Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports -- Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem -- Complaint #12959305

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 12959305

Company: Transunion Intermediate Holdings, INC.

Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

Sub-Product: Credit reporting

Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem

Sub-Issue: Was not notified of investigation status or results

State: Oregon

ZIP Code: 970XX

Date Received: 2025-04-12T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2025-04-12T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with non-monetary relief

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and TransUnion LLC, Defendants. Case No. _______ Complaint for Violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC Act Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction : This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims arise under federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ( via 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( d ) ). The Court also has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1681p, which provides for federal court jurisdiction over FCRA claims. 2. Supplemental/Additional Jurisdiction : To the extent any state law claims or regulatory violations are asserted or applicable ( including unfair/deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and parallel state laws ), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. ( Note : The primary causes of action are federal ; no diversity jurisdiction is required or asserted. ) 3. Venue : Venue is proper in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because the Plaintiff resides in Oregon, the harm to Plaintiffs credit and reputation occurred in Oregon, and Defendants conduct substantial business in Oregon. Defendants regularly sell products/reports and maintain data on Oregon consumers ( including Plaintiff ), and many of the acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District. Parties 4. Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ) is a natural person and consumer residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OR XXXX046. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ) ) and FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) ). Plaintiff has no significant personal debts or credit obligations currently in her name, as evidenced by public records ( see infra 15 ). 5. Defendant XXXX : Defendant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a corporation and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). XXXX is headquartered in XXXX XXXX, California ( incorporated in Ohio ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX for consumer disputes. XXXX regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties ( creditors, employers, etc. ) in Oregon. 6. Defendant TransUnion : Defendant TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a limited liability company and a nationwide consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). TransUnion is headquartered in XXXX, Illinois ( organized under Delaware law ) and maintains a mailing address at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX for consumer disputes. TransUnion regularly conducts business in Oregon, maintaining credit files on Oregon residents and furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties in Oregon. 7. Agency Liability : At all relevant times, Defendants acted individually and through their agents, employees, and representatives, each of whom was acting within the scope of their employment and authority. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of such agents as described herein. Factual Background 8. Overview : This case arises from Defendants willful and reckless failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws in connection with inaccurate and unlawful information on Plaintiffs credit reports. In summary, XXXX and TransUnion have been reporting multiple erroneous accounts and a bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file that do not belong to her or are otherwise unverifiable. Despite repeated notices and disputes from Plaintiff including an official identity theft report and detailed dispute letters Defendants failed to reasonably reinvestigate the disputed information, refused to remove the unlawful entries, and continued reporting them, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants conduct violates the FCRAs requirements for accuracy and reinvestigation, the FDCPAs prohibitions on false debt information ( to the extent applicable ), and constitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the FTC Act and CFPB regulations. 9. Disputed Credit Accounts and Bankruptcy : In early 2025, Plaintiff discovered that her XXXX and TransUnion credit reports contained several inaccurate derogatory entries, including five account tradelines and a purported bankruptcy that she did not authorize. These disputed items, which remain on her reports as of the date of filing this Complaint, are : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Charge-Off ( Opened XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A purported credit account with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX reported as a charge-off. No account number is listed on the credit report for this debt, and the account is unverified and inaccurately reported. This account had been subject to prior legal proceedings ( including a bankruptcy matter ), yet it is still being reported as an outstanding charge-off, which is misleading. XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-Off ( Opened ~XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : Another purported XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account XXXX also listed as a charge-off with no account number on the report. Like the above, this account is unverified, appears to have been included in past bankruptcy litigation, and is being illegally re-aged or misreported as a valid debt despite the absence of supporting information. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Account ( # XXXX ) : A mortgage tradeline from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an open date that is not verified. The reporting on this account contains fraudulent and deceptive inaccuracies for example, the accounts status and date of first delinquency are unconfirmed, and the information reported is inconsistent across XXXX and TransUnion. The furnisher XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided no documentation ( such as an original promissory note or payment history ) to substantiate this debt, calling into question its validity. XXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened XXXX XXXX ) : An auto finance account reported by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX misclassified on the credit reports as an auto lease when in fact it was a standard retail installment loan. This account is inaccurate and unverifiable ; the furnishing source has failed to verify its legitimacy. The misclassification and lack of verification render the reporting false and misleading. XXXX XXXX XXXX Services Account ( Opened ~XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) : A second auto finance account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX similarly falsely reported as an auto lease instead of a loan. This tradeline is also inaccurate and unverified under FCRA guidelines, lacking proper documentation or proof that it belongs to Plaintiff or was reported correctly. XXXX XXXX Bankruptcy Entry ( no case number ) : A derogatory public record entry indicating a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit file. Plaintiff never filed for XXXX XXXX bankruptcy at any time. There is no court case number or documentation provided with this entry. In fact, the federal PACER system ( Public Access to Court Electronic Records ) does not furnish bankruptcy data to credit bureaus ; therefore, the presence of this entry on Plaintiffs credit report is wholly unsupported and unlawful. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity or misattribution, yet Defendants have continued to report it without any proof of its authenticity. 10. No Supporting Documentation : For each of the above-listed disputed accounts and the bankruptcy, Defendants have no legitimate proof or documentation demonstrating that the information is accurate or that the accounts actually belong to Plaintiff. Plaintiff owes no such debts. Notably, as of XX/XX/XXXX, a search of the Oregon Secretary of States UCC ( Uniform Commercial Code ) filings under Plaintiffs name yielded No file entries, indicating that Plaintiff has no recorded liens or personal debt obligations in the public record. This public record confirmation underscores that the accounts appearing on her credit reports are not valid debts of hers. Defendants have been reporting these items without any underlying contractual documents, account statements, judgments, or court records tying them to Plaintiff. 11. Initial Disputes to Defendants : In or about early XXXX, Plaintiff initiated disputes with XXXX and TransUnion to correct these egregious errors. Plaintiff prepared and sent a detailed dispute letter dated on or around XX/XX/XXXX, to both XXXX and TransUnion ( as well as to XXXX ) identifying each incorrect account and the bogus bankruptcy, and demanding their immediate deletion. In her dispute correspondence, Plaintiff cited the relevant provisions of federal law and highlighted the legal deficiencies of each reported item. For example, Plaintiffs letter ( a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A ) explicitly noted that : ( a ) the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX charge-offs were reported without the required creditor notice and appeared to involve misreported bankruptcy status ; ( b ) the accounts lacked a proper first date of delinquency, raising concerns of illegal re-aging ; ( c ) the XXXX accounts were mischaracterized in type ; and ( d ) the XXXX XXXX bankruptcy was not hers and could not be verified through any official source. Plaintiffs dispute letter put Defendants on clear notice that the information was inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally impermissible to report. Along with her dispute letter, Plaintiff provided supporting evidence, including an FTC Identity Theft Report ( Report # XXXX ) and proof of her identity and address, to facilitate the investigation. This Identity Theft Report, filed with the Federal Trade Commission, formally declared that fraudulent or erroneous accounts were being reported in Plaintiffs name. 12. Defendants Failure to Reinvestigate ( FCRA 611 ) : Despite receiving Plaintiffs comprehensive dispute and evidence, XXXX and TransUnion failed to perform a meaningful reinvestigation as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ). Instead of removing the plainly invalid accounts, Defendants continued reporting them with no changes. Upon information and belief, Defendants either ignored some of Plaintiffs dispute submissions or failed to forward all relevant information to the furnishers of the accounts, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). Notably, in subsequent communications, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with any new information or documentation to substantiate the disputed items legitimacy. In fact, XXXX and TransUnion failed to even maintain the documents Plaintiff provided : at least one of the Defendants admitted to having lost Plaintiffs FTC Identity Theft Report that she had submitted, which made a proper reinvestigation impossible. By effectively conducting sham investigations or no real investigation at all, Defendants violated their reinvestigation duties under the FCRA. 13. Failure to Mark or Notify ( FCRA & FDCPA Duties ) : In addition, Defendants did not properly mark the disputed accounts as disputed on Plaintiffs credit file during the investigation period, nor did they notify the furnishers of the disputes in a timely and effective manner. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) requires that when a consumer disputes information, the credit reporting agency must note that dispute in all subsequent consumer reports for that item until it is resolved. On information and belief, XXXX and TransUnion did not include a notice of dispute on at least some of the accounts when sharing Plaintiffs credit report with third parties, thereby misrepresenting the status of the debts. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants acted as agents of the furnishers or worked in concert with them, their continued reporting of these disputed debts without clarification or verification also constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), it is a deceptive practice for a debt collector to communicate credit information which is known ( or should be known ) to be false or disputed. By extension, Defendants actions in publishing disputed, false debts to others without indicating the disputes or ensuring accuracy are unfair and deceptive acts in connection with debt collection and credit reporting. 14. Willful Reporting of False Bankruptcy : The inclusion of the non-existent XXXX bankruptcy on Plaintiffs credit reports is especially damaging and unlawful. Plaintiff has never filed for bankruptcy, and Defendants were so informed. This bankruptcy entry lacks any courthouse, case number, or filing date, yet Defendants treated it as a legitimate public record. Because PACER and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts do not directly furnish data to consumer reporting agencies, Defendants have no permissible source to verify this entry. The presence of this false bankruptcy indicates a grave failure in Defendants procedureseither a case of mixed credit files ( attributing someone elses bankruptcy to Plaintiff ) or reliance on inaccurate third-party public record data. Either scenario reflects a willful failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy as required by FCRA 607 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). Even after Plaintiffs disputes, XXXX and TransUnion did not remove the bankruptcy, demonstrating reckless disregard for truth. Reporting a derogatory public record without a permissible purpose or proper verification is a direct violation of FCRA 604 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681b ) as well, because Defendants had no authorization or legitimate reason to be reporting a bankruptcy that was never filed by the consumer. 15. CFPB Complaint and Failure to Timely Resolve : Having received inadequate responses from XXXX and TransUnion directly, Plaintiff escalated her grievances. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) against XXXX and TransUnion regarding these unresolved disputes ( CFPB Complaint NoXXXX ). The CFPB forwarded the complaint to the Defendants. In her CFPB complaint, Plaintiff reiterated the unlawful reporting and attached her prior dispute letter and evidence ( including the FTC Identity Theft Report # XXXX, her dispute letter, and the XXXX UCC search results ) as supporting documentation. The CFPB complaint put XXXX and TransUnion on notice that federal regulators were now involved and that the companies were expected to comply with their legal obligations promptly. However, Defendants again failed to take corrective action within the required time frame. By a status update on XX/XX/XXXX, each Defendant provided only an interim response to the CFPB, indicating that they were still working on the issue. As of the date of this Complaint ( and well over 30 days since Plaintiffs disputes were initiated ), Defendants have not deleted the disputed accounts or the false bankruptcy from Plaintiffs credit files. The 30-day deadline for completing a reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) has passed with no resolution. Defendants failure to fully respond and correct the information within 30 days ( or even 45 days, if applicable ) constitutes another FCRA violation. Their pattern of delay and non-response demonstrates willful non-compliance and has prolonged Plaintiffs injuries. 16. Harm to Plaintiff : Defendants conduct has caused significant harm to Plaintiff. The continued presence of these false and derogatory items on her credit reports has severely damaged Plaintiffs credit score and reputation, leading to credit denials and other adverse actions. Plaintiff has been denied credit opportunities and has suffered anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress from the ordeal of having her good name tarnished by incorrect information. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended time and resources in her efforts to correct these issues including drafting dispute letters, filing the CFPB complaint, conducting public record research, and now preparing this lawsuit all of which are a direct result of Defendants unlawful practices. Defendants willful refusal to comply with the law ( despite multiple notices ) demonstrates a blatant disregard for Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff therefore seeks statutory damages, actual damages ( for credit harm and emotional distress ), and punitive damages to punish and deter such conduct, as well as injunctive relief to prevent further recurrences. Causes of Action By reason of the facts aforesaid, Defendants XXXX and TransUnion have willfully ( and negligently in the alternative ) violated multiple provisions of law. Each of the following constitutes a separate count against one or both Defendants : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) failure to conduct a proper investigation after receiving notice of dispute ( Defendants failed to ensure that furnishers investigated