filing of this Complaint, Experian continues XXXX report the disputed accounts on Plaintiffs credit file without the corrections requested. The XXXX XXXX accounts remain, still marked as charge-offs with balances ; the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show past-due amounts despite charge-off status. Each monthly cycle that passes, these accounts potentially update in XXXX system as continuing derogatory marks, further prolonging the damage XXXX Plaintiffs creditworthiness. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and effort trying to resolve these issues ( including writing complaints, gathering evidence, XXXX  researching his rights ), all due XXXX XXXX failure XXXX  meet its statutory obligations. 
Experians Violations Were Willful or, Alternatively, Negligent : XXXX conduct described above was willful. Experian is fully aware of its duties under the FCRA it has been subject XXXX  prior lawsuits XXXX regulatory actions for similar conduct, and it literally co-owns the e-OSCAR system used for disputes. Experian knew or had reason XXXX  know that the information it was reporting about XXXX was inaccurate ( the inconsistencies were facially obvious ), yet it willfully chose XXXX ignore the red flags. Experian also willfully decided XXXX use an automated dispute verification system without employing any manual review for Plaintiffs dispute, despite the complexity ( involving identity theft XXXX  multiple accounts ). In the alternative, if Experian claims it did not act intentionally, then at minimum its actions were negligent. Any reasonable company in XXXX position, acting with due care, would have conducted a proper investigation XXXX corrected the errors. XXXX failure XXXX do so, whether by conscious design or gross indifference, directly caused harm XXXX  XXXX. 
Summary of XXXX XXXX XXXX : As a direct result of Experians actions XXXX  omissions, XXXX has suffered injury including damage XXXX his credit reputation, denial of credit opportunities, higher interest rates on credit offersXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) from the ongoing inability XXXX correct his credit report. Plaintiff has been forced XXXX engage in a protracted struggle XXXX  have basic errors corrected, undermining his confidence in the fairness of the credit reporting system. These harms are precisely what the FCRA was designed XXXX prevent. Experians repeated failure XXXX comply with the FCRAs mandates is particularly egregious given the multiple opportunities it had XXXX correct course ( in XXXX XXXX again in XXXX ). Plaintiff now brings this Complaint seeking relief XXXX finally rectify the situation XXXX hold Experian accountable under the law.

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