Declaration of Kristen O'Donnell Todd — Clifford v. LexisNexis Risk Data Management (Document 49-1)

Date: 2022-08-26

Cite this document

“Declaration of Kristen O'Donnell Todd — Clifford v. LexisNexis Risk Data Management (Document 49-1).” Original at www.courtlistener.com, dated 2022-08-26. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2022-08-26-plaintiff-v-lexisnexis-risk-data-management-llc/, SHA-256 acb6b856b7337516cef18b9730ab5107a2f9c7def8fb844783569eb069ad74af.

Full text

Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 145

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 145

1 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
2
Robert M. Charles, Jr. (State Bar No. 7359)
Direct Dial: 520.629.4427
3 Email: rcharles@lewisroca.com

Allison Whitehill (State Bar No. 036339)
4 Direct Dial: 602.262.0850
Email: awhitehill@lewisroca.com

5 James F. McCabe (pro hac vice)
Alston & Bird LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
6 San Francisco CA 94105
Direct Dial: 415.243.1047
Email: Jim.McCabe@alston.com
7
Attorneys for Defendant
LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC
8

9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
11

12
Case No. 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH
13 Wayne Clifford,
14 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KRISTEN
O’DONNELL TODD IN SUPPORT OF
15 vs. DEFENDANT LEXIS NEXIS RISK
DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
16 LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC, JUDGMENT
17
Defendant.
18

19
20

25
26

1
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 145

1 I, Kristen O’Donnell Todd, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an employee of LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC (“LexisNexis
3 Risk DM”). I serve as Manager of Client Services. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age
4 and am competent to give the testimony in this Declaration. I have personal knowledge of
5 the facts set forth herein, and state that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
6 I have worked for LexisNexis Risk DM or one of its corporate predecessors for about ten
7 years. I am familiar with LexisNexis Risk DM’s business operations, the contents of its
8 databases, and its business records. My current job responsibilities include familiarizing
9 myself with LexisNexis Risk DM’s customers’ contractual data requirements and
10 establishing and maintaining delivery of data to customers consistent with LexisNexis Risk
11 DM’s obligations.
12 2. LexisNexis Risk DM is engaged in the business of collecting data about certain
13 public records from more than 10,000 government sources across the United States,
14 formatting such data as is requested by customers, and delivering such data to those
15 customers for fees. LexisNexis Risk DM collects certain data on civil judgments in state and
16 federal court, certain civil suits, federal and state tax liens, and bankruptcy cases.
17 LexisNexis Risk DM’s customers are all businesses in the data industry.
18 3. LexisNexis Risk DM’s activities are conducted from facilities in Oklahoma
19 City, Oklahoma. The corporate form in which this business unit has been housed has
20 changed several times over the decade I have been employed in the business. When I began
21 my employment with what is now LexisNexis Risk DM, the corporate name was LexisNexis
22 Risk Data Retrieval Services, LLC. More recently, it was known as LexisNexis Risk Data
23 Management Inc., but was renamed at the beginning of this year to LexisNexis Risk Data
24 Management, LLC. While the name of the corporation and some methods of data collection
25 have changed over the last ten years, the basic business activities now remain the same as
26 when I began employment.
27 4. LexisNexis Risk DM does not offer services to consumers. LexisNexis Risk
28 DM does not have transactions or experiences with consumers. It does not collect from

2
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 4 of 145

1 individuals any data that they might furnish about themselves. It does not report to consumer
2 reporting agencies any information about its interactions with consumers.
3 5. LexisNexis Risk DM does not maintain files about consumers. LexisNexis
4 Risk DM collects and maintains data about public records. LexisNexis Risk DM makes
5 efforts to identity different public records that relate to the same “case” or event (e.g., lien
6 filing). For example, LexisNexis Risk collects both civil judgments and satisfactions of civil
7 judgments from Cook County, Illinois. When LexisNexis Risk DM collects satisfactions, it
8 compares the case number, satisfaction amount and identifying information for the debtor on
9 the satisfaction with records of civil judgments previously collected in Cook County to
10 determine if LexisNexis Risk DM can confidently mark the two records as related to the
11 same case. LexisNexis Risk DM does not attempt to identify to which specific individual
12 any public record relates, as it lacks the means to do so. Taking the Cook County example,
13 if the judgment debtor was James Smith, LexisNexis Risk DM does no analysis and reaches
14 no conclusion about to which James Smith (out of the hundreds living in or outside Cook
15 County) the judgment or the satisfaction relates, or about whether the James Smith who was
16 the debtor on the Cook County judgment was also involved in any other suits, liens or
17 judgments that might be reflected in LexisNexis Risk DM’s database.
18 6. Because LexisNexis Risk DM reaches no conclusions about to which specific
19 individual any public record relates, LexisNexis Risk DM makes no representations to its
20 customers about to which specific individuals reported public record data relates.
21 7. LexisNexis Risk DM does not provide reports about specific consumers to its
22 customers that are expected or intended to serve as factor in determining such specific
23 consumers’ eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or for any other benefit that would
24 qualify LexisNexis Risk DM’s communication as a “consumer report” under the Fair Credit
25 Reporting Act.
26 8. On May 1, 2018, LexisNexis Risk DM and Equifax Information Services, Inc.
27 (“Equifax”) entered into a Consumer Bankruptcy Public Record Acquisition Agreement (the
28 “Records Agreement”) under which LexisNexis Risk DM became Equifax’s public records

3
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 5 of 145

1 vendor with respect to bankruptcy records. A copy of the Records Agreement, from which
2 immaterial portions have been redacted, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Equifax has had a
3 records acquisition agreement of one type or another with LexisNexis Risk DM or its
4 corporate predecessors since at least the 1990’s.
5 9. Under the Records Agreement, LexisNexis Risk DM provides bulk data about
6 new bankruptcy filings and certain developments in bankruptcy cases, and responds to
7 requests from Equifax to re-collect docket information for specific cases (“Single Public
8 Record Collections” or “SPRCs”) (Exh. A ¶ 1.2, Exh. A thereto, ¶ 24).
9 10. In collecting bankruptcy case information for Equifax under the Records
10 Agreement, LexisNexis Risk DM is required to collect the data from PACER, and to report
11 such information as it “appears from [PACER] without material embellishment or
12 modification.” (Exh. A, Exh. A thereto, ¶¶ 21-22).
13 11. Information transmitted from LexisNexis Risk DM to Equifax is referred to in
14 the Records Agreement as “Licensed Data.” (Exh. A, Exh. A thereto, ¶ 18). Under the
15 Records Agreement, “Equifax shall be solely responsible for the incorporation, selection,
16 linking and/or matching of Licensed Data to specific consumers and distribution of Licensed
17 Data from any Equifax repository.” (Exh. A ¶ 2.8). For both bulk deliveries and responses to
18 Single Public Records Collections requests, the Agreement further provides that
19 “[LexisNexis Risk DM] provides Licensed Data without any attempt to associate any
20 information within Licensed Data to a specific individual. Equifax is solely responsible for
21 association of Licensed Data in its possession to individuals in Equifax’s databases . . .”
22 (Exh. A ¶ 6.4.2). The Agreement also states “[LexisNexis Data] has no control over how
23 Equifax interprets or applies Licensed Data as provided, or any decisions made by Equifax
24 based on said Licensed Data.” (Exh. A ¶ 6.4.3.)
25 12. On March 7, 2019, as a part of its bulk collections activity, LexisNexis Risk
26 DM collected data about case number 19-bk-02360 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District
27 of Arizona and transmitted data about that case to its bankruptcy data customers, including
28 Equifax. The data transmitted to Equifax for case number 19-bk-02360 on that date is

4
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 6 of 145

1 reflected in the document attached hereto as Exhibit B. The data transmitted to Equifax
2 included the case number, filing jurisdiction, and the name, address and truncated social
3 security number found on the PACER docket (9827). As is true of all of the public record
4 data that LexisNexis Risk DM transmits to its customers, LexisNexis Risk DM made no
5 representation to Equifax about to which specific individual the bankruptcy case might
6 relate. On or about March 19, 2019, LexisNexis Risk DM sent Equifax data reflecting the
7 fact that PACER showed the case to have been dismissed on March 18, 2019. This data is
8 also reflected in Exhibit B.
9 13. LexisNexis Risk DM did not participate in Equifax’s decision about whether
10 they could match case number 19-bk-02360 to a unique individual and if so, to whom.
11 14. Equifax and LexisNexis Risk DM exchange SPRC requests and responses
12 electronically in a fixed length text file, in which data is laid out in a pre-agreed format. A
13 copy of the Equifax SPRC record layout in use in 2020 is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The
14 format specifies the sequential position at which each data element starts and ends. (E.g.,
15 positions 730 to 771 are reserved for the case number of the case about which Equifax is
16 inquiring). The layout format for Equifax SPRC requests and responses was established well
17 in advance of the inception of the 2018 Records Agreement.
18 15. Equifax’s SPRC requests to LexisNexis Risk DM under the Records
19 Agreement contain bankruptcy jurisdiction, case number, filing date and case status along
20 with certain available identifying information regarding the consumer with whom Equifax
21 has associated the bankruptcy case for which it seeks re-collection of information.
22 16. SPRC requests from Equifax to LexisNexis Risk DM do not include any
23 documents provided by the disputing consumer, but may include comments that Equifax as
24 associated with the dispute. However, the Records Agreement instructs LexisNexis Risk
25 DM to disregard customer comments in developing a response to the SPRC. (Exh. A, Exh.
26 A thereto, ¶ 24).
27 17. Upon receipt of a SPRC from Equifax relating to a bankruptcy case,
28 LexisNexis Risk DM uses proprietary software to access PACER for the jurisdiction and

5
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 7 of 145

1 case number specified by Equifax. LexisNexis Risk DM retrieves selected information from
2 the PACER docket for the specified case. Among the fields for which LexisNexis Risk DM
3 retrieves data from PACER for SPRCs on bankruptcy cases are first name, middle name, last
4 name, address and the contents of the social security field, which is limited on PACER to the
5 last four digits of the social security number included on the filed bankruptcy petition.
6 18. In responding to an Equifax SPRC, LexisNexis Risk DM returns a text file in
7 which the data sent by Equifax is first repeated, and in which the data retrieved by
8 LexisNexis Risk DM is populated into agreed positions in the remainder of the fixed length
9 text file.
10 19. In the layout for an Equifax SPRC, there are positions reserved for the first
11 name, middle name, last name, address components and social security number as supplied
12 by Equifax, and for the first name, middle name, last name, address components and social
13 security number retrieved by LexisNexis Risk DM from PACER.
14 20. LexisNexis Risk DM only populates the retrieved first name, middle name, last
15 name, address component or social security number fields in a SPRC response where the
16 data retrieved from PACER for that field differs from the data supplied by Equifax for the
17 same field. For example, if the SPRC request contained a last name of “Clifton,” and the
18 PACER docket also showed a debtor last name of “Clifton,” the last name field in the
19 response portion of the file would be left blank. If, however, the PACER docket for the case
20 showed a debtor last name of “Clifden”, LexisNexis Risk DM would populate the last name
21 field in the response portion of the file with “Clifden.”
22 21. The agreed layout for LexisNexis Risk DM’s SPRC responses to Equifax
23 includes fields for certain data elements in which LexisNexis Risk DM inserts a code to
24 indicate if data retrieved as part of the response was different from (“1” code) or the same as
25 (“2” code) the supplied data, or alternatively whether data in a particular field was either
26 absent from the supplied data or not found on or retrieved from PACER (“3” code). Among
27 the fields for which these “different/same /no comparison possible” codes are furnished is
28 social security number.

6
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 8 of 145

1 22. As can be seen from an examination of Exhibit C, the agreed layout for
2 LexisNexis Risk DM’s SPRC responses to Equifax does not contain any field in which
3 LexisNexis Risk DM can or is expected to indicate whether or not LexisNexis Risk DM
4 believes that Equifax has properly matched the public record to the consumer whose
5 personal information Equifax has supplied with the SPRC request.
6 23. LexisNexis Risk DM maintains files indicating on which cases it has received
7 and responded to SPRC requests from customers. I have used a software tool to search for
8 any SPRCs related to case number 19-bk-02360 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of
9 Arizona (the “Bankruptcy Case”), which I understand to be the bankruptcy case that Plaintiff
10 alleges Equifax incorrectly linked to his credit file. LexisNexis Risk DM has received one
11 SPRC with respect to the Bankruptcy Case, from Equifax, as described below.
12 24. On October 1, 2020 LexisNexis Risk DM received from Equifax a SPRC
13 related to the Bankruptcy Case. The tool I used to identify this record indicates whether
14 documents were submitted by the SPRC requester (generally by separate email) in
15 connection with the SPRC. On the rare occasions where documents are sent to LexisNexis
16 Risk DM in connection with a SPRC, copies of such documents are appended to the SPRC
17 record in our search tool. There are no documents appended to LexisNexis Risk DM’s
18 record of Equifax’s SPRC on the Bankruptcy Case.
19 25. On October 2, 2020, LexisNexis Risk DM responded to Equifax’s SPRC
20 request about the Bankruptcy Case. Such responses do not have field labels, as the
21 corresponding field is indicated by the position of data in the text. For ease of examination
22 of the response, I attach as Exhibit D the October 1 SPRC request and the October 2
23 response, presented in a spreadsheet that segments the text into columns corresponding to the
24 fields in the agreed layout for Equifax SPRCs. I attach as Exhibit E a screen print from a
25 software tool used internally at LexisNexis Risk DM to display in a user-friendly fashion
26 LexisNexis Risk DM’s business record of SPRC requests and responses. In Exhibit E, the
27 image on the top of the page displays the data received from Equifax in the SPRC. The
28

7
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 9 of 145

1 image on the bottom of the page displays the data returned by LexisNexis Risk DM to
2 Equifax in response to the SPRC.
3 26. The SPRC received from Equifax by LexisNexis Risk DM on October 1, 2020
4 showed a social security number ending in 7375 for the person with whom Equifax had
5 apparently matched the Bankruptcy Case. This data can be found on page 1 of Exhibit D in
6 the column marked SSN.
7 27. Having retrieved information from the PACER docket for the Bankruptcy
8 Case, LexisNexis Risk DM responded to Equifax’s SPRC by reporting to Equifax on
9 October 2, 2020 that the debtor first name, last name and address supplied by Equifax were
10 the same as the corresponding data found on PACER, but that the truncated social security
11 number found on PACER differed from the social security number Equifax had supplied in
12 its request. This data can be found on page 1 of Exhibit D in the column marked VSSN.
13 28. LexisNexis Risk DM’s response to Equifax signified the mismatch between the
14 supplied social security number and the social security number retrieved from PACER in
15 two ways: LexisNexis Risk DM populated the social security number field in the response
16 portion of agreed layout with 9827, the last four digits of the social security number retrieved
17 from PACER (see Exh. D, p. 1, column labeled VSSN), and inserted in the code field for the
18 social security number the number 1 (see Exh. D, p. 2, column labeled V_SSN), indicating
19 that the retrieved information for social security number differed from that Equifax had
20 supplied. While these “difference” indicators are found in the electronic file transmitted to
21 Equifax, the software tool display format does not include such codes.
22 29. LexisNexis Risk DM did not at any time provide Equifax with any
23 confirmation or representation that the Bankruptcy Case had actually been filed by or was
24 properly matched to Plaintiff.
25
26

8
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 10 of 145

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 and the laws of the United States of America, I further
2 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this24
__th day
3 of August, 2022, at Oklahoma
___________,
City Oklahoma.