and corrected the disputed information, resulting in continued reporting of inaccurate data ). FCRA 605 ( a ) ( 1 ) improper reporting of a XXXX bankruptcy ( Defendants reported a bankruptcy that was not filed by Plaintiff, which is obsolete or impermissible information under the FCRAs public record reporting standards ). FCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate / sham investigation of disputed information ( Defendants did not meaningfully reinvestigate Plaintiffs disputes within 30 days, failed to review all relevant information, and simply left the false information on the reports ). FCRA 604 ( a ) obtaining or using consumer information without a permissible purpose ( Defendants are reporting and disseminating Plaintiffs credit information including a false bankruptcy and fraudulent accounts to third parties without a legitimate purpose, since the information itself is unauthorized and does not actually pertain to any credit transaction of Plaintiff ). FDCPA Violations violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., to the extent applicable. Defendants conduct in reporting and attempting to collect ( through credit reporting mechanisms ) debts not owed by Plaintiff, and failing to note disputes, is unfair and deceptive. This includes, but is not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false or misleading representation of debts and credit information ) and 1692f ( unfair practices ). ( While XXXX and TransUnion are credit bureaus, their actions facilitated collection of invalid debts in a manner that violates the FDCPAs consumer protections. ) Unfair and Deceptive Practices ( FTC Act ) engaging in unfair or deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and equivalent CFPB regulations. Defendants willful misreporting of information and failure to correct known errors constitute unfair and deceptive practices affecting commerce. Federal regulators ( FTC/CFPB ) prohibit consumer reporting agencies from such conduct, and Defendants actions were in knowing disregard of these standards. Each of the above violations was committed willfully ( or at least negligently ), entitling Plaintiff to relief under FCRA 616 and 617 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o ), FDCPA 813 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ), and other applicable provisions. Demand for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXXX XXXX respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and grant the following relief against Defendants XXXX Information Solutions , Inc. and TransUnion LLC : 1. Injunctive Relief : An order immediately deleting all the disputed accounts and the false XXXX bankruptcy from Plaintiffs XXXX and TransUnion credit files, and permanently prohibiting Defendants from reporting those accounts or any related information on Plaintiffs credit report without first obtaining competent verification that the information is accurate and truly pertains to Plaintiff. This includes, but is not limited to, deletion of the following entries : the two XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX charge-off accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mortgage account ( # XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts ( opened in XXXX and XXXX ), and the bogus XXXX bankruptcy record. XXXX. Statutory Damages : Award statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation for Defendants numerous willful violations of the FCRA and ( where applicable ) the FDCPA. Given the multiple unlawful accounts and acts involved, Plaintiff seeks an amount not less than {$6000.00} ( for the six disputed items/violations enumerated above ) per Defendant, or such greater amount as the evidence may show, as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ). 3. Actual Damages : Award actual damages according to proof at trial, for the financial harm and emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered. This includes, inter alia, credit denials, increased costs of credit, lost opportunities, damage to reputation, and the stress, anxiety, and humiliation endured as a result of Defendants conduct. ( Actual damages are available under 15 U.S.C. 1681o and 1681n, and under 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) ). 4. Punitive Damages : Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, to punish Defendants for their willful, egregious misconduct and to deter such conduct in the future ( pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ) ( 2 ) ). Defendants have shown reckless or knowing disregard for the law and for Plaintiffs rights, warranting an exemplary damages award. 5. Attorneys Fees and Costs : Award Plaintiff her reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including court fees and ( if Plaintiff retains counsel ) attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n, 1681o, and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( a ) ( 3 ). ( Plaintiff is currently self-represented ; however, she reserves the right to seek attorneys fees if she later retains counsel for this action or as otherwise allowable. ) 6. Further Relief : Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including any declaratory relief or additional measures that may be needed to ensure Defendants compliance with the law and to fully vindicate Plaintiffs rights. This may include Court monitoring of Defendants credit reporting relating to Plaintiff and any other equitable relief within the Courts power.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer

This analysis is AI-generated based on publicly available CFPB complaint data. It does not constitute financial or legal advice.

Related Pages

• Transunion Intermediate Holdings, INC. Company Profile
• Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports Complaints
• Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem Complaints
• Oregon Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints