Consumer complaint received 2025-08-15 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: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Company Complained About : Experian Information Solutions , Inc. ( Experian ) Summary of the Problem On XX/XX/XXXX, Experian received my written disputes challenging multiple negative items on my credit file. By XX/XX/XXXX, just two ( 2 ) days later, Experian claimed it had completed its investigation and verified the accounts without meaningful inquiry or documentation. This cursory, rubber-stamp response violated the Fair Credit Reporting Acts ( FCRA ) requirement that Experian conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, and it caused ongoing harm to my credit, finances, and reputation. See 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) and 1681e ( b ).

Background & Timeline - XX/XX/XXXX : Experian received my dispute package ( sent certified mail ) identifying each inaccurate/unsupported tradeline and enclosing supporting evidence. 
- XX/XX/XXXX : Experian reported the investigation completed, leaving the negative items unchanged and providing no meaningful explanation or documentation of any steps taken beyond a superficial automated verification. 

This two-day turnaround, without addressing my documentation point-by-point, indicates Experian did not perform the reasonable reinvestigation the FCRA mandates. 
Disputed Items XXXX  XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) Reported as over 150 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes. 

XXXX XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) Reported as over 150 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes. 

XXXX XXXX ( Acct ending in XXXX ) Reported as over 150 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes. 

XXXX XXXX ( Acct ending in XXXX ) Reported as over 90 days delinquent, Collection and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes.

THD/CBNA ( Acct ending in 8418 ) Reported as over 120 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes. 

XXXX  XXXX ( Acct XXXX, XXXX ) This account show XXXX late statuses even though marked as paid and closed. This violates 15 USC 1681e ( b ) which requires credit bureaus to maintain maximum accuracy. No creditor has submitted supporting documentation to validate these delinquencies. 

XXXX  XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) These accounts show XXXX late statuses even though marked as paid and closed. This violates 15 USC 1681e ( b ) which requires credit bureaus to maintain maximum accuracy. No creditor has submitted supporting documentation to validate these delinquencies. 

XXXX  XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) These accounts show XX/XX/XXXX day late statuses even though marked as paid and closed. This violates 15 USC 1681e ( b ) which requires credit bureaus to maintain maximum accuracy. No creditor has submitted supporting documentation to validate these delinquencies. 

XXXX  XXXX ( Acct XXXX ) Reported as over 90 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct XXXX ) Reported as over 90 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes. 

XXXX CARD ( Acct XXXX ) Reported as over 90 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes. 

XXXX CARD ( Acct XXXX ) Reported as over 180 days delinquent and then charged off. This debt was never validated as required under the FDCPA and 15 USC 1692g. No proof of a valid debt or a 1099-C form has ever been provided, which is mandatory if the debt was written off and claimed for tax purposes.

Applicable Law 1. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Upon receiving a consumer dispute, a consumer reporting agency shall conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status or delete the item within the statutory period.

2. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report.

3. 15 U.S.C. 1681b A consumer report may be furnished only for specific permissible purposes ( e.g., credit, employment with consent, insurance, etc. ), or with the consumers written inst
ructions. If Experian furnished my report outside these purposes, that would be an additional violation.

Supportive Case Law Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3d Cir. 1997 ) A CRA must do more than parrot the furnishers response ; it has an independent duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consum
er disputes accuracy.

Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 357 F.3d 426 ( 4th Cir. 2004 ) Reinforces that a reasonable investigation requires more than cursory confirmation ; entities must actually evaluate and consider the consumers evidence.

Cortez v. Trans Union , LLC, 617 F.3d 688 ( 3d Cir. 2010 ) Confirms FCRA liability for failures tied to accuracy and highlights that emotional and reputational harms are cognizable when CRAs fail to meet statutory duties. 

Recent Enforcement Context Involving Experian On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB filed suit against Experian alleging sham investigations of consumer disputes and improper handling and reinsertion of inaccurate informationallegations strikingly similar to my experience. The court dismissed without prejudice on XX/XX/XXXX, allowing the CFPB to amend ; the allegations remain informative of systemic issues the Bureau identified. 

Harm Because Experian failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and continued reporting disputed, inaccurate/unsupported items : - I have suffered credit denials/Adverse Action Notices, elevated interest costs, and reputational injury ; - I have lost time and incurred expenses repeatedly disputing items that Experian could not or did not verify with competent evidence ; - The presence of these negatives affects essential needs ( housing, transportation, employment opportunities ).

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