5 __________________________
6 Kristen O’Donnell Todd
7

19
20

25
26

9
118633034.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42099191.v1-8/24/22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 11 of 145

Exhibit A
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 12 of 145

Lodged Under Seal
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 13 of 145

Exhibit B
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 14 of 145

Chapter 7 Fililng (7) - Sent 3/7/2019
CustCourt RecordType CaseKey DetailType ReverificationIndicator FirstDefLastFirstOrBusName FirstDefMiddleName
152VF00018 2Detail 1902380 1 N CLIFFORD WAYNE

FirstDefSuffix FirstDefFirstAKALastName FirstDefFirstAKAFirstName FirstDefFirstAKAMiddleName FirstDefSecondAKALastName

FirstDefSecondAKAFirstName FirstDefSecondAKAMiddleName FirstDefStreetNumber FirstDefStreetName FirstDefStreetType FirstDefCity
313 N 57TH PL MESA

FirstDefState FirstDefZip FirstDefPhone FirstDefSSN Occupation EmployerName EmployerCity EmployerState
AZ 85205 000009827

SecondDefLastFirstOrBusName SecondDefMiddleName SecondDefSuffix SecondDefFirstAKALastName SecondDefFirstAKAFirstName

SecondDefFirstAKAMiddleName SecondDefSecondAKALastName SecondDefSecondAKAFirstName SecondDefSecondAKAMiddleName

SecondDefStreetNumber SecondDefStreetName SecondDefStreetType SecondDefCity SecondDefState SecondDefZip SecondDefPhone SecondDefSSN

OrigDateFiled JudgesInitials BankruptcyType FilerAssocCode Intent Liabilities Assets ExemptAmount DispositionDate SpecialComments
190306 EPB I I V

Reserved1 ProSeIndicator Attorney AttorneyAddress1 AttorneyAddress2 AttorneyCity AttorneyState AttorneyZip
Y

AttorneyPhone TrusteeName TrusteeAddress1 TrusteeAddress2 TrusteeCity TrusteeState
DINA ANDERSON 21001 N TATUM BLVD #1630-608 PHOENIX AZ

TrusteeZip TrusteePhone TotalIncome TotalIncomePeriod TotalExpenses TotalExpensesPeriod 341MeetingDate 341MeetingTime MessageCode1
85050 4803048312 190408 1100A

MessageText1 MessageCode2 MessageText2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 15 of 145

341MeetingLocationAddress1 341MeetingLocationAddress2 341MeetingLocationCity 341MeetingLocationState 341MeetingLocationZip
US TRUSTEE MEETING ROOM 230 N FIRST

Reserved2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 16 of 145

Chapter 7 Dismissal (7R) - Sent 3/19/2019
CustCourt RecordType CaseKey DetailType ReverificationIndicator FirstDefLastFirstOrBusName FirstDefMiddleName
152VF00018 2Detail 1902380 3 N CLIFFORD WAYNE

FirstDefSuffix FirstDefFirstAKALastName FirstDefFirstAKAFirstName FirstDefFirstAKAMiddleName FirstDefSecondAKALastName

FirstDefSecondAKAFirstName FirstDefSecondAKAMiddleName FirstDefStreetNumber FirstDefStreetName FirstDefStreetType FirstDefCity
313 N 57TH PL MESA

FirstDefState FirstDefZip FirstDefPhone FirstDefSSN Occupation EmployerName EmployerCity EmployerState
AZ 85205 000009827

SecondDefLastFirstOrBusName SecondDefMiddleName SecondDefSuffix SecondDefFirstAKALastName SecondDefFirstAKAFirstName

SecondDefFirstAKAMiddleName SecondDefSecondAKALastName SecondDefSecondAKAFirstName SecondDefSecondAKAMiddleName

SecondDefStreetNumber SecondDefStreetName SecondDefStreetType SecondDefCity SecondDefState SecondDefZip SecondDefPhone SecondDefSSN

OrigDateFiled JudgesInitials BankruptcyType FilerAssocCode Intent Liabilities Assets ExemptAmount DispositionDate SpecialComments
190306 EPB I I M 190318

Reserved1 ProSeIndicator Attorney AttorneyAddress1 AttorneyAddress2 AttorneyCity AttorneyState AttorneyZip
Y

AttorneyPhone TrusteeName TrusteeAddress1 TrusteeAddress2 TrusteeCity TrusteeState
DINA ANDERSON 21001 N TATUM BLVD #1630-608 PHOENIX AZ

TrusteeZip TrusteePhone TotalIncome TotalIncomePeriod TotalExpenses TotalExpensesPeriod 341MeetingDate 341MeetingTime MessageCode1
85050 4803048312 190408 1100A

MessageText1 MessageCode2 MessageText2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 17 of 145

341MeetingLocationAddress1 341MeetingLocationAddress2 341MeetingLocationCity 341MeetingLocationState 341MeetingLocationZip
US TRUSTEE MEETING ROOM 230 N FIRST

Reserved2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 18 of 145

Exhibit C
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 19 of 145

Lodged Under Seal
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 20 of 145

Exhibit D
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 21 of 145

ID 30755750 - Sent 10/2/2020
RECORDID XTRAN_TYPE ORIGCODE OFFICECODE CRA_CTRL CREATED DUEDATE DISP_CODE1 DISP_CODE2 NARRATIVE
PR 5 CPT 9999 99990274012598101 09302020200136 10232020 020

GEN_C
SEGMENT_ID COURT_NMBR COURT_NAME LASTNAME FIRSTNAME MIDDLE SSN DOB PHONE STREET
ODE
BP 152VF00018 AZ FED BK CT-PHOENIXCLIFFORD WAYNE T 7375 480 313 N 57TH PL

AKA_ PREV_S CASENUM
CITY STATE ZIP_CODE AKA_LAST AKA_FIRST AKA_MIDDLE PREV_ADDR PREV_CITY PREV_ZIP TYPE STATUS
GEN TATE BER
MESA AZ 85205 CLIFFORD WAYNE KIMBERLY 1450 E FLINT ST CHANDLER AZ 85225 1902380 I M

FILER DATE_FILED DISP_DATE VERIFY_DTE ORIG_AMT LIABILITY ASSETS EXMPT_AMT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT REMARK_1 REMARK_2
I 03062019 03182019

RESERVED1 VLASTNAME VFIRSTNAME VMIDDLE VGEN_CODE VSSN VDOB VPHONE VADDRESS VCITY VSTATE VZIPCODE
000009827

VCASENUM
VPLASTNAME VPFIRSTNME VPMIDDLE VPGEN_CODE VPADDRESS VPCITY VPSTATE VPZIP VTYPE VSTATUS VFILER VDATEFILED
BR
1902380 M I 03062019

VDISP_DATE VDTEVERIFY VAMOUNT VLIABLTYS VASSETS VEXMPT_AMT VPLAINTIFF VDEFENDANT RESP_NAME RESP_PHONE RESP_DT_TM
03182019 10012020 LexisNexis 7703460860 10022020092533
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 22 of 145

V_GEN_CO
RES_ACTNCD RESP_CMNTS V_LAST V_FIRST V_MIDDLE V_AKALAST V_AKAFIRST V_AKAMID V_AKAGEN
DE
2 Modify case information as indicated 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

V_CURADDR V_PREVADDR V_SSN COMP_NAME RESERVED2
2 3 1 ChoicePoint Inc.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 23 of 145

Exhibit E
DocuSign Envelope ID: 21651B66-B0EF-495F-8A99-9427291BA1A8
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 24 of 145
Clifford – 1902380 Bankruptcy SPRCs

Equifax ID 30755750 - Case # 1902380 Chapter 7 Dismissal (7R): Customer Supplied Information
Date Received: 10/1/2020 Date Returned: 10/2/2020

Verified Information
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 25 of 145

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 26 of 145

1 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
2 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Robert M. Charles, Jr. (State Bar No. 007359)
3 Direct Dial: 520.629.4427
Email: rcharles@lewisroca.com

4 Allison Whitehill (State Bar No. 036339)
Direct Dial: 602.262.0850
Email: awhitehill@lewisroca.com
5 James F. McCabe (pro hac vice)
Alston & Bird LLP
6 560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco CA 94105
Direct Dial: 415.243.1047
7 Email: Jim.McCabe@alston.com

8 Attorneys for Defendant LexisNexis
Risk Data Management, LLC
9
10

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
14

15 Wayne Clifford, Case No. 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH
16 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF SHAWN
DEGRACE IN SUPPORT OF
17 vs. LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA
MANAGEMENT, LLC’S MOTION
18 LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
19 Defendant.
20

22 I, Shawn DeGrace, declare as follows:
23 1. I am the Director of Data Management for Equifax Information Services LLC

24 ("Equifax"). I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am competent to give the testimony

25 in this Declaration. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and state that they

26 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am duly authorized to give the following

27 declaration on behalf of Equifax.

28
SHAWN DEGRACE DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH
118633098.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42104348.v1-8/25/22
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 27 of 145

1 2. I am responsible for managing the relationship with Equifax's public records
2 vendor regarding bankruptcy records, LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC ("LexisNexis
3 Risk DM").
4 3. I have personal knowledge of the Consumer Bankruptcy Public Record
5 Acquisition Agreement ("Agreement") between Equifax and LexisNexis Risk DM, which has
6 been in effect between the Parties or their predecessors continuously since May 1, 2018. A
7 true and accurate copy of the Agreement is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 1.
8 4. Under the Agreement, LexisNexis Risk DM acts as a vendor in retrieving and
9 delivering publicly available information ordered by Equifax and obtained from bankruptcy
10 courts through PACER. Equifax is solely responsible for the association, linking, and/or
11 matching of data received from LexisNexis Risk DM to specific consumer files.
12 5. When Equifax receives a consumer dispute regarding a public record, Equifax
13 submits a Single Public Record Collection (“SPRC”) request to LexisNexis Risk DM. Equifax
14 provides the public record information that is reporting on the consumer’s file, and LexisNexis
15 Risk DM collects current data about the specific single public record from the bankruptcy case
16 thereby identified.
17 6. When Equifax sends a SPRC to LexisNexis Risk DM asking LexisNexis Risk
18 DM to collect current data about a case, Equifax includes information about the consumer with
19 whom Equifax has matched or linked the case. In its response, LexisNexis Risk DM only
20 populates the personal identifying information fields when the data retrieved from PACER for
21 the field is different from the data supplied by Equifax for that field.
22 7. Where information reported by LexisNexis Risk DM from PACER for a
23 bankruptcy case contains different identifying information (e.g., name, address, or social
24 security number) from that Equifax provided in the SPRC, LexisNexis Risk DM is not
25 expected to provide any evaluation of the fact that Equifax has associated or matched the case
26 to the consumer about whom identifying information was provided. Equifax evaluates the
27 public record information provided by LexisNexis Risk DM in the SPRC and makes the
28 _________ DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH 1
118633098.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42104348.v1-8/25/22
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 28 of 145

1 determination as to whether or not the public record should continue to be associated with the
2 consumer who initiated the public record dispute.
3 8. On or about October 1, 2020, Equifax received a letter from an attorney making
4 a dispute as to Plaintiff Wayne Clifford’s Equifax credit file. A true and correct copy of the
5 letter and its enclosures is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The only information disputed in the
6 letter was the inclusion of Case No. 19-bk-02380 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of
7 Arizona in Mr. Clifford’s Equifax credit disclosure. The letter stated, in part, that “Mr.
8 Clifford did not file this Bankruptcy Petition as it is the result of identity theft.” It also stated:
9 “Please remove the Public Record from Mr. Clifford’s file as it is the result of identity theft.”
10 Apart from the fact that the public record in question appeared in Mr. Clifford’s file disclosure,
11 the letter did not dispute any data about the reported bankruptcy case.
12 9. Equifax had matched Case No. 19-bk-02380 in the Bankruptcy Court for the
13 District of Arizona to Mr. Clifford’s Equifax credit file some time prior to May, 2020.
14 10. On October 1, 2020, Equifax sent LexisNexis Risk DM a SPRC related to Case
15 No. 19-bk-02380 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona which Equifax had
16 previously associated with Plaintiff Wayne Clifford. LexisNexis Risk DM responded to the
17 SPRC on October 2, 2020. While SPRCs and responses are shared between Equifax and
18 LexisNexis Risk DM in electronic format without labels attached to each field, Equifax has a
19 software tool that allows users to review SPRC data in a format in which field labels are
20 supplied. A screenprint of the information available in Equifax’s tool regarding the SPRC is
21 attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
22 11. Equifax’s SPRC request contained a bankruptcy jurisdiction, case number, filing
23 date, case status, and other consumer identifying information, including a social security
24 number. The social security number that Equifax provided ended in 7375. In its SPRC
25 response, LexisNexis Risk DM reported that the social security number on the PACER docket
26 ended in 9827.
27

28 _________ DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH 2
118633098.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42104348.v1-8/25/22
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 29 of 145

1 12. LexisNexis Risk DM did not provide Equifax with any confirmation or
2 representation that the Bankruptcy Case had actually been filed by or was properly matched
3 to Plaintiff.
4 13. A true and correct copy of the results of reinvestigation letter that Equifax sent
5 to Plaintiff Clifford on October 3, 2020 is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The purpose of a
6 results of reinvestigation letter is to advise the consumer what Equifax did with the disputed
7 information at the end of the reinvestigation. The results of reinvestigation letter include a
8 current file disclosure for the consumer. The pages comprising Exhibit 4 are the pages that
9 refer to Plaintiff’s dispute and to the public record reflected in Plaintiff Clifford’s file. The
10 pages omitted from Exhibit 4 are certain required notices and multiple pages detailing
11 tradelines then associated by Equifax with Plaintiff Clifford.
12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 and the laws of the United States of America, I further
13 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
14

15 Executed this 25th day of August, 2022, at Atlanta, Georgia.
16

19 Shawn DeGrace
20

28 _________ DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH 3
118633098.1
LEGAL02\069184\563731\42104348.v1-8/25/22
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 30 of 145

Exhibit 1
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 31 of 145

Lodged Under Seal
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 32 of 145

Exhibit 2
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 33 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000001
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 34 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000002
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 35 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000003
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 36 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000004
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 37 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000005
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 38 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000006
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 39 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000007
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 40 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000008
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 41 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000009
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 42 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000010
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 43 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000011
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 44 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 45 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000013
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 46 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000014
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 47 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000015
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 48 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000016
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 49 of 145

EFX-CLIFFORD-000017
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 50 of 145

Exhibit 3
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 51 of 145

BANKRUPTCY AUTOMATED CONSUMER DISPUTE VERIFICATION EQUIFAX

Control Number 99990274012598101 Dispute 1 [ 020 ] CLAIMS TRUE IDENTITY FRAUD - ACCOUNT
FRAUDULENTLY OPENED INITIATE INVESTIGATION.
Origin NCRA CPT Bureau Code 9999
Date Created 09/30/2020 Response Due 10/23/2020
Dispute 2
Subscriber Code 152VF00018
Account Number 1902380
Grantor Name AZ FED BK CT-PHOENIX
FCRA Relevant Information
Responder Name LexisNexis
Responder Phone 770-346-0860 Response Date 10/02/2020
Response Code C Verified As Reported Modified as Shown Delete Account Delete Fraud

Reported Consumer Identity Same Modified Consumer Identity
Name CLIFFORD WAYNE T Name
AKA/FN CLIFFORD WAYNE KIMBERLY AKA/FN
Address 313 N 57TH PL, MESA, AZ 85205 Address
Previous 1450 E FLINT ST, CHANDLER, AZ 85225 Previous
SSN 548-80-7375 SSN 000-00-9827
DOB 04/04/1951 DOB
Phone 480-773-0721 Phone

Type Date Filed Disposition Date Narratives
[ I ] PERSONAL 03/2019 03/18/2019

03/2019 03/18/2019

Status Exempt Amount Filer
[ M ] DISMISSED/CLOSED CHAPTER-7 [ I ] INDIVIDUAL

[ M ] DISMISSED/CLOSED CHAPTER-7 [ I ] INDIVIDUAL Modify case information as indicated

Printed 05/26/2021 Proprietary and Confidential to Equifax Information Services LLC-Use Pursuant to Company Instruction Page 1 of 2

EFX-CLIFFORD-000020

EXHIBIT
7
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 52 of 145

BANKRUPTCY AUTOMATED CONSUMER DISPUTE VERIFICATION EQUIFAX

Images Sent
DA10092509292000002.TIF

Printed 05/26/2021 Proprietary and Confidential to Equifax Information Services LLC-Use Pursuant to Company Instruction Page 2 of 2

EFX-CLIFFORD-000021
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 53 of 145

Exhibit 4
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 54 of 145

000076119- DISC
P.O. Box 105069
CREDIT FILE : October 03, 2020
Confirmation # 0274012598
WAYNE T CLIFFORD

313 N 57TH PL Atlanta, GA 30348
Dear WAYNE T CLIFFORD:

We are pleased to let you know that the results of the dispute you recently filed with Equifax are
complete. Here are a few things to know about the process: MESA, AZ 85205-8202

Were changes made to my credit report and what actions were taken?

Please see the following page(s) for more detailed information on your specific results.

If we were able to make changes to your credit report based on the information you provided, we have
done so. Otherwise, we contacted the company reporting the information to Equifax for them to
investigate your dispute.

In this situation:

 We request that the reporting company verify the accuracy of the information you disputed;

 We provide them with any relevant information and supporting documentation you provided us
with the dispute to consider as part of the investigation; and

 We request that they send Equifax a response to your dispute and update their records and
systems, as necessary.

If your dispute involves a public record item, Equifax contacts a third party vendor to obtain the most
recent status of the public record.

How do I know that all of this is happening?

When the reporting company replies to us, they certify that they have followed Equifax's instructions and the law; considered all information and documentation
provided; and updated your information, as necessary.

What should I do if I do not agree with the results of the investigation?

You have a few options:

(Continued On Next Page) Page 1 of 34 0274012598-APPLADM-0838010800000007-10032020

EFX-CLIFFORD-000024

EXHIBIT
5
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 55 of 145

 You should contact the reporting companies about the information you believe is fraudulent. Ask them to explain their fraud investigation process
and what steps you should take. If they agree the information does not belong to you, have them confirm this to you in writing. You can then send us
the written confirmation if the item continues to report on your credit file.
 You may add a statement of up to 100 words to your credit report. If you provide a consumer statement that contains medical information related to
services provided or medical procedures, then you expressly consent to including this information in every credit report we issue about you.
 You may contact the company that reports the information to us and dispute it directly with them. If you would like written proof about your accounts
(such as the original agreement), please contact your creditors directly.
 You may provide us additional information or documents (such as an identity theft report or a letter from the reporting company) about your dispute
to help us resolve it by visiting our website https://www.equifax.com/personal/disputes. You may also mail your documents to PO Box
740256, Atlanta GA 30374-0256 or contact us by calling a Customer Representative at 866-349-5191.
 You may contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or your State Attorney General's office about your issue or complaint against Equifax or
the company reporting the information.

(Continued On Next Page) Page 2 of 34 0274012598-APPLADM-0838010800000007-10032020

EFX-CLIFFORD-000025
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 56 of 145

What else should I know?

If there has been a change to your credit report based on your dispute, or if you add a consumer statement, you may request that Equifax send an updated
report to companies who received your credit report within the last two years for employment purposes, or within the last six months for any other purpose
(the past 12 months for residents of California, Colorado, Maryland, New York and New Jersey residents).

Also, if you are interested, you may request a description of how the reinvestigation was conducted along with the business name, address and telephone
number (if reasonably available) of the furnisher of your disputed information.

For frequently asked questions about your credit report and the dispute process, please visit Equifax at https://help.equifax.com/.

As always, we thank you for contacting Equifax and the results of your dispute are on the pages following this letter.

(Continued On Next Page) Page 3 of 34 0274012598-APPLADM-0838010800000007-10032020

EFX-CLIFFORD-000026
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 57 of 145

How should I read my dispute results?
To better assist you with understanding the results of your dispute, please review the information below:
 If an item states "Deleted", we have removed it from your credit report and taken steps so it does not reappear.
 If an item states "Verified as Reported", the reporting company has certifed it is reporting accurately.
 If an item states "Updated", we have updated one or more fields on the item based on information received from the reporting company.
Updated disputed account information only: The information you disputed has been updated.
Updated disputed account information. Additional account information was also updated: The information you disputed has been updated as well as
other information on this item.
Disputed information accurate. Updated account information unrelated to the dispute: The information you disputed has been verified as accurate,
however, information unrelated to your dispute has been updated.
Consumer's dispute not specific. Consumer Information verified. Account information updated: Information on your report has been updated.

The Results Of Our Reinvestigation

Public Record Information

This section includes public record items Equifax obtained from local, state and federal courts through a third party vendor, LexisNexis.

LexisNexis Consumer Center
P.O. Box 105615
Atlanta, GA 30348-5108

https://equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com
>>> The Information you disputed has been received. Case or ID# - 190*. The results are: We verified that this item belongs to you. If you have additional
questions about this item please contact: AZ FED Bk CT-Phoenix, 230 N 1st Ave Ste 101, Phoenix, AZ 85003-1727 Phone: 602682400

US Bankruptcy Court-Phoenix 230 N 1ST AVE STE 101 PHOENIX, AZ 85003-1727: (602) 682-4000
Case or ID # Disposition Date Filed Type Filer Current Disposition

1902380 Bankruptcy Filed 03/2019 Personal Individual Dismissed/Closed CH-7
Asset Amount Exempt Amount Current Disposition Date Date Verified Date Reported Prior Disposition

03/18/2019 10/01/2020 10/03/2020

(Continued On Next Page) Page 4 of 34 0274012598-APPLADM-0838010800000007-10032020

EFX-CLIFFORD-000027
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 58 of 145

EJlfla
CREDIT FILE: October 03, 2020 Confirmation #0274012598
Persona! Identification Information (This section includes your name, current and previous Please address all future correspondence to:
addresses, and any other identifying Information reported by your creditors.) iffil w.equifax.com/personal/disputes
Name On File: Wayne I Clifford
Equifax Information Services LLC
Social Security # X)(X-XX-7375 Date of Birth: April 4, 1951 P.O. Box 105069
Current Address: 313 N 57th P1, Mesa, AZ 85205 (480) 773-0721 Reported: 10/2020 Atlanta, GA 30346
Previous Address(es): 1450 E Flint St, Chandler, AZ 85225 Reported: 10/2020
P0 Box 41, Syosset, NY 11791 Reported: 10/2020 Phone: (800) 377-6568
367 W Constitution Dr, Gilbert, AZ 85233 (480) 855-3422 Reported: M F 9:00am to 5:00pm in your time zone.
-

03/2020
1509 E Mineral Rd, Gilbert, AZ 85234 (480) 892-1978 Reported: 1212010
1917 Greenhouse Patio Dr NW, Kennesaw, GA 30144 Reported: 1212010
45 Wolf Ridge TrI NE, White, GA 30184 (770) 606-0652 Reported: 1212010
4524 April Ln SE, Acworth, GA 30102 Reported: 12/2010

Formerly Known As: Wayne Kimberly Clifford
Other Id: XXXXX7379, Social Security #Variation, Reported: 09/07/2017

Last Reported Employment: Contractor: Wayne Clifford Const;

Public Record Information

This section includes public record items Equifax obtained from local, state and federal courts through a third party vendor, LexisNexis.

LexisNexis Consumer Center
P.O. Box 105615
Atlanta, GA 30348-5108

https://equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis .com
Bankruptcy Filed 03/2019; US Bankruptcy Court-Phoenix; Case or ID # - 1902380; Type - Personal; Filer - Individual; Current Disposition -

Dismissed/Closed CH-7; Current Disposition Date 03/18/2019; Date Verified 10/01/2020; Date Reported 10/03/2020; Address: 230 N 1STAVE STE 101
PHOENIX, AZ 85003-1727: (602) 682-4000

Credit Account Information
(For your security, the last 4diqits of account number(s) have been replaced by*)(This section includes open and closed accounts reported by credit qrantors)
Account Column Title Descriptions:
Account Number - The Account number reported by credit Amount Past Due - The Amount Past Due as of the Date Reported
grantor Date of Last Paymnt - The Date of Last Payment
Date Acct. Opened - The Date that the credit grantor opened the Actual Pay Amt - The Actual Amount of Last Payment

(Continued On Next Page) Page of 34 0274012598-APPLADM-0838010800000007-10032020

EFX-CLIFFORD-000032
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 59 of 145

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FEDF5D1-0E06-4B01-9D95-342DE51EE763
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 60 of 145

1 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
2 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Robert M. Charles, Jr. (State Bar No. 007359)
3 Direct Dial: 520.629.4427
Email: rcharles@lewisroca.com

8 Attorneys for Defendant LexisNexis
Risk Data Management, LLC

9
10

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
14

15 Wayne Clifford, Case No. 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH

16 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF BRAD
JERMAN IN SUPPORT OF
17 vs. LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA
MANAGEMENT, LLC’S MOTION
18 LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC, FO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

19 Defendant.
Compl. Filed: July 1, 2021
20 Trial Date: Not Set

26
27

28
BRAD JERMAN’S DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH
118633128.1
LEGAL02\42099192.v1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FEDF5D1-0E06-4B01-9D95-342DE51EE763
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 61 of 145

1 I, Brad Jerman, declare as follows:
2 1. I am a Manager of Software Engineering for LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
3 (“LexisNexis Risk”). I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am competent to give the
4 testimony in this Declaration. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and state
5 that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am duly authorized to give the
6 following declaration on behalf of LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC (“LexisNexis
7 Risk DM”).
8 2. As the Manager of Software Engineering for LexisNexis Risk, I am responsible
9 for managing LexisNexis Risk’s website, including uploading and updating the webpage that
10 discusses LexisNexis Risk DM’s relationship with Equifax Information Services LLC
11 (“Equifax”). Modifications to LexisNexis Risk’s website are tracked internally using Jira
12 software. Persons working on the website are required to track contemporaneously in Jira
13 modifications they make. LexisNexis Risk personnel rely on Jira records as authoritative
14 records of the evolution of the website.
15 3. LexisNexis Risk’s Jira records reflect that a task to set up
16 “equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com” was created on April 13, 2016. Attached as Exhibit A is
17 a copy of Jira ticket describing that task.
18 4. LexisNexis Risk’s Jira records reflect that a task to update the
19 “equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com” site was created on January 7, 2019. Attached as
20 Exhibit B is a copy of Jira ticket describing that task. The comments on the task state “Text
21 changes confirmed by Mark Johnson.” At the time this task was created, Mark Johnson led
22 business operations at LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc. in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
23 5. LexisNexis Risk’s Jira records reflect that no modifications to
24 “equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com” have been made since January 8, 2019. Attached as
25 Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the content of equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com as it
26 appears today.
27

28 BRAD JERMAN’S DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH 1
LEGAL02\42099192.v1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5FEDF5D1-0E06-4B01-9D95-342DE51EE763
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 62 of 145

1 6. Since January 8, 2019, the webpage found at equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com
2 has read, in part, as follows: “If you have concerns that a record has been erroneously matched
3 to you and included in your credit report, please contact Equifax to correct the error.
4 LexisNexis does not match bankruptcy information to consumer credit files for Equifax.
5 Equifax performs this matching.”
6 7. Had Plaintiff Wayne Clifford, on October 3, 2020, clicked the link
7 (https://equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com) that Equifax provided him in the letter that Equifax
8 sent him regarding his dispute (which I understand is submitted to the Court
9 contemporaneously herewith), he would have been shown the statement quoted above in
10 paragraph 6.
11 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 and the laws of the United States of America, I
12 further declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
Miamisburg, Ohio
25th day of August, 2022, at ________________________.
13 ___th
14

15
By: _______________________
16 Brad Jerman
17

19
20

26
27

28 BRAD JERMAN’S DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH 2
LEGAL02\42099192.v1
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 63 of 145

Exhibit A
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 64 of 145

CDPORTAL-2001 Created at 10/Aug/22 8:59 AM by Brad Jerman with the JIRA PDF View Plugin.

[CDPORTAL-2001] Set up equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com
Created: 13/Apr/16 12:02 PM - Updated: 07/Jan/19 5:08 PM

Status: Closed
Project: CD & FIP Portal
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: Project Level - Issue Security

Type: Story Priority: Major
Reporter: Brian Krohne Assignee: Brian Krohne
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: None
Original Estimate: Not Specified
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified

Field Tab
Story Points: 10
Sprint: CDP/DQC Sprint 82
Watcher Field: [krohnebx@risk(krohnebx)]
QA Task Type: Production Releases

equifax.png (53 kB)

Relates
relates to [CDPORTAL-2470]
Create Experian consumer URL and page Closed
relates to [CDR-13] Master Audited Release Closed
relates to [CDPORTAL-1974]
Create new page for Equifax Closed
relates to [CDPORTAL-2471]
Update transunionconsumers.lexisnexis.com site Closed

http://equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com/

Ensure 404 does something sensible in prod.
Change subfolder links to symlinks

Prod:
https://isit.lexisnexis.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=6102916

QA
https://isit.lexisnexis.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=6103164

equifaxconsumersqa.risk.regn.net

Brian Krohne added a comment - 13/Apr/16 4:48 PM

Page 1
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 65 of 145

CDPORTAL-2001 Created at 10/Aug/22 8:59 AM by Brad Jerman with the JIRA PDF View Plugin.

Setup http://equifax.localhost/

Brian Krohne added a comment - 15/Apr/16 2:07 PM
Kenneth Fruit is setting up DNS for us: https://isit.lexisnexis.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=6105488

Brian Krohne added a comment - 15/Apr/16 4:18 PM
DNS is set up. Now we need the Cert and the F5 set up: https://isit.lexisnexis.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=6105484

Page 2
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 66 of 145

Exhibit B
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 67 of 145

CDPORTAL-2469 Created at 10/Aug/22 9:00 AM by Brad Jerman with the JIRA PDF View Plugin.

[CDPORTAL-2469] Update equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com site
Created: 07/Jan/19 3:19 PM - Updated: 08/Jan/19 11:34 AM

Status: Closed
Project: CD & FIP Portal
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Security Level: Project Level - Issue Security

Type: Story Priority: Minor
Reporter: Brian Krohne Assignee: Brian Krohne
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: None
Original Estimate: Not Specified
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified

Field Tab
Story Points: 1
Epic Link: MAINTENANCE 2019
Sprint: CDENH 2018-22
Watcher Field: [krohnebx@risk(krohnebx)]

Information for Equifax Consumers 25092018 (clean).docx (15 kB)

Cloners
is cloned by [CDPORTAL-2471]
Update transunionconsumers.lexisnexis.com site Closed

Relates
relates to [CDPORTAL-2470]
Create Experian consumer URL and page Closed

• https://equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com/
• http://equifax-localhost/

Brian Krohne added a comment - 08/Jan/19 11:34 AM
Text changes confirmed by Mark Johnson.

Page 1
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 68 of 145

Exhibit C
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document
Equifax 49-1| LexisNexis
Consumers Filed Consumer
08/26/22 Page 69 of 145
Disclosure

Equifax Consumers

Information for Equifax Consumers
LexisNexis Risk Data Management, Inc. ("LexisNexis") is a provider of bankruptcy information to Equifax. If you
have questions about the information LexisNexis has provided to Equifax, please contact us by one of the
methods referenced below. Please note the following:

If you have concerns that a record has been erroneously matched to you and included in your credit report,
please contact Equifax to correct the error. LexisNexis does not match bankruptcy information to consumer
credit files for Equifax. Equifax performs this matching.
LexisNexis does not decide the impact, if any, that bankruptcy information has on a consumer's credit score.
Creditors and other companies who use credit reports employ many different credit score models.
If you have questions regarding the bankruptcy information being reported, such as the appropriate spelling of
your name, or if an update appears in bankruptcy court records that is not reflected in your Equifax report,
please contact us by one of the methods referenced below.
In order to more efficiently resolve your questions, we recommend that you provide us with your first name, last
name, date of birth, social security number and address. Please also identify in detail the bankruptcy
information about which you are concerned. In addition, if you have any other information that you feel would
be relevant in resolving your concerns, please provide that information to us.
If you have any concerns with providing your personal information via mail, our representatives are ready to
receive your phone call.

By phone at 1.877.305.5121. The LexisNexis Consumer Center's hours of operation are Monday - Friday from
8 AM to 7PM Eastern Time.
By mail provide any correspondence to:
LexisNexis Consumer Center
P. O. Box 105615
Atlanta, GA 30348-5108

https://equifaxconsumers.lexisnexis.com 1/1
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 70 of 145

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 4
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 71 of 145

1 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
2 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Robert M. Charles, Jr. (State Bar No. 007359)
3 Direct Dial: 520.629.4427
Email: rcharles@lewisroca.com

8 Attorneys for Defendant LexisNexis
Risk Data Management, LLC

9
10

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
14 Wayne Clifford, Case No. 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH
15 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JAMES F.
MCCABE IN SUPPORT OF
16 vs. LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA
MANAGEMENT, LLC’S MOTION
17 LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC, FO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
18 Defendant.
Hearing Date:
19

22 I, James F. McCabe, declare as follows:
23 1. I am employed by the law firm Alston & Bird LLP, counsel for LexisNexis Risk
24 Data Management, LLC (“LexisNexis Risk DM”). I am over twenty-one (21) years of age
25 and am competent to give the testimony in this Declaration. I have personal knowledge of the
26 facts set forth herein, and state that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I
27 am duly authorized to give the following declaration on behalf of LexisNexis Risk DM.
28
JAMES F. MCCABE’S DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH
118633076.1
LEGAL02\42099178.v1
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 72 of 145

1 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a complaint that
2 Plaintiff Wayne Clifford (“Plaintiff”) herein filed against Equifax Information Services LLC
3 (“Equifax”), on November 25, 2020, in which Plaintiff alleged that Equifax had included in
4 his credit file a 2019 bankruptcy case that he had not filed. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a
5 true and correct copy of a notice Plaintiff filed in his Equifax case on September 21, 2021,
6 indicating that he had settled his claims against Equifax.
7 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a paper published in
8 December, 2012 by the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau entitled Key
9 Dimensions and Processes in the U.S. Credit Reporting System.
10 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the docket sheet for
11 case number 19-bk-02360 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona that I retrieved
12 from PACER on July 7, 2022.
13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 and the laws of the United States of America, I further
26
14 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25th day
15 of August, 2022, at Durham, California.
16

17
By: _______________________
18 James F. McCabe
19

28 JAMES F. MCCABE’S DECLARATION ISO LEXISNEXIS RISK DM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2:21-cv-01145-PHX-DJH 1
118633076.1
LEGAL02\42099178.v1
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 73 of 145

Exhibit A
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 74 of 145

Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTL Document 25 Filed 06/11/21 Page 1 of 15

1 TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)
2 KENT LAW OFFICES
3219 E Camelback Rd #588
3 Phoenix, AZ 85018
4 Telephone: (480) 247-9644
Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
5 E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com
6
Of Counsel to:
7
Credit Repair Lawyers of America
8 22142 West Nine Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48033
9
Telephone: (248) 353-2882
10 Facsimile: (248) 353-4840
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
12 Wayne Clifford
13
14 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
15
PHOENIX DIVISION
16
17 Wayne Clifford, Case No.: 2:20-cv-02283
18
Plaintiff,
19
20 vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
21 Equifax Information Services, LLC,
22 a Georgia limited liability company; and JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Jeffrey Benson, an individual
23
24
Defendant.
25
26
27
28
1

EXHIBIT
9
It
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page2 75
of of
15 145

1 NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, WAYNE CLIFFORD, BY AND
2
THROUGH COUNSEL, TRINETTE G. KENT, and for his Complaint against the
3
4 Defendants, pleads as follows:
5 JURISDICTION
6
1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 15 U.S.C. §1681p.
7
8 2. This is an action brought by a consumer for violation of the Fair Credit
9
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. [hereinafter “FCRA”]).
10
11
VENUE
12
13
3. The transactions and occurrences which give rise to this action occurred in the
14
15 City of Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona.
16 4. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division.
17
PARTIES
18
19 5. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in City of Mesa, Maricopa County,
20
Arizona.
21
22 6. Defendant, Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”), is a Georgia

23 limited liability company that conducts business in the state of Arizona.
24
7. Defendant, Jeffrey Benson (“Benson”), is an individual residing in Mesa,
25
26 Arizona.
27
28
2
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page3 76
of of
15 145

1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2
8. In January of 2019, Plaintiff’s wife, Kimberly Clifford, met Benson at a
3
4 business networking conference. As they began to get to know each other, it
5 was not long before they decided to do business together.
6
9. During Plaintiff and Mrs. Clifford’s various conversations with Benson, Benson
7
8 (mis)informed them that he was in the process of purchasing a residential home
9
at 5702 South Beck Ave in Tempe, AZ. The Cliffords, who professionally find
10
11 residential parcels to purchase, repair, and sell at a profit, were interested in

12 Benson’s purported project.
13
10.Benson never had any ownership interest in the South Beck property, but he
14
15 nevertheless convinced Plaintiff to pay Benson the sum of $12,500 to enter into
16 a partnership in which Plaintiff would own one half of that property along with
17
Benson.
18
19 11.During this purported partnership, Plaintiff invested an additional $5,000,
20
which was used to improve the property.
21
12.One time, while visiting the property with Benson, the true owners of the
22
23 property showed up. Benson engaged in a physical fight with them and was
24
subsequently arrested and booked for assault. Plaintiff soon learned that he was
25
26 conned and defrauded out of his money by Benson.
27
28
3
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page4 77
of of
15 145

1 13.In April or May of 2019, Plaintiff began receiving paperwork from the United
2
States Bankruptcy Court in Arizona, indicating that he had filed for Chapter 7
3
4 protection. Plaintiff never filed for bankruptcy. Benson had forged Plaintiff’s
5 signature on a bankruptcy petition.
6
14.Plaintiff confronted Benson, who admitted that he filed the bogus petition in
7
8 Plaintiff’s name as retaliation. Since that time, Plaintiff’s ability to obtain
9
financing has come to a complete halt and his health has declined.
10
11 15.Equifax is reporting a fraudulent Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing (“Bogus Public

12 Record”) on Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report.
13
16.Plaintiff has not filed for bankruptcy in over ten (10) years.
14
15 17.On March 6, 2019, a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition was filed in Plaintiff’s
16 name in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“the
17
Court”).
18
19 18.The last four digits of Plaintiff’s SSN were listed incorrectly on the petition.
20
19.On the same day, the Court issued a Notice of Failure to Provide ID with the
21
bankruptcy petition and a Notice of Incomplete Filings for failure to provide a
22
23 list of creditors.
24
20.On March 18, 2019, the Court issued another Notice of Incomplete Filings for
25
26 failure to provide income information and pay stubs.
27
28
4
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page5 78
of of
15 145

1 21.On the same day, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal for the Chapter 7
2
Bankruptcy filing.
3
4 22.Plaintiff received the notices from the Court, and this is when he discovered
5 that someone had fraudulently filed for bankruptcy in his name.
6
23.Soon after, Plaintiff contacted Benson, the person he suspected had fraudulently
7
8 filed bankruptcy in his name. During the telephone conversation, Benson
9
admitted that he fraudulently filed for bankruptcy in Plaintiff’s name. After this
10
11 conversation, Plaintiff was unable to get in contact with Benson again due to

12 Benson changing his phone number.
13
24.On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a police report with the Maricopa County
14
15 Sheriff’s Office regarding the fraudulent bankruptcy filing.
16 25.On May 2, 2020, Plaintiff obtained his Equifax credit disclosure and noticed the
17
Bogus Public Record reporting.
18
19 26.On or about May 12, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a letter to Equifax, disputing the
20
Bogus Public Record. In his dispute letter, Plaintiff explained that he did not
21
file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. He attached the Equifax credit disclosure showing
22
23 the error and a copy of his police report. He asked Equifax to remove the
24
Bogus Public Record.
25
26 27.Equifax received Plaintiff’s dispute letter.
27
28
5
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page6 79
of of
15 145

1 28.Equifax did not consult the Credit Reporting Resource Guide as part of its
2
investigation of Plaintiff’s dispute.
3
4 29.In response to Plaintiff’s dispute, Equifax maintained that its reporting of the
5 Bogus Public Record was accurate.
6
30.On or about October 3, 2020, Plaintiff received Equifax’s investigation results,
7
8 which showed that Equifax verified the Bogus Public Record and failed or
9
refused to delete the Bogus Public Record.
10
11 31.As a direct and proximate cause of Equifax’s negligent and/or willful failure to

12 comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., Plaintiff
13
has suffered:
14
15 a. Credit Damages: Plaintiff’s livelihood depends upon him obtaining
16 financing to acquire homes and the capital to improve them. After the
17
bogus bankruptcy was reported on his credit report, Plaintiff has been
18
19 turned down for loans that he had acquired before, due to the reported
20
bankruptcy. One of his credit card lenders has terminated his use of his
21
credit card, making it even more difficult to meet not only expenses to
22
23 pursue his vocation but to meet his day to day living expenses;
24
b. Lost Credit Opportunities: Mortgage rates have been at historical lows.
25
26 Plaintiff desires to refinance his house but has been prevented from doing
27
28
6
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page7 80
of of
15 145

1 so because of this bogus bankruptcy reporting on his Equifax credit
2
report.
3
4 c. Emotional Damages: Plaintiff has also experienced undue stress and
5 anxiety due to Equifax’s failure to correct the errors in his credit file or
6
improve his financial situation by obtaining new or more favorable credit
7
8 terms as a result of Equifax’s violations of the FCRA. He has been
9
humiliated by having to borrow money from his adult children to meet
10
11 his day to day living expenses, as he cannot work in his vocation for want

12 of financing.
13
COUNT I
14
15 NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
BY EQUIFAX
16
17 32.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.
18 33.Equifax prepared, compiled, issued, assembled, transferred, published, and
19
otherwise reproduced consumer reports regarding Plaintiff as that term is defined
20
21 in 15 USC 1681a.
22
34.Such reports contained information about Plaintiff that was false, misleading, and
23
24 inaccurate.

25 35.Equifax negligently failed to maintain and/or follow reasonable procedures to
26
assure maximum possible accuracy of the information it reported to one or more
27
28 third parties pertaining to Plaintiff, in violation of 15 USC 1681e(b).
7
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page8 81
of of
15 145

1 36. After receiving Plaintiff’s consumer dispute to the Bogus Public Record,
2
Equifax negligently failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by
3
4 15 U.S.C. 1681i.
5 37.As a direct and proximate cause of Equifax’s negligent failure to perform its
6
duties under the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, mental anguish
7
8 and suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment.
9
38.Equifax is liable to Plaintiff by reason of its violation of the FCRA in an amount
10
11 to be determined by the trier of fact together with his reasonable attorneys’ fees

12 pursuant to 15 USC 1681o.
13
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that this court grants him a judgment
14
15 against Equifax for actual damages, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees.
16 COUNT II
17
WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
18 BY EQUIFAX
19
39.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.
20
21 40.Equifax prepared, compiled, issued, assembled, transferred, published, and
22
otherwise reproduced consumer reports regarding Plaintiff as that term is defined
23
24 in 15 USC 1681a.

25 41.Such reports contained information about Plaintiff that was false, misleading, and
26
inaccurate.
27
28
8
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed 06/11/21
08/26/22 Page
Page9 82
of of
15 145

1 42.Equifax willfully failed to maintain and/or follow reasonable procedures to assure
2
maximum possible accuracy of the information that it reported to one or more
3
4 third parties pertaining to Plaintiff, in violation of 15 USC 1681e(b).
5 43. After receiving Plaintiff’s consumer dispute to the Bogus Public Record,
6
Equifax willfully failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by 15
7
8 U.S.C. 1681i.
9
44.As a direct and proximate cause of Equifax’s willful failure to perform its duties
10
11 under the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, mental anguish and

12 suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment.
13
45.Equifax is liable to Plaintiff by reason of its violations of the FCRA in an amount
14
15 to be determined by the trier of fact together with his reasonable attorneys’ fees
16 pursuant to 15 USC 1681n.
17
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that this court grants him a judgment
18
19 against Equifax for the greater of statutory or actual damages, plus punitive damages
20
along with costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
21
22
23 COUNT III
24
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
25 BY BENSON
26
46.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.
27
28
9
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed06/11/21
08/26/22 Page 1083
Page of of
15145

1 47.Benson made a material misrepresentation of fact to Plaintiff when he
2
misinformed Plaintiff that Benson owned an interest in the Beck property.
3
4 48.Benson made that statement as an affirmative statement, knowing full well that
5 it was false at the time that he made it to Plaintiff.
6
49.Benson also made the statement with the specific intention of having Plaintiff
7
8 rely upon this misrepresentation and profiting from this lie.
9
50.Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Benson’s statement to his detriment and was
10
11 induced to spend over $17,000 in payments to Benson and for improvements to

12 the property in which neither Plaintiff nor Benson had any interest.
13
51.Benson made several material misrepresentations to the United States
14
15 Bankruptcy Court when he posed as Plaintiff and filed a Bankruptcy Petition in
16 his name.
17
52.Benson made these representations with the specific intention of creating a record
18
19 in the Bankruptcy Court and ultimately, a public record, that Plaintiff had filed
20
for bankruptcy when, in fact, he did not.
21
53.The Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court relied upon Benson’s material
22
23 misrepresentations to Plaintiff’s detriment.
24
54.Co-defendant Equifax, in adding the Bogus Public Record, in turn relied upon
25
26 the Bankruptcy Court’s record, which incorrectly reflected that Plaintiff had filed
27 for Bankruptcy, when, in fact, he had not.
28
10
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed06/11/21
08/26/22 Page 1184
Page of of
15145

1 55.Benson clearly had a malicious and malevolent intention of financially ruining
2
Plaintiff for standing up to Benson to demand the return of this money and using
3
4 legal process to do so.
5 56.As a direct and proximate cause of Benson’s fraudulent misrepresentation to
6
Plaintiff and others, Plaintiff has been severely damaged emotionally and
7
8 financially.
9
57.Plaintiff is entitled to both actual and punitive damages against Benson for his
10
11 willfully and intentionally damaging conduct towards Plaintiff.

12
13
14 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that this court grants him a judgment
15
against Benson for actual damages, plus punitive damages along with costs, interest,
16
17 and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

18
19 COUNT IV

20 BREACH OF CONTRACT
21 BY BENSON
22
23 58.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.

24 59.Benson promised to deliver a one-half interest in the South Beck property to
25
Plaintiff for the sum of $12,500.
26
27 60.Plaintiff paid Benson $12,500.
28
11
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed06/11/21
08/26/22 Page 1285
Page of of
15145

1 61.Benson never owned an interest in the South Beck property, and although he
2
defrauded Plaintiff, he still entered into a contract with Plaintiff to deliver that
3
4 one-half interest in that certain realty.
5 62.Benson breached the contract with Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff damages in the
6
amount of $12,500 plus out of pocket costs of at least $10,000, plus costs and
7
8 other attorneys’ fees.
9
10
11 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that this court grants him a judgment
12
against Benson for actual damages, along with costs, interest, and reasonable
13
14 attorneys’ fees.
15 COUNT V
16
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17 BY BENSON
18
63. Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs.
19
20 64.Benson’s conduct in filing bankruptcy in Plaintiff’s name goes beyond all bounds
21
of decency. Plaintiff made his living as a contractor, acquiring and improving
22
23 homes. One of the tools of his business, just like any other, is the ability to secure

24 financing to run his business. Benson knew this.
25
65.Benson also knew that filing bankruptcy in Plaintiff’s name without cause,
26
27 permission, excuse, or legal justification would ruin Plaintiff’s business and
28 probably his life. And it did just that.
12
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed06/11/21
08/26/22 Page 1386
Page of of
15145

1 66.Benson actually lied to the Bankruptcy Court when he filed the petition and posed
2
as Plaintiff. His actions in this regard were extreme and outrageous and go
3
4 beyond all possible bounds of decency and are atrocious and utterly intolerable
5 in a civilized community.
6
67.Benson filed this bankruptcy petition with the specific intention of inflicting great
7
8 emotional harm on Plaintiff, which Benson has successfully achieved.
9
68.Plaintiff is entitled to both actual and punitive damages against Benson for his
10
11 willfully and intentionally damaging conduct towards Plaintiff.

12
13
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that this court grants him a judgment
14
15 against Benson for actual damages, plus punitive damages, along with costs,
16 interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
17
18
19
20 JURY DEMAND
21
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by Jury.
22
23
24 DATED: June 11, 2021
25
KENT LAW OFFICES
26
27
28
13
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed06/11/21
08/26/22 Page 1487
Page of of
15145

1 By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent
2 Trinette G. Kent
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
3 Wayne Clifford
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Case
Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTLDocument
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 25 Filed
49-1 Filed06/11/21
08/26/22 Page 1588
Page of of
15145
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 89 of 145

Exhibit B
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 90 of 145

Case 2:20-cv-02283-MTL Document 39 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 3

1 TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)
2 KENT LAW OFFICES
3219 E. Camelback Rd., #588
3 Phoenix, AZ 85018
4 Telephone: (480) 247-9644
Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
5 E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com
6
Of Counsel to:
7
Michigan Consumer Credit Lawyers
8 22142 West Nine Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48033
9
Telephone: (248) 353-2882
10 Facsimile: (248) 353-4840
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
12 Wayne Clifford
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
15
PHOENIX DIVISION
16
17 Wayne Clifford, Case No.: 2:20-cv-02283-MTL
18
Plaintiff,
19
20 vs. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AS TO
EQUIFAX INFORMATION
21 Equifax Information Services, LLC., SERVICES, LLC., ONLY
22
Defendants.
23
24
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff and Defendant Equifax
25
26 Information Services, LLC., ONLY, in the above-captioned case have reached a
27
28

EXHIBIT
12
It
CaseCase 2:20-cv-02283-MTL
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document
Document 49-139 Filed
Filed 08/26/22
09/21/21 Page
Page291
of of
3 145

1 settlement. Plaintiff anticipates filing a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to
2
Equifax Information Services, LLC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) within 60 days.
3
4 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of September, 2021.
5
6
KENT LAW OFFICES
7
8
By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent
9 Trinette G. Kent
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Wayne Clifford
11
12
13
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
15
16 I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office
using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to
17 the following CM/ECF Registrants, and mailed a copy of same to the following if non-
18 registrants on the 21st day of September, 2021.
19 /s/ Trinette G. Kent
20 Kent Law Offices
3219 E. Camelback Road, Suite 588
21 Phoenix, AZ 85108
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
CaseCase 2:20-cv-02283-MTL
2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document
Document 49-139 Filed
Filed 08/26/22
09/21/21 Page
Page392
of of
3 145
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 93 of 145

Exhibit C
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 94 of 145

DECEMBER 2012

Key Dimensions and
Processes in the U.S.
Credit Reporting System :
A re view o f h ow the na tio n’s l arges t c red i t
b ure aus ma nag e co nsu mer da ta

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 95 of 145
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 96 of 145

Table of Contents
Purpose and Executive Summary ................................................................ 2

1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 5

2. Credit Bureaus, Credit Files, Credit Reports, and Credit Scores........ 7

3. Furnishers and Users ........................................................................... 13

4. Furnisher and Data Screening ............................................................. 18

5. Compiling Credit Files: “Matching”..................................................... 21

6. Inaccuracies in Credit Files and Credit Reports................................. 23

7. Disputing Credit Report Errors ............................................................ 27

8. Monitoring and Measuring Credit Reporting Accuracy ..................... 36

Glossary ....................................................................................................... 39

Appendix ...................................................................................................... 41

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 97 of 145

Purpose and Executive
Summary
This paper describes the credit reporting infrastructure at the three largest nationwide consumer reporting
agencies (NCRAs) – Equifax Information Services LLC (Equifax), TransUnion LLC (TransUnion), and
Experian Information Solutions Inc. (Experian) – with a special focus on the infrastructure and processes
currently used by the NCRAs to collect, compile, and report information about consumers in the form of
credit reports.

Credit reports play an increasingly important role in the lives of American consumers. Most decisions to
grant credit – including mortgage loans, auto loans, credit cards, and private student loans – include
information contained in credit reports as part of the lending decision. These reports are also used in other
spheres of decision-making, including eligibility for rental housing, setting premiums for auto and
homeowners insurance in some states, or determining whether to hire an applicant for a job.

As the range and frequency of decisions that rely on credit reports have increased, so has the
importance of assuring the accuracy of these reports. These three NCRAs occupy the hub of
what can best be described as a national credit reporting system. They, the entities who report
information about borrowers to them (furnishers), providers of public records information, and
consumers all play roles which affect the accuracy of the information reported in consumer
credit reports.

In its supervision of large banks, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already begun
examining the processes institutions use to assure accuracy when furnishing information to the NCRAs and
when responding to consumer disputes about information contained in their credit reports. On July 20,
2012 the CFPB published its larger participant rule permitting it to supervise companies with annual receipts
from “consumer reporting,” as defined in the rule, of over $7 million. Prior to the rule’s effective date, the
CFPB’s Office of Deposits, Cash, Collections and Reporting Markets (DCCR) consulted existing reports,
industry, and public sources in order to be able to depict key dimensions of, and processes in, the reporting
and disputing of information in the U.S. credit reporting system.

This paper summarizes learnings from DCCR’s research and analysis. It is intended as a public service to
provide basic descriptions of, and statistics regarding, the underlying processes by which consumer data is
reported, matched to consumer files, and reviewed when consumers dispute its accuracy. The CFPB has
not sought to verify information contained in this paper through its supervisory authorities. Nor does the
paper represent any learnings or conclusions about whether any specific market participants are in
compliance with particular statutes or policies pertaining to consumer reporting.

This paper depicts the types of information movements and processes that are most essential to
the compiling of credit reports and to the management of credit report accuracy. The Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its implementing regulations impose legal duties both on

2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 98 of 145

NCRAs and on data furnishers relating to the accuracy of credit report information. 1 All parties
to the credit reporting system have a vital interest in achieving accuracy in credit reports. Those
who use these reports to make decisions rely upon the accuracy of the information they receive.
To the extent the information is inaccurate, that can lead to incorrect decisions to the detriment
of decision makers and consumers alike.

Key Learnings
• The U.S. credit reporting system encompasses a vast flow and store of
information. The NCRAs each maintain credit files on over 200,000,000 adults and
receive information from approximately 10,000 furnishers of data. On a monthly basis,
these furnishers provide information on over 1.3 billion consumer credit accounts or
other “trade lines.”

• Furnishing credit information to the NCRAs is a highly concentrated activity,
both by institution and by product. The 10 largest institutions furnishing credit
information to each of the NCRAs account for more than half of all accounts reflected
in consumers’ credit files. Likewise, retail and network-branded revolving credit cards
account for nearly 60% of all trade lines.

• The NCRAs have designed a number of processes to standardize, automate, and
perform quality controls on incoming data. The NCRAs report that before
accepting information from data furnishers, they perform certain background and
quality control checks on would-be-furnishers. Most furnishers – and all new furnishers
– provide consumer credit information electronically to one or more NCRAs using a
standardized format called Metro 2 that the Consumer Data Industry Association
(CDIA) developed and refined over time. When data files are received, the NCRAs also
perform quality checks prior to adding the data to credit files.

• The “matching” process by which the NCRAs assign incoming trade line data to
consumer-specific credit files represents the central step in the organization of
credit data to permit the creation of credit reports on individual consumers. The
NCRAs manage this process through unique data architectures each has developed and
which vary from each other. The challenge of accurately matching trade line
information to the correct consumer is made complex by the absence of any objective,
third party source of information, by similarities in consumers’ names and addresses
(particularly among family members), and by limitations, colloquial variations, and
inaccuracies in the personally identifying information provided by consumers and
furnishers that occur when consumers first apply for credit products.

• Inaccuracies can enter into credit reports in a number of ways. Inaccuracies can
occur if consumers provide inaccurate data when applying for a loan or if the creditor
who furnishes data to the credit bureau inputs consumer information to its systems
inaccurately. Inaccuracies can occur when the bureaus match information about a
consumer from a particular data furnisher to the wrong individual consumer’s file.
Inaccuracies can also come from errors or the lack of identifying information in
government records. Inaccuracies can occur when consumers have become victims of
identity fraud or identity theft.

• The extent to which credit reports contain material inaccuracies is uncertain.
There have been conflicting reports on this issue. The Federal Trade Commission

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 3
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 99 of 145

(FTC) is expected to release results from its decade-long study on credit report accuracy
later this year.

• Consumers’ right to dispute information contained in their credit reports under
the FCRA – and furnishers’ and the NCRAs’ obligation to respond – provide
important checks on inaccurate credit reports. Among other protections,
consumers also have the right to obtain a copy of their credit file and to receive notice
of adverse actions involving credit reports with a resultant right to a free disclosure.
These disclosures are one way for consumers to dispute information in their file they
believe is not accurate or complete. The CFPB estimates that at least 40,000,000
consumers obtain a copy of their credit file from one or more of the NCRAs annually.

• The NCRAs received approximately 8 million contacts from consumers in 2011 to
initiate disputes about the accuracy of one or more items on their credit files. In
total, these 8 million contacts resulted in 32 – 38 million disputed items on consumers’
credit files. The rate at which the credit account information depicted in credit files is
disputed varies widely based upon the type of data furnished.

• Collections items are a major source of disputes. Items reported by collection
agencies reportedly have the highest dispute rates, averaging 1.1% of the trade lines they
furnish in a given year. Almost 40% of disputes handled by the NCRAs on average can
be linked to collections items.

• The NCRAs have created an automated system for handling consumer disputes
and forwarding them to data furnishers. Through this automated system – called e-
OSCAR – the NCRAs provide furnishers with one or two numeric codes indicating the
nature of the consumer’s dispute and in a minority of cases (26%), explanatory text. At
present, the NCRAs generally do not forward documentation that consumers submit
with mailed disputes or provide a mechanism for consumers to forward supporting
documents when filing disputes online or via phone. The NCRAs resolve an average of
15% of trade line disputes internally (without furnisher involvement) and refer the
remaining 85% of the disputes they receive from consumers concerning trade lines to
data furnishers through e-OSCAR. The furnisher of the disputed data is then required
by the FCRA to investigate the dispute and report back to the NCRA.

• The NCRAs’ reliance on furnisher responses as the principal means of resolving
disputes is a source of controversy. The NCRAs report that in seeking to maximize
accuracy and in resolving disputes, they rely on furnishers meeting their obligations
under the FCRA to report information accurately and to respond to disputes
appropriately. Consumer advocates have argued that the NCRAs have an obligation to
monitor and manage furnisher practices as part of their broader obligation to achieve
credit report accuracy.

• While the measurement of credit report accuracy and the level and causes of
inaccuracies present challenges, periodic measurement of credit report accuracy
holds promise for establishing baseline accuracy levels and measuring
improvements over time.

4 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 100 of 145

1. Introduction
In most of the markets for consumer credit, including credit cards, auto loans, mortgages, and student loans,
lenders use credit reports as part of their evaluation of a consumer’s application for credit. Companies use
credit reports and credit scores derived from the information in credit reporting files to assess a consumer’s
likelihood of repaying the loan. Credit reports and scores can be delivered in real time, permitting instant
decisions at retailers, auto showrooms, or online. Lists of consumers derived from credit reports are used to
make offers of credit. Underwriting processes stipulated by the FHA, VA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac
require mortgage lenders to obtain credit reports from a nationwide credit reporting agency (the NCRAs)
before these federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises will insure, guarantee, or purchase their
loans. For each of these forms of credit and origination channels, credit reports are used by lenders to help
set interest rates and other key credit terms, or determine whether the consumer is offered credit at all. Of
113 million credit card and retail card accounts, auto loans, personal loans, mortgages, and home equity
loans originated in the United States in 2011, the vast majority of approval decisions used information
furnished by credit reporting agencies. 2

Credit reports also are used in spheres of decision-making beyond eligibility for credit. These include
eligibility for rental housing, 3 setting premiums for auto and other property and casualty insurance where
permitted by law, 4 and establishing (along with prior account history) eligibility for checking accounts. 5
When an individual applies for a job, a prospective employer may examine his or her credit report upon the
individual’s authorization.6 A recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management of its
membership database found that almost 60% of its member employers used credit reports to screen
applicants for at least some of their positions. 7

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 5
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 101 of 145

Because of the widespread use of credit reports – often along with credit scores derived from them – in
major personal financial decisions, the accuracy of reports has remained an ongoing policy concern. In a
2007 report on credit scores used in lending decisions, the Federal Reserve Board noted the importance of
accurate credit reports: “for the full benefits of the credit-reporting system to be realized, credit records
must be reasonable, complete, and accurate.” 8 Credit scoring models depend on the credit information
contained in consumers’ credit files to be accurate to effectively predict a consumer’s relative risk of
delinquency. Inaccurate credit information may cause credit scoring models to understate or overstate a
consumer’s credit risk to lenders. Accurate credit information helps decision makers predict certain risks
effectively, while inaccurate credit information in credit reports has the potential to compromise the
effectiveness and consistency of decisions that rely on them, and the potential to cause material harm to
affected consumers. Ultimately, consumer and business confidence in decisions based on credit reports and
scores derived from them depends on confidence in the accuracy of the credit information they contain. a

When the FCRA passed in 1970, key provisions of the law focused on assuring the accuracy of credit
reports. These key accuracy provisions of the FCRA remain as important today as when the law first
passed. They address the quality of data in credit files by requiring credit reporting agencies to establish
“reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of their credit reports. 9 The FCRA also
includes a number of other provisions that relate to the information in consumer reports such as limits on
the period of time during which certain pieces of adverse information can generally be included in a
consumer report.10

Credit report accuracy relies on an ongoing ecosystem involving the interaction of NCRAs and other
consumer reporting agencies, furnishers of information, public record repositories, users of credit reports,
and consumers. An understanding of how this ecosystem operates – including the basic “plumbing” of data
flows, the various participants involved, and the economic incentives each group of participants may bring
to their respective roles – is foundational knowledge in considering technical and policy options for
improving and assuring credit report accuracy.

This paper focuses on the databases of the three largest NCRAs – Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. It
seeks to depict technical processes involved in the collection, screening, and correction of credit information
and their broad impact on the accuracy of information provided in credit reports from these NCRAs. It
does not seek to characterize or quantify either the general level of accuracy of credit report information, or
the harms that may result to consumers affected by credit report inaccuracies. Additionally, the paper does
not attempt to weigh the costs and benefits that might be involved in improving the accuracy of credit
reports beyond their current levels.

a The issues raised in this discussion of credit report accuracy also generally apply to consumer reports from consumer

reporting agencies as defined under the FCRA. Besides the NCRAs, there are other consumer reporting agencies
including the nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies with rental information databases, check writing/bank
databases, medical information databases, insurance claims databases, employment databases, and background
screening databases. Each of these specialty databases has its own sources of consumer information. There are also
consumer reporting agencies that are not nationwide.

6 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 102 of 145

2. Credit Bureaus, Credit
Files, Credit Reports,
and Credit Scores
2.1 Credit Bureaus
The consumer reporting system enables creditors and other providers of consumer services to pool
information about their respective customers and use that pooled information to inform their credit and
other risk decisions about new applicants and existing customers.

Credit bureaus first emerged in the United States in the late 1800s to support merchant lenders who
extended credit to local businesses and individuals.11 At that time, the “credit bureau” consisted of a list of
individuals who had not repaid their debts as agreed and were therefore deemed poor credit risks. Prior to
the use of such lists, local merchants extended only very small amounts of credit, and these credit decisions
depended largely on the merchant’s direct personal knowledge of the individual borrower’s personal
character.

The credit reporting industry grew steadily with growing interest on the part of both consumers and
merchants in using credit in purchase transactions. In the 1920s and again in the 1950s, credit bureaus
experienced particularly rapid growth with the introduction of retail installment credit and revolving credit
accounts, 12 in the 1970s and 1980s with the growth of bank credit cards, and in the 1990s with the
automation of mortgage underwriting. By the early 1970s, the industry comprised over 2,250 firms, most
with local or regional coverage. As the 1970s progressed, the industry began to consolidate. 13 With the
development of computer databases, nationwide credit card issuers, and automated underwriting, the
threshold of technological investment required to distribute credit reports increased, as did the importance
of offering nationwide coverage. Many of the local bureaus sold their records to the major national bureaus.
Today, the consumer reporting landscape includes large national bureaus like the NCRAs; bureaus with
credit information such as payday loans, utility and telephone accounts, and other credit relationships; a
number of specialized consumer reporting agencies with medical information, employment history,
residential history, check writing history, checking account history, insurance claims, and other non-credit
relationships; as a well as a few hundred resellers of credit reports.

By 2011, the NCRAs generated U.S. revenues of about $4 billion, 14 including revenues from several ancillary
businesses such as the sale of lists and non-credit consumer information for marketing purposes, the sale of
credit monitoring services directly to consumers or through resellers, and analytical services that provide
credit scores and other modeling tools to creditors.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 7
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 103 of 145

2.2 The Contents of Consumer Credit Files
For purposes of this paper, credit reports are a form of “consumer report” as defined by the FCRA.
Consumer reports generally are communications by a consumer reporting agency “bearing on a consumer’s
credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or
mode of living” used or expected to be used in determining a consumer’s eligibility for credit or insurance,
for employment purposes, or other permissible purposes listed in the statute. 15 As defined by the FCRA,
the “file,” when used in connection with information on any consumer, means “all of the information on
that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is
stored.”16 This paper refers to “credit files” as the information about a consumer that is contained in the
databases of the NCRAs.

2.2.1 File Components
Credit files have some or all of the following components.

1. Header/Identifying Information: The header of a credit file contains the identifying
information of the consumer with whom the credit file is associated including an
individual’s name (and any other names previously used), current and former addresses,
Social Security number (SSN), date of birth, and phone numbers. Not all credit files
contain all of these identifying elements. 17

2. Trade lines: Trade lines are the accounts in a consumer’s name reported by creditors
such as auto lenders, mortgage lenders, or credit card issuers. For each trade line,
creditors that furnish information to consumer reporting agencies (referred to as
“furnishers” under the FCRA) generally provide the type of credit (e.g., auto loan,
mortgage, credit card), the credit limit or loan amount, account balance, the account
payment history including the timeliness of payments, whether or not the account is
delinquent or in collection, and the dates the account was opened and closed. If more
than one consumer is listed as a borrower on a given credit account, the trade line
information will appear in both consumers’ credit files ordinarily with information as to
the relationship of the consumer to the account, such as authorized user. Trade line
information may contain indicators such as whether the account is individual or joint,
the account is involved in a bankruptcy filing, the device for accessing the account (e.g.,
a credit card or PIN) was lost or stolen, and, if closed, the reason for closure (e.g., paid
off, closed at the consumer’s request). Credit files do not contain certain terms of the
loans or credit lines such as interest rates, points, or fees and do not contain certain
performance history such as purchases made using the account or payments made on
the account. Additionally, credit reports do not contain information on a consumer’s
income or assets.

3. Public record information: The NCRAs’ files include public record data of a financial
nature including consumer bankruptcies, judgments, and state and federal tax liens.
Records of arrests and convictions generally do not appear on a consumer’s credit file,
but other types of consumer reporting agencies, such as employment background
screening agencies, include them. Other public records that do not appear in credit
reports are marriage records, adoptions, and records of civil suits that have not resulted
in judgments. 18

8 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 104 of 145

4. Collections: Third-party collection items, reported by debt buyers or collections
agencies on behalf of a creditor, are considered a separate category on a credit report
by at least some of the NCRAs.

5. Inquiries: A consumer’s credit file is required to list every entity that accessed the file
in the last two years for employment-related uses and for at least the last year for credit
uses and most non-employment uses (e.g., tenant screening, insurance, government
licenses or benefits). 19 Some of the NCRAs go beyond legal requirements and list
credit inquiries for two years.

The NCRAs have two major classifications of inquiries: “soft” inquiries and “hard”
inquiries. Hard inquiries are typically the product of consumer-initiated activities such
as applications for credit cards, to rent an apartment, to open a deposit account, or for
other services. In contrast, soft inquiries are generally user-initiated inquiries like
prescreening. b Only hard inquiries will appear in credit reports obtained by creditors
and other users.

A consumer’s file also has information on whether the consumer has initiated a security freeze, fraud alert,
active duty alert, or filed a consumer statement on his or her file.

2.3 Credit Reports
Credit reports are consumer reports provided by NCRAs or other CRAs to lenders and other users. Credit
reports generally contain information in the consumer file that is reportable to the end user.

The FCRA limits with some exceptions how long a credit bureau can communicate certain adverse
information in a credit report. 20 Many adverse items including records of late payments, delinquencies, or
collection items typically stay on a credit report for up to seven years. 21 Likewise, civil suits and civil
judgments typically stay on the report for no more than the longer of seven years or the governing statute of
limitations, while paid tax liens typically cannot be reported more than seven years after the date of
payment. 22 Credit reports generally cannot list bankruptcies for more than 10 years after the order for relief
or date of adjudication, except that repayment plans are only reported for seven years. 23 There are also
restrictions on communicating a medical service provider’s name, address, and telephone number pertaining
to medical debts in a credit report.24

b The NCRAs treat other types of inquiries as soft inquiries based on business rules – certain insurance inquiries,
utility, and government inquiries relating to licenses or government benefits may be categorized as soft, depending on
the business rules for that entity. Employment inquiries are commonly placed in the soft inquiry section. Each listed
inquiry will include the date and type of inquiry (e.g., by consumer, review of existing account, for pre-screening).
Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board, Report to Congress on the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Dispute Process, at 4 (August 2006).

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 9
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 105 of 145

Users vary in how they evaluate credit reporting information. For users who view reports for employment
purposes, the NCRAs provide a modified credit report, which removes birth date and other information
that is sensitive in the employment context and does not include credit scores. Financial services users rely
on credit reports as well as proprietary or third-party algorithms – “scoring” models – to interpret the
information in a credit report. These algorithms use variables or “attributes” derived from the credit report.

2.4 Credit Scoring
The NCRAs deliver credit reporting information to users in standardized electronic formats so that lenders’
underwriting systems can use reports from more than one bureau interchangeably and so that analytical
credit risk models used by the lenders can identify and retrieve relevant pieces of information. More often
than not, a credit bureau will also deliver a credit score calculated from the information in a credit report
along with variables derived from the credit report (often called attributes). 25 The lender will pay the bureau
a fee for the credit report information and an additional amount for the score. The model used to generate
the credit score is selected by the lender as the user.

Lenders use credit scoring systems to assess the relative risk of consumers going delinquent on a loan. For
most credit scoring models in use today, the higher the numerical value of a credit score, the lower the credit
risk of a consumer. Consumers with very high scores thus are likely to get more favorable interest rates and
other more favorable loan terms. In contrast, consumers with lower numerical scores present higher risks
of default and may only be able to get loans at higher interest rates or other less favorable terms, if lenders
are willing to lend to them at all.

Large national lenders have widely used credit scoring since the 1970s to inform their loan underwriting. 26
The NCRAs did not start providing credit scores based on credit bureau data until the late 1980s. In the
late 1980s, one bureau built a bankruptcy prediction model. Models supplied by Fair Isaac Corporation
(FICO) for use with credit bureau data appeared in 1990 and 1991. Today, scores using models supplied by
FICO account for a substantial majority of third-party generic credit scores purchased with credit reports by
financial institutions for loan origination decisions.27 In 2006 the NCRAs formed a joint venture,
VantageScore, which offers competing scoring solutions. Additionally, the NCRAs and other third-party
development companies develop both generic and custom scoring models. Many lenders also develop and
use proprietary scoring models derived from credit report information.

The most common credit scores rank the relative probability that a consumer will become 90 days
delinquent on a new loan within two years. There are a wide variety of credit scores offered by the NCRAs
that vary by score provider, by model, and by target industry. 28 FICO, alone, has 49 different scoring
models. 29 Regardless of the version, credit scoring models tend to share common “attributes” derived from
credit reports, such as a consumer’s bill paying history (e.g., on time, delinquent, in collections), the number
and type of credit accounts a consumer has (e.g., bank cards, retail credit cards, installment loans), the
amount of available credit that a consumer is using, how long a consumer has had a credit account, and
recent credit activity, including inquiries.

10 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 106 of 145

Creditors use credit scores to enhance the efficiency and consistency of credit decisioning. 30 Credit scores
may also reduce the possibility of subjective decision making by lenders based on impermissible factors
under fair lending laws such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), like marital status, age or
national origin. The Federal Reserve noted in its 2007 study on credit scoring, “By providing a low-cost,
accurate, and standardized metric of credit risk for a pool of loans, credit scoring has broadened creditors’
access to capital markets, reduced funding costs, and strengthened public and private scrutiny of lending
activities.” 31

Some have argued that credit scores derived from credit reports have the potential to reinforce the effects of
discrimination. They argue that where lending discrimination occurs, minority and other disadvantaged
borrowers can wind up in credit products that make default more likely. As a result of higher default rates,
their credit reports and scores depict them as bad credit risks, when in fact they would have performed
better if they were in better, less expensive products. 32

NCRAs can deliver credit reports and scores (using proprietary or third-party models) to those authorized to
access a credit report instantly upon request. This makes it possible for lenders to grant instant credit in
venues where obtaining credit is often an important part of a consumer’s purchase decision, such as at an
auto dealer or a department store. Additionally, incorporating the use of credit scores as a factor in
underwriting has enabled the government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to introduce
automated underwriting systems that allowed mortgage originators to streamline the mortgage underwriting
process and provide rapid mortgage approvals.

Because credit scores are derived from the information in credit reports, inaccuracies in credit report
information can affect consumers’ credit scores. Some inaccuracies matter more than others. An error in a
consumer’s address, the misspelling of a maiden name, or other errors in the consumer’s identification
information are generally unlikely to have an impact on a consumer’s credit score or perceived credit
worthiness by lenders. However, a public record that inaccurately indicates a consumer is subject to a tax
lien, or a trade line that incorrectly states a consumer had a severe delinquency, could cause a lender to deny
credit to a consumer altogether, or to treat a consumer it would otherwise consider eligible for a loan at
prime interest rates as only eligible for sub-prime rates, costing the consumer thousands of dollars in
interest.

Below is a table showing how credit scores may be affected when specific adverse information appears in a
credit report using different starting scores from VantageScore and FICO, two credit score providers.
FICO scores generally have a range of 300 to 850, while Vantage scores range from 501 to 990. It is worth
noting that these score impacts are hypothetical, and that the impact of an adverse event in any individual’s
case varies by the unique characteristics of that consumer’s credit history, including the number and timing
of such events.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 11
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 107 of 145

FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE SCORE IMPACTS

Score Impact Range

Financial Data Consumer with Consumer with Consumer with Consumer with
900 Vantage Score 760 Vantage Score 780 FICO Score 680 FICO Score

Bank card – 30 70-90 point drop 60-80 point drop 90-110 point drop 60-80 point drop
days delinquent

Mortgage 130-170 point drop 80-110 point drop 140-160 point drop 95-115 point drop
charge-off or
foreclosure

Filing bankruptcy 350+ point drop 200+ point drop 220-240 point drop 130-150 point drop

Sources: VantageScore: Sara Davies, Introduction to the VantageScore Model, Ways Consumer Credit Scores Are
Impacted and Methods for Score Improvement, Presentation at the Symposium on Credit Scoring and Credit
Reporting at Suffolk University Law School (June 6, 2012).
FICO: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/questions/Credit_Problem_Comparison.aspx.

Other than credit scores, the NCRAs also provide lenders with analytical models using credit report data.
These include models that predict the likelihood of accepting a credit offer, of future account utilization, of
consumers leaving an existing account, or of collectability on an outstanding debt.

12 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 108 of 145

3. Furnishers and Users
In addition to the NCRAs and other CRAs, the most important participants in the credit reporting system
are furnishers, users, and consumers. All of these participants have defined roles with specific obligations under
the FCRA.

Most furnishers of credit information to NCRAs are creditors who are also users of credit reports. Public
records (e.g., judgments, bankruptcy filings, tax liens) are also important sources of information for NCRAs.

Figure 2 below is a simplified diagram of the information flows in the credit reporting system.

FIGURE 2: THE CREDIT REPORTING SYSTEM

Source: CFPB 2012

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 13
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 109 of 145

3.1 Trade Line Furnishers
Each NCRA has a consumer database with over 1.3 billion active trade lines. 33 Financial institutions furnish
the bulk of these trade lines. Approximately 40% of all trade lines of an NCRA’s files are bank card trade
lines. Of the remaining trade lines, 18% came from banks that issue retail cards, 13% are accounts in
collection reported by collections agencies and debt buyers, 7% from the education industry, c 7% from sales
finance providers (e.g., closed-end loans including auto loans), 7% from mortgage lenders or servicers, 4%
from auto lenders, and 4% from other unspecified creditors. 34

While the NCRAs receive trade lines from approximately 10,000 furnishers, a small number of very large
institutions (typically with multiple lines of business) supply a majority of trade lines. For the NCRAs, the
top 10 furnishers provide approximately 57% of the trade lines, the top 50 furnishers provide 72% of the
trade lines, and the top 100 furnishers provide 76% of the trade lines in their databases. 35 The institutions’
credit offerings can include bank credit cards, retailer credit cards, auto loans, student loans, and
mortgages.36 Other furnisher industries, such as collections agencies, tend to be more fragmented. 37

Furnishers typically report trade line updates monthly in batch files transmitted electronically to one or more
of the NCRAs. Most of the largest furnishers report all or nearly all of their trade lines to each of the largest
NCRAs.d These updates generally include changes in balances owed, whether or not payments were
received, changes in available credit lines (in the cases of revolving credit card accounts), and the status of
the account (e.g., current, 30+ days late, 60+ days late). The NCRAs provide a standardized data format,
called Metro 2, which most of their furnishers use to submit data. e

c Education furnishers are comprised of furnishers from business education schools, colleges, private educational

lenders, technical education universities, vocational and trade schools, and government furnishers including the
Department of Education and federal student loan servicers.

d The NCRAs do have some variations in their source data. Some smaller banks and many debt collection agencies do

not send information to all three of the largest NCRAs. See Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve Board,
Report to Congress on the Fair Credit Reporting Act Dispute Process, at 5 (August 2006). .

e Innovis, a credit bureau, also is a participant in the Metro reporting system. It offers portfolio management solutions,

fraud solutions, and authentication solutions, among other services.

14 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 110 of 145

3.1.1 Furnisher Incentives and Disincentives
Reporting to credit bureaus and other consumer reporting agencies by creditors is voluntary and historically
has been. Not all creditors report information about their borrowers. Some creditors report information
about users of some of their credit products, but not others. For example, credit card issuers who issue
revolving credit to consumers usually report trade line information monthly on consumer cards but are less
likely to report on small business cards even when these are owed by, and underwritten based on, the
personal credit history of the business owner.

Furnishers have multiple incentives to contribute data to the NCRAs. Individual contributors recognize
that the cross-company, cross-industry visibility into credit risk offered by a credit bureau depends on
widespread creditor participation. If a company elects not to contribute data, it runs the risk that its peers
will not contribute data, thus reducing a common resource from which creditors benefit. As indicated
above, most furnishers of trade line information to the NCRAs are also large users of credit reports.

A second reason creditors furnish information on their accounts is to maintain an incentive for their
borrowers to make timely repayments. Consumers are more likely to repay creditors if they are aware that a
creditor may report late payments or delinquent accounts to the NCRAs, which could negatively affect their
credit history and/or credit score. Consumers also get the benefit of having their timely payments reported,
which will positively impact lenders’ views of their credit worthiness.

There are also disincentives for creditors to report on their borrowers to the NCRAs. 38 For example, the
names of individuals who borrow and make loan payments on time may be included in prescreened lists that
NCRAs and other CRAs sell, providing these borrowers with account offers from competing lenders.
Reporting to one or more of the NCRAs may require investment in specialized information systems.
Further, data furnishers must follow FCRA requirements such as investigating disputes submitted directly 39
or indirectly through the NCRAs. Since furnishing data is voluntary, furnishers must consider whether the
overall benefits of furnishing outweigh its costs.

3.1.2 Reporting Format
CDIA developed the Metro 2 guidelines in 1997, on behalf of the NCRAs and Innovis, as their standard for
the electronic reporting of consumer trade line information. Metro 2 replaced the original Metro format
developed in the late 1970s. 40 The format forms the basis by which furnishers provide updates on their
borrowers’ account status in bulk file submissions to one or more of the NCRAs, generally on a monthly
basis. An obvious benefit of a shared data format is that all furnishers can report trade line information the
same way. This simplifies the creation of standardized credit files by each of the NCRAs and simplifies the
interpretation of credit information into risk-based credit scores.

Each Metro 2 electronic file submission has a furnisher header record, a series of base records on each
borrower, supplementary records describing updates to the furnished trade lines, and a trailer record. A
description of the various types of record segments and the information that Metro 2 allows furnishers to
provide is offered below.

• Metro 2 Header and Trailer Records: Header and Trailer records form the
bookends of a Metro 2 file submission. The header record is the first record provided
in the Metro 2 file submission and is used to identify the furnisher and the activity
period. It also contains the furnisher’s unique identifier at the NCRA receiving the

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 15
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 111 of 145

file, the activity date, name, address, and other contact information for the furnisher.
Note that this type of header record should be distinguished from the header record
on a consumer file maintained by an NCRA that has the consumer’s personal
identification information. The trailer record, meanwhile, is the last record in a
furnisher’s Metro 2 submission. It includes the sum totals of all the base and
supplementary segments submitted.

• Base Segment: The Base segment is used to identify the primary borrower and to
provide relevant account information for each trade line. Identification information
for the borrower includes first, middle, last name, suffix, generation code, phone
number, address, SSN, and date of birth. Account information includes account type
(e.g., revolving, installment, mortgage), credit limit, highest credit or original loan
amount, duration of credit extended, frequency with which payments are due, account
status, f stage of delinquency, date of first delinquency, and date the account closed and
conditions under which it was closed (e.g., closed by consumer, paid full amount due,
closed by creditor and paid less than full amount). Additionally, the Base segment
contains up to 24 months of the consumer’s payment history on the account.
Contrary to a frequent assumption, the Metro 2 format does not contain fields for
interest rate information on particular loans or revolving accounts.

• Supplementary Segments: Depending on the furnisher and the type of trade line, the
furnisher may have additional data segments to supplement the data in the base
segment. These include:

o Associated Consumer Segment: Contains information on consumers who
are associated with a credit account besides the primary user, including name,
SSN, date of birth, telephone number, and the relation of the consumer to the
account. Associated consumers can include authorized users, guarantors,
persons with joint contractual liability, or others.
o Original Creditor Name Segment: Has the name of the original credit
grantor, which is necessary to link a consumer debt to the original creditor
even after it is outsourced to a third-party collection agency.
o Segment for Accounts Sold to/Purchased from Another Company:
Used to report the name of the companies which respectively bought and sold
a portfolio of consumer debt.
o Mortgage Information: Used to report any Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
loan number associated with a mortgage account.
o Specialized Payment Information: Has information on deferred payments
or balloon payments, if applicable.
o Account Number/Identification Number: Used to report new
identification or account numbers.

f Account status reflects the current or final disposition of the account. If the account is delinquent, Metro 2 allows

furnishers to report the level of delinquency such as 30-59 days past due, 60-89 days past due, and up to 180 days or
more past due. Where the account is closed, a furnisher can report whether the account closed with a zero balance,
was a voluntary surrender, closure surrender, repossession, charge-off, or entered into foreclosure.

16 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 112 of 145

o Employment Segment: Contains employment information on the primary
borrower, which may come from the consumer’s application for credit or
from employment information that the creditor obtained in approving the
account.

The Metro 2 format specifies that base segments be reported for each account submitted. Supplementary
segments are reported when relevant to the particular trade line or other data that is furnished.

3.2 Public Record Collection
While the NCRAs rely on a multitude of furnishers to supply creditor trade line information, they also
receive public records including bankruptcy records, civil court monetary judgments, and government tax
liens from publicly available government sources. They obtain these records primarily through LexisNexis
Risk Data Retrieval Services LLC (LNRDRS). The use of LNRDRS followed the NCRAs’ decisions to
move from direct collection from hundreds of sources and suppliers to a single data retrieval vendor. The
NCRAs report they do not use criminal records in their credit reports. Rather, the NCRAs utilize public
records representing derogatory items in their credit files. Derogatory is defined as negative information
that will likely hurt a consumer’s credit (e.g., late payments, collection accounts, foreclosures, civil
judgments). 41 While each NCRA has its own criteria, public records are generally removed from credit
reports once the reportable event becomes obsolete (between seven and ten years depending on the type of
information and the applicable statute of limitations).

3.2.1 LNRDRS Data Retrieval
LNRDRS retrieves and sends to each of the three NCRAs between 10 and 20 million public record events
per year (roughly one third of which are bankruptcies, tax liens, and civil monetary judgments
respectively). 42 All bankruptcy records are pulled electronically from the PACER system, an electronic
public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district
and bankruptcy courts. Monetary judgments and tax liens are obtained from 10,000 to 12,000 state and
local courts and county and state government offices. LNRDRS reports it obtains information on 30% of
judgments and liens electronically. For the remaining 70%, LNRDRS deploys a network of independent
contractors who manually access public records at government sources and type the local records into a
proprietary software system, which screens for duplicates and minimizes typographical errors. A single
record collector can typically record approximately 200 events in a day.

In retrieving records for the NCRAs, LNRDRS provides the data in its “raw” form. The NCRAs undertake
the responsibility of assigning records to particular consumer files, and adjusting matching criteria for
possible errors. Assignment of a court record to a particular consumer can be challenging for the NCRAs
because, according to one estimate, SSNs appear on court records only 3% of the time.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 17
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 113 of 145

4. Furnisher and Data
Screening
The NCRAs employ a number of methods to screen furnishers and incoming information for inaccuracies
and anomalies. This section examines the vetting and approving of furnishers and various quality screens
performed on data files received from furnishers. These methods focus on identifying formatting errors,
logical errors, internal inconsistencies, and anomalies.

4.1 New Furnisher Screening
The NCRAs’ data quality processes start with their screening of new furnishers.

The NCRAs report that a prospective furnisher can initiate a relationship with them by sending a letter of
intent to furnish. Due to the resource and economic costs associated with adding a furnisher, the NCRAs
will generally require prospective furnishers to report a minimum of 100 to 200 active accounts per month. 43
Each NCRA reportedly puts prospective furnishers through an initial security screening. Screening
generally includes an inspection of features of each business such as its physical headquarters, phone
number, website, and business license, as well as company records such as annual reports. Individual
NCRAs also may hire third-party investigation services to screen for illegal or unethical business history.
Sole proprietorships and new businesses (e.g., in business less than a year) may receive more specialized
screening. An NCRA may require the furnishers to submit test files which it will examine to make sure they
are Metro 2 compatible. Approved furnishers are trained on Metro 2.

After these initial inspections, NCRA policies may trigger reinspections after risk events such as consumer
complaints, suspicious trade lines, variations in data submissions, odd anomalies, and changes in company
ownership. At least one NCRA has policies to reinspect new furnishers six months after they start
submitting data to assess for data quality and fraud risk.

The NCRAs report that they continue to monitor for data quality and fraud once a furnisher starts
contributing live trade line data. One example of furnisher fraud is when a supposed credit repair
organization represents itself as a furnisher and attempts to boost the credit scores of consumers with bad
credit by reporting fictitious trade lines that the consumers purportedly used and paid back on time.

Overall, the objective of furnisher screening is to reduce the risk of fraud or of poor data quality by
screening out furnishers whose systems are not able to report accurate data on customers or report it in the
Metro 2 format.

18 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 114 of 145

4.2 Checking Furnished Data
Having passed this initial screening, furnishers can start providing data. Furnishers generally provide
monthly trade line updates through data file transfers that conform to the Metro or Metro 2 format and
contain trade line updates on all of the furnishers’ active accounts. All new furnishers are being added under
the Metro 2 format, which was first introduced in 1997. Data submitted by a furnisher to an NCRA
generally goes through a multi-stage process to identify data irregularities.

Typical data quality checks will identify issues such as blank fields or logical inconsistencies in the data –
both at the level of the data file and at the individual consumer’s trade line. If a furnished account is
reported as closed, and then in a subsequent data feed the furnisher reports a new account balance, the
NCRA might flag that inconsistency. Other inconsistencies might be account balances higher than the
maximum credit line, duplicate instances of information on the same account being furnished, or data
patterns inconsistent with the furnisher’s historical pattern of transactions. It is not uncommon for
furnishers’ bulk files to be initially rejected by the NCRAs. 44 The NCRAs report that furnishers tend to
correct most of the problems causing the file rejection, leaving only a small percentage of files permanently
rejected. Some data rejections might not result from an error in the data but from format incompatibility
when the furnisher uses the wrong codes to update accounts, or the furnished data shows unfamiliar
formats because of system changes at the furnisher.

Within file submissions, individual consumer base records and tradeline updates are similarly screened for
formatting errors, logical errors, internal inconsistencies, and anomalies. The rejection rates for incoming
trade line data from furnishers appear to vary across multiple dimensions (e.g., by individual furnisher, by
furnishing industry, by the NCRA receiving the data). For example, submissions from collections agencies
tend to have a higher rejection rate than rejections for credit card trade lines. 45

While the NCRAs’ data screens do find errors by identifying anomalies and inconsistencies, these checks
rely on underlying furnisher data to be valid. The NCRAs do not conduct independent checks or audits to
determine if the data is accurate, such as contacting a consumer to ask if she is properly associated with an
account or if the balance reported on an account is true, or checking the record-keeping practices of a
furnisher. The NCRAs generally rely on furnishers to report information on consumers that is complete
and accurate.

4.3 The Furnisher Rule
In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and
the Office of Thrift Supervision issued a joint rule (“Furnisher Rule”) implementing the accuracy and
integrity and direct dispute provisions for furnishers mandated by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act (FACTA). 46 The CFPB has since restated this rule. 47

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 19
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 115 of 145

As a result of FACTA and the Furnisher Rule, furnishers have enhanced obligations to supply accurate data.
Each furnisher is required to “establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures
concerning the accuracy and integrity of the information it furnishes to consumer reporting agencies.” 48
The procedures should address “deleting, updating, and correcting information in the furnisher’s records, as
appropriate, to avoid furnishing inaccurate information.” 49 The procedures must be appropriate to the
“nature, size, complexity, and scope of each furnisher’s activities.” 50 Appropriate procedures include using
standard data reporting formats, maintaining records for a reasonable period of time, providing appropriate
oversight of service providers (e.g., companies that provide core processing systems or software used for
recordkeeping and account management), furnishing information in a way that prevents re-aging, g
duplicative reporting, association of information with the wrong consumer, and providing sufficient
identifying information about consumers. 51

g Re-aging in this context refers to erroneously extending the reporting period of derogatory consumer information by

creating a new, later start date when the derogatory event occurred, thus pushing back the clock for removing the
derogatory item from the credit report.

20 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 116 of 145

5. Compiling Credit Files:
“Matching”
Once the NCRAs have received trade line information from a furnisher they must assign it to a specific
consumer’s identity. Each of the NCRAs has over 200 million active files on individual consumers which
are non-duplicative within the particular NCRA. 52 The average credit file contains 13 past and current credit
obligations, including nine bank and retail cards and four installment loans (e.g., auto loans, mortgage loans,
student loans). 53 In a typical month, an NCRA receives updates on over 1.3 billion trade lines. 54 With this
much information included in and added to their databases, the NCRAs face technical and operational
challenges in attributing information to the proper consumer’s file.

5.1 Identifying the Correct Consumer
To locate and identify a consumer, NCRAs will use various combinations of personal identifying
information such as name, address, phone number, date of birth, address, and SSN. A given trade line
reported by a furnisher may not contain all of this identifying information. Typically, the furnisher reports
the personally identifying information that was provided by the consumer in the consumer’s original
application for credit or through updates (such as for current address or married name) that a consumer may
provide in the course of his or her relationship with the furnisher.

The fact that many consumers have the same or similar personal identifiers presents further challenges when
a credit bureau tries to match an incoming trade line with the correct consumer’s file. In the United States,
according to 2000 census figures (the most recent to have last name statistics available), there are more than
2.3 million Americans with the last name of Smith, 1.8 million Americans with the last name of Johnson, 1
million Americans with the last name of Davis, 850 thousand Americans with the last name of Garcia, and
600 thousand Americans with the last name of Lee. 55 As one example, consider the matching challenges
posed by relatives with same first and last name, but different middle names, who reside at the same address,
and who do not regularly use their middle name when applying for credit.

Adding to the complexity, millions of individuals change how they identify themselves over time or between
furnishers. Each year, a sizeable number of Americans change their name through marriage and divorce.
Separately, consumers do not necessarily refer to themselves consistently in credit applications. For
example, a woman named Elizabeth may use her full name on one application and then refer to herself with
a nickname “Betty,” “Beth,” “Liz,” or “Eliza” on another credit transaction. Finally, creditor practices may
vary as to the personally identifying information they require in their loan or credit applications, with the
result that the criteria one creditor uses to identify a consumer in a trade line update may vary from how
another creditor identifies him or her.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 21
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 117 of 145

5.2 Posting and Organizing Account
Information in Consumer Files
Once a trade line has passed the NCRAs’ initial vetting and screening, the NCRAs assign or post that trade
line to the credit file of a specific consumer if they believe there is a match. As discussed below,
inaccuracies may result from this process.

The manner in which each NCRA posts incoming data to a consumer’s file, and the way its files are
organized, depends on the particular structure of its database, or its unique “data architecture.” The NCRAs
take two different approaches to organizing personal data in their data networks: (1) flat file system and (2)
“PINning” technology.

5.2.1 Flat File Systems
At least one NCRA organizes its database like a traditional flat filing system so that each consumer is linked
to one file. 56 Consumers’ files are distinguished through matching logic using a consumer’s personal
identifiers such as name, address, SSN, and date of birth. Multiple or fragmented files can occur for a single
person when information is reported with different identifying information such as a different last name.
Fragmented files on the same consumer will remain distinct until the NCRA receives new information about
the fragments (e.g., a unifying name, address, phone number) that indicates they should be combined. In
some cases, matching algorithms will assign the trade line to a file that, according to the algorithm,
represents the best match even when all of the identifiers do not match up perfectly, or when only a limited
number of identifiers are contained with the trade line.

5.2.2 PINning Technology
Another method uses a unique personal identification number (PIN) to organize consumer files. 57 Instead
of having a single file for each consumer, it uses the consumer’s assigned PIN to link information on the
consumer from multiple databases including inquiry, trade line, employment, public record, and address
databases. Each furnished trade line data element, inquiry, or public record is entered into the network with
an associated PIN in a relational database. PINs are assigned to trade lines based on algorithms that find
the consumer that best matches the personal (header) information accompanying the trade line. When a
consumer report is requested by a creditor or a consumer requests a credit report, the NCRA assembles the
consumer report in real-time using the PIN as the central link to the different databases.

In this system, matching algorithms are used to assign a new incoming trade line or public record to the PIN
that represents the best possible fit based on the personally identifying information associated with the trade
line.

The CFPB has no data on the relative accuracy of flat-file vs. PIN-based architectures.

22 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 118 of 145

6. Inaccuracies in Credit
Files and Credit
Reports
Given the volume of data handled, the challenges of matching tradelines to the correct consumer files, and
the number and variety of furnishers, inaccuracies in some credit files inevitably occur. Inaccuracies in
credit files and credit reports can occur where information that does not belong to a consumer is attached to
his or her file, where information belonging to a consumer is omitted from the file, or where there are
factual inaccuracies in trade line or other information in the consumer’s file. Some of these inaccuracies can
be attributed to matching challenges in assigning a trade line to a consumer’s file. Other causes of
inaccuracies include data and data entry errors, NCRA system or process inaccuracies, furnisher system or
process inaccuracies, identity fraud, or time lags.

6.1 Types of Inaccuracies in Credit Files and
Reports
The following are among the types of inaccuracies that appear in credit files and the reports derived from
them.

• Inclusion of accounts or records in a credit file that do not belong to the
consumer, commonly called a mixed file: Credit reports can contain trade lines or
public records about a consumer other than the one who is the subject of the credit
report.

• Omission of accounts or records belonging to the consumer: A credit account or
public record that belongs to the consumer’s file can be erroneously placed in another
consumer’s file, leading to a mixed file, as described above. 58 Alternatively, credit bureau
matching algorithms or gaps in data can lead to a consumer trade line being kept separate
from the rest of the consumer’s file.

• Trade line or record inaccurately represents information pertaining to the
consumer’s account with the creditor: A credit file can inaccurately depict the terms
and status of a valid account such as inaccurately depicting the date an account was
closed, the credit limit for the account, or whether a trade line is delinquent. Similarly, a
collection item on the report may inaccurately reflect the payment status of the debt or
the amount of money owed.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 23
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 119 of 145

It is worth noting that in some cases consumers are mistaken about the presence of
inaccuracies in their account. For example, a consumer may believe he or she paid a bill
when it was not paid. A consumer may believe that paying an item in collection removes
the collection history from one’s credit report, which it does not. A consumer may
believe he or she paid an account on time, when under the terms of the account, it was
late. Or a consumer may simply not recognize a trade line even though it is legitimate.

6.2 Causes of Credit File Inaccuracies
The inaccuracies identified in Section 6.1 can come from a variety of causes.

• Data and data entry errors: Furnishers can input accurate consumer information
incorrectly or make typographical mistakes (e.g., transposing two digits in an SSN,
misspelling names, transposing first and middle names). 59 Consumers (when applying
for a loan) can provide inaccurate data to furnishers. For both of these types of
inaccuracies, the credit bureau could pass along the inaccuracy to the consumer’s file.

Data errors can also lead to file matching problems by causing the bureau to put the
trade line into a separate or “orphan” file distinct from the consumer’s original credit
file, and thus not include it in the consumer’s credit report. Alternatively, data
inaccuracy could cause a consumer’s trade line to be mixed in with another consumer’s
file (e.g., when the mistake causes the consumer’s header information to match or
resemble the identity of another consumer).

• Bureau file matching inaccuracies: Inaccuracies can occur when a bureau assigns a
trade line to a consumer’s file or when it determines the credit file that matches the
consumer named in a creditor inquiry. A matching error can occur for a variety of
reasons.

o Matching errors may result from creditor inquiries and trade lines that contain a
limited set of identifiers relating to the consumer. For example, a lender inquiry
may omit information such as date of birth or SSN.

o Family members with similar identity information such as fathers and sons with
common names (e.g., Jr., Sr.) can experience commingling of files, especially if
they reside at the same addresses and distinguishing information is not
provided.

o Unrelated individuals with similar names and identity information get linked
together because a name or SSN is incorrectly inputted.

In some cases, when a consumer changes personal information (e.g., his or her name)
the bureau will be unable to match the new trade line to an existing file until the bureau
has confidence that the new information belongs to the existing consumer. A common
example occurs when a consumer changes names after getting married or divorced.

24 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 120 of 145

Until the bureau can link the individual pre- and post- name change, that individual’s
information might reside in two different files.

• Bureau process errors: An example of a process error would be if a credit bureau failed
to prevent the reappearance in a consumer’s credit report of inaccurate data that was
removed as a result of a consumer dispute reinvestigation. Such errors can occur despite
the bureau maintaining procedures to permanently remove or suppress identified
inaccuracies as required by the FCRA. 60

• Identity fraud/theft: Identity thieves can compromise a consumer’s credit history by
creating new credit, utility, or health care accounts in the consumer’s name and then
letting them go unpaid. As these accounts go delinquent and are pushed to collections,
the consumer victim’s credit rating can plummet. Fraudsters may also take over existing
consumer accounts, often disguising the account theft by changing the billing address of
the applicant with the lending institution, or making purchases over the Internet.
Additionally, fraudsters can create synthetic identities using an innocent consumer’s SSN
or other identifiers like last name and birthdate. 61

• Furnisher system or process inaccuracies: Inaccuracies can occur because of
limitations in the processes furnishers and public records providers use in handling
consumer transactions. Examples include:

o Attributing ownership to an account on which an individual is only an
authorized user;
o Failing to post a payment;
o Assigning a payment to the wrong account;
o Failing to update records (e.g., tax liens or other judgments that are still listed as
open even though they have been paid or resolved);
o Failing to permanently change records when a consumer successfully disputes
an inaccuracy, with the result that faulty information is re-reported;
o Listing closed accounts as open;
o Reporting an incorrect credit limit; and
o Transfering loans from one owner or servicer to another owner or servicer with
different record-keeping systems can result in lost data or lost payment records.

Furnishers and consumers can disagree on the status of credit accounts (e.g., whether a
payment was late). These disagreements can be addressed, if not always resolved,
through the dispute processes that consumers have the right to initiate under the Fair
Credit Billing Act (e.g., for billing disputes involving credit cards, department store
accounts, other open-end credit accounts)62 or the FCRA.

Additionally, certain trade lines may be reported by multiple furnishers over time.
Examples include trade lines reported by a debt buyer that were previously reported by a
creditor from whom the debt buyer acquired the accounts, or mortgage loans for which
the servicing rights were sold from one servicer to another. In these cases, the bureaus
not only match the trade line with the correct consumer’s file, but may also determine
when the incoming trade line reflects the continuation of a previously reported trade line
in the consumer’s file. To facilitate correct depiction of such trade lines over time, the

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 25
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 121 of 145

Metro 2 policy is for furnishers who are new account owners to list the name of the
original creditor in file updates. Omission of this information by a furnisher who has
bought the debt, and/or failure by account sellers to acknowledge when accounts have
been sold, may result in duplicate trade lines in a consumer file.

• Time lags: Differences can occur due to time lags between a consumer transaction and
its reporting to a credit bureau file (e.g., paying a past due bill or opening a new
account). Time lags are a significant issue in the updating of public records. According
to one industry source, it takes some state courts, on average, two months to transcribe
a court judgment into a written court decision. 63

6.3 Consumer Impact of Inaccuracies
Each of these types of credit report errors may affect how a creditor or a credit score assesses the credit
worthiness of a consumer. Trade line errors can both hurt or help a consumer’s credit score. An omitted
current trade line, for example, may lower a credit score. Likewise, a credit score may be unfairly reduced by
a negative trade line that belongs to another consumer, or by duplicate trade lines that are treated as two
separate credit relationships. On the other hand, if a delinquent trade line was inadvertently assigned to
another consumer’s file or if a furnisher incorrectly marked a delinquent trade line as current, the error
could help the consumer’s score.

26 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 122 of 145

7. Disputing Credit Report
Errors
Recognizing the possibility of inaccuracies, the FCRA gives consumers the right to dispute information they
deem inaccurate with an NCRA, a furnisher (in cases covered by the Furnisher Rule), or both. The FCRA
requires NCRAs and furnishers to “reinvestigate” information contained in a consumer’s credit file when
the consumer disputes its accuracy. 64 Further, the statute gives consumers several mechanisms for obtaining
the information contained in their credit files in order to review them for possible inaccuracies. Consumers
can get a free credit report, that is, obtain a file disclosure for free, (i) once every 12 months from the
NCRAs and nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies, 65 (ii) in connection with risk-based pricing
and adverse action notices, 66 (iii) if they are unemployed and intend to apply for employment within 60
days, 67 (iv) if they are recipients of welfare assistance, 68 (v) if they have reason to believe their credit file is
inaccurate due to fraud, 69 (vi) in connection with requested initial or extended fraud alerts, 70 or (vii) if
permitted by state law. Consumers can also review their credit files by purchasing them directly or when
they receive their credit files as part of a paid credit monitoring service subscription. Consumers sometimes
also receive information from reports or copies of reports from a user such as a bank, mortgage broker, or
landlord.

The CFPB estimates that as many as 44 million consumers obtained copies of their consumer file disclosure
annually in 2010 and 2011 – either as a result of obtaining free annual file disclosures through
annualcreditreport.com (15.9 million); 71 through one of many various credit monitoring services (26
million); 72 obtaining disclosures directly from the NCRAs after receiving adverse action notices or risk-
based pricing notices (approximately 1 million); 73 or from lenders directly or through fraud alerts, requests
based on unemployment or welfare status, and where free under state law (approximately 0.5 million for this
catch-all category). 74

In 2011, the NCRAs received approximately 8 million consumer contacts disputing the completeness or
accuracy of one or more trade lines, public records, or credit header information (identification information)
in their files. 75h Based on these contacts, the number of credit-active consumers who disputed one or more
items with an NCRA in 2011 ranges from 1.3% to 3.9%. On average across the NCRAs, consumers filed
42% of their disputes online, 44% by mail, and 13% by phone. The remainder of consumers communicated
their disputes by fax, walk-ins, or other methods. 76 Many of these consumers disputed information about
more than one tradeline or other item in their file, leading to approximately 32 to 38 million dispute
reinvestigations. 77 This volume has declined significantly since 2007 when consumers were more active in
applying for credit, particularly in the mortgage market. In 2007, a high volume year, the NCRAs received
disputes on 47 to 53 million items. 78

h This estimate counts contacts made by a single consumer to multiple NCRAs as multiple contacts.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 27
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 123 of 145

The number of consumer dispute requests (8 million) appears high relative to the total number of
consumers who see their credit files (44 million). However, the CFPB is unable to estimate a dispute rate
for consumers who see their files for several reasons. First, no data is available on the overlap of disputes
by consumers among the three largest NCRAs. Thus the range of unique consumers who filed complaints
could be up to 8 million or substantially less if high volumes of consumers filed complaints with multiple
NCRAs. Second, it is unclear how many consumers obtained copies of their credit reports or file
disclosures by more than one means in a given year. Additionally, an unknown number of consumers may
initiate disputes without their reports after being advised by lenders of specific negative items appearing on
their reports.

7.1 Credit Bureau and Furnisher Disputes
Consumers can elect to dispute the completeness or accuracy of their credit file through the NCRA or other
bureau that provided their report, directly with the furnisher who provided the disputed trade line (in cases
covered by the Furnisher Rule), or both. The nature and timeframes for responses to disputes are specified
in the FCRA.

Under Section 611 of the FCRA, if a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of his or her credit
file, the credit bureau has an obligation to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. 79 The bureau must generally
complete a reinvestigation within 30 days, in which it must consider all the relevant information supplied by
the consumer.80 Moreover, it has five business days to forward the dispute to the relevant furnisher. 81 The
credit bureau notification to the furnisher shall include all relevant information received from the
consumer.82 If the reinvestigation determines that the consumer’s data is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot
be verified, the bureau must delete the disputed data. 83 Furnishers have independent obligations under the
FCRA, after receiving notice from a CRA of a consumer dispute, pursuant to Section 611 to conduct an
investigation into the disputed information, to review all the relevant information provided by the CRA, and
to report the results of the investigation to the CRA. 84

As stated above, consumers can also dispute the accuracy of information directly with the furnisher of the
information. Under the Furnisher Rule, a furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation of a
consumer’s dispute about his or her liability for a debt to the furnisher, the terms of the debt, the
consumer’s performance concerning the account at issue, or “other information contained in a consumer
report regarding an account or relationship with the furnisher that bears on the consumer’s credit
worthiness, credit standing,” or other credit reporting factors. 85 The furnisher also must “review all relevant
information provided by the consumer” and complete an investigation and report the results back to the
consumer in the same time frame as if the dispute was sent to a consumer reporting agency. 86 If the
investigation finds furnished information was inaccurate, the furnisher must promptly notify each CRA that
received the information of its determination and provide corrected information. 87

28 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 124 of 145

7.2 Trade Line Dispute Rates
The NCRAs see variations in dispute rate by furnisher, account status, and industry. The dispute rates for
the active trade lines among the 100 largest furnishers generally fall within a range between 0.05% and
2.0%. 88 The dispute rate reported by the NCRAs on delinquent trade lines not yet in collections is
approximately 1.1%. 89 Dispute rates for specific industries vary widely as well. Some of this variation may
be due to variations in data quality controls at individual furnishers. Other differences may simply be due to
the fact that some trade lines and industries, by their nature, are likely to generate more disputes from
consumers than others. One would expect, for example, that consumers would be more likely to challenge
trade lines with reported delinquencies or collections actions than trade lines that only reflect positive
information. Likewise, one would expect higher dispute rates in credit categories where delinquency rates
are high (e.g., on subprime loans as opposed to prime loans).

Figure 3 describes the average trade line dispute rates for different types of furnishers. 90

FIGURE 3: DISPUTE RATES BY INDUSTRY TYPE

Industry Type Disputes/Year per Active Trade Line
Bank Card and Retail Card 0.17%
Finance Companies 91 0.19%
Mortgage 0.21%
Auto 0.27%
Student Loans 0.29%
Collection/Debt Buyers 1.06%

Collection trade lines generate significantly higher numbers of consumer disputes than other types of trade
lines – four times higher than auto and five times higher than mortgage dispute rates. Collections and
delinquent trade lines also reflect a disproportionate percentage of all accuracy disputes by consumers with
the NCRAs. Almost 40% of all consumer disputes at the NCRAs, on average, can be linked to
collections. 92

Multiple factors likely converge to generate a high volume of collections item disputes. First, in contrast to
other types of trade lines, 100% of collections trade lines correspond to negative information on a
consumer’s credit record. Consumers have a greater incentive to dispute information in a credit file that
harms their credit record than information that favorably reflects their ability and willingness to pay back a
loan.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 29
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 125 of 145

Both the discontinuous nature of consumers’ relationships with debt collectors (the collector has limited
interest in a long-term relationship with the consumer) and the collections industry’s data management
practices also may contribute to increased disputes. 93 Collections debt can be placed with third-party
collection agencies or sold to debt buyers multiple times. With each assignment or sale there are risks of
account data being compromised or lost, and with multiple transfers, the risk of errors may increase. Debt
buyers and debt collectors may lack the original documentation (e.g., consumer applications, statement
showing last payment made, charge-off statement) underlying a debt, contributing to mistakes. Additionally,
other than the sale of mortgages, consumers generally are not required to be notified when debt is sold or
assigned to a collection agency, so they may not associate the entity reporting negative trade line information
with the name of the original creditor account. 94 While the industry’s standard Metro 2 data furnishing
format has a field for debt collectors to report the originating creditor associated with the debt, collectors
may not always report the field. Separately, some consumers may knowingly (or with the encouragement of
certain credit repair organizations) dispute valid collection items or judgments in the hopes of removing
them from their credit files and increasing their credit scores.

Below, Figure 4 contains the average dispute rates of the top 100 furnishers to two NCRAs in 2011 by
furnisher size.

FIGURE 4: TRADE LINE DISPUTE RATES BY FURNISHER SIZE

Furnisher Average Percent of Trade
Size Lines Disputed per Year

Top 10 0.20%

Top 11-25 0.26%

26-50 0.35%

51-100 0.47%

Source: Industry statistics.

30 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 126 of 145

As indicated earlier, the Top 10 furnishers provide a majority of each of the NCRAs’ trade lines. These
furnishers are multi-line banks and financial services providers with high proportions of prime borrowers.
Higher dispute rates among the smaller furnishers (ranked by the number of trade lines each furnisher
reports) may reflect that more of them are collection agencies (a fragmented industry including many small
firms) or have proportionately larger subprime lending portfolios (accounts that are more likely to be
delinquent and to generate consumer disputes). i

At present, the NCRAs do not appear to regularly measure dispute rates of furnished trade lines at the
industry or individual furnisher level and they do not all measure dispute rates in a consistent fashion.

7.3 Resolving Trade Line Disputes: The e-
OSCAR System
The NCRAs handle most consumers’ trade line disputes they receive through an electronic information
network called e-OSCAR (the Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting). The e-OSCAR
network began in 1993 as a system run by the Associated Credit Bureaus, now the CDIA. Four companies
built and still own e-OSCAR – Equifax, Experian, Innovis, and TransUnion. The current Internet-based
system was created in 2001; the CDIA created the Online Data Exchange (OLDE) in 2006 to independently
operate the system. In 2011, 16,000 furnishers connected to these companies through e-OSCAR. 95

In the last three months of 2011, 33% of e-OSCAR disputes related to claims by a consumer that an
account in their file did not belong to them, either because of error or identity theft. In another 15% of
disputes, consumers claimed the information on a trade line was inaccurate. About 4% of consumer
disputes involved the reporting of a consumer’s current account balance, and another 4% of disputes
involved collections items about which consumers claimed not to be aware. 96

7.3.1 The Dispute Process
According to the NCRAs, trade line disputes handled by them pass through five steps.

1. Consumer initiates a dispute and reason codes are assigned: The process starts with a
dispute by a consumer to one of the NCRAs. Consumers can initiate a dispute online, by
phone, by mail, by fax, or in person. When a consumer initiates the dispute online the

i It should be possible to identify furnishers who are disproportionately responsible for tradeline disputes relative to

furnishers of similar type and size. For example, using a common measure of disputes per 1000 trade lines reported, a
credit card issuer’s dispute rate could be compared to the average dispute rate for credit card issuers, and an overall
dispersion of dispute rates. Furnishers who are outliers (i.e. have high dispute rates) in industries that have a high
dispute rate dispersion among furnishers may be appropriate targets for a process review that may yield sources of
reporting inaccuracies, data omissions, or billing errors that result in a high level of credit bureau disputes. Helping to
identify and address these furnishers’ root causes of disputes might yield a reduction in disputes and improvements in
credit file accuracy.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 31
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 127 of 145

consumer may provide a narrative description of the nature of the dispute and why the
consumer believes the information contained in the credit report to be in error. The
consumer must also select one or two reason codes from a list of 29 different codes that
characterize the nature of the dispute. 97 In mail and phone disputes, NCRA representatives
will assign the dispute codes they deem appropriate and may occasionally supplement the
dispute code with a narrative statement.

2. NCRA internally reviews dispute: The NCRA then investigates the dispute request using
proprietary decision rules to see if it can resolve the dispute internally without having to
forward the dispute to the furnisher. For example, the NCRAs will internally resolve
disputes they consider frivolous such as resubmitted but previously resolved disputes where
no new information is provided. j Separately, an NCRA may resolve a dispute in a
consumer’s favor under certain circumstances, such as if the documentation provided by the
consumer “can be reasonably verified as authentic.” 98 Disputes over the consumer’s
identifying information (e.g., name, address, SSN) also tend to be resolved internally. In
such cases, an NCRA may simply adopt the consumer’s correction or use internal or external
identity verification tools to evaluate the consumer’s claim. The NCRAs resolved or rejected
an average of 15% of the disputes they received in 2011. 99 The CFPB does not know what
percentage of these resolutions was in the consumer’s favor.

3. Dispute sent to furnisher: If the dispute cannot be resolved internally, the NCRA will
forward the dispute through e-OSCAR to the appropriate furnisher with dispute codes
through an electronic form called automated consumer dispute verification (ACDV).
Supplementing the dispute code(s), the ACDV can provide up to 255 characters of
consumer-supplied text describing the dispute in a free-form text field. In 2011, free-form
text was added, on average, to 26% of the NCRAs’ e-OSCAR transmission, although the
percentage varies from NCRA to NCRA based, in part, on whether the online form contains
a text field. Consumers can provide supplementary documentation (such as billing or other
records or letters to and from creditors) regarding a dispute via mail to an NCRA, but it
appears the NCRAs generally do not pass these documents along to furnishers.

4. Furnisher investigates and responds: The data furnisher investigates the ACDV request
and routes back the response through e-OSCAR to the requesting NCRA. This typically
involves a furnisher representative reviewing the furnisher’s electronic records of the
disputed account and then selecting a response that reflects what the furnisher’s records
have shown. In e-OSCAR, furnishers can make four different types of responses: (a) verify
account as accurate, (b) modify account/trade line information as indicated, (c) delete
account, or (d) delete account due to fraud.

j One NCRA reported that approximately 16% of disputes do not result in an e-OSCAR transaction because the

consumer had previously submitted an identical dispute and the NCRA had recently forwarded the dispute to the
furnisher, who had investigated and verified the data.

32 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 128 of 145

The CDIA reports that in a recent 120 day period in 2012, 22% of furnisher responses indicated that the
initial data was accurate (rejecting the consumer’s claim), 61% modified a trade line or other piece of
information, 13% deleted a trade line or other piece of information, and 0.5% deleted a trade line or other
piece of information due to fraud. The NCRAs deleted or modified, as indicated by the consumer, 4% of
disputed trade lines because the furnisher did not provide a response within the statutory time frame. 100
The high percentage of furnishers who modify disputed data should be qualified by noting that many larger
furnishers will automatically update a trade line with the latest account information (e.g., a new balance)
upon receiving a dispute, regardless of whether the furnisher deemed reported information to be inaccurate;
thus, a modification may not necessarily reflect concurrence with the consumer’s dispute. 101

As revealed in Figure 5 below, these figures are similar to those reported by the CDIA to the FTC and the
Federal Reserve Board for the first five months of 2004 in those agencies’ 2006 study on the FCRA dispute
process and in GAO testimony to Congress in 2003.102 The most significant change has been that the
percentage of trade lines that were deleted as a result of furnishers not responding to disputes within 30 days
has dropped from 16% in 2002 to 4% in 2011.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 33
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 129 of 145

FIGURE 5: DISPUTE RESULTS

Percent of Disputes

Result 2011 (120 Day Period) 2004 (First 5 months) 2002 (First 3 quarters)

Data modified per 61% 54% 27%
furnisher’s instructions

Information verified 22% 22% 46%
as reported

Data deleted per data 13% 18% 10.5%
furnisher’s request

Data deleted due to no 4% 6% 16%
furnisher response

Trade line removed 0.5%
due to fraud

Sources: For 2011: Stuart Pratt, President, CDIA; For 2004: The Federal Trade Commission and the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report to Congress on the Fair Credit Reporting Act Dispute
Process; For 2002: Richard Hillman, GAO-03-1036T.

5. Referral: If an account is modified or deleted, the furnisher is supposed to send copies of its
modification to each CRA with whom the data furnisher has a reporting relationship. This
way all the NCRAs can meet their responsibilities to update the consumer’s credit files,
where applicable.

The CFPB has been unable to estimate the volume of disputes filed directly with furnishers. To date, the
NCRAs report little impact from the Furnisher Rule on their volumes of consumer disputes. 103

7.3.2 Limitations of the e-OSCAR Process
Consumer advocates have raised compliance concerns with respect to the adequacy or completeness of
these transmissions to furnishers, which are principally dispute codes along with supplementary text added
in a minority of cases. The FCRA requires NCRAs to send the data furnisher a notice that includes “all
relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer.” 104 The NCRAs argue that
most disputes can be fairly and completely summarized using the e-OSCAR numeric codes. The e-OSCAR
system currently does not permit documents provided by consumers, such as statements or letters from
creditors, to be forwarded to furnishers as attachments. Industry sources cited technological limitations,
challenges evaluating the authenticity of consumer documents, and privacy concerns as impediments to
adding such attachments.

34 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 130 of 145

Consumer advocates further argue the NCRAs have a systemic bias that defers to furnishers’ records in
determining whether or not disputed information is accurate. 105 They note that if a furnisher verifies
previously reported information as accurate, the NCRAs will generally accord such a response greater
weight than the consumer’s claims that the information is inaccurate. Likewise, when the furnisher
responds that the account should be modified, deleted, or deleted due to fraud, the NCRAs generally
implement these responses as received. The advocates argue that NCRAs do not independently validate
information contained in furnishers’ records.

However, the NCRAs have had occasion to adopt policies to suppress information that is subject to high
levels of disputes. For instance, one NCRA developed special policies to address problems with certain
disputes about small dollar collection items.

7.4 Public Record Disputes
Consumers’ disputes regarding the accuracy of public records in their personal credit files are not
investigated through the e-OSCAR system. The NCRAs initiate their investigation of a public record
dispute by again collecting the public record directly from the government source or, at their election,
contracting for LNRDRS to conduct this re-checking of the record. LNRDRS collects a combined 1-2
million public records annually at the NCRAs’ request. l

When forwarding a dispute verification query to LNRDRS, the NCRAs provide the company one of up to
24 reason codes explaining the consumer dispute. In about 60 to 70% of the requests that LNRDRS
receives from the NCRAs for verification, the consumer asserts that the public record is not his/hers. In
another 20 to 25% of the disputes, a consumer asserts that he or she has paid the judgment or lien. 106

In response to a dispute verification query related to the status of a public record, LNRDRS will typically
send a data collector to the public record source to re-check the record and look for updates. LNRDRS will
then report one of three statuses back to the NCRA: (1) status has changed (e.g., lien paid off); (2) status is
unchanged (e.g., current record remains most accurate); or (3) unable to verify. LNRDRS does not verify
the content of the underlying public record as accurate or determine if an NCRA appropriately linked the
record to a consumer. In the case of public records, the NCRAs retain responsibility for determining
whether a public record should or should or not be attached to a consumer’s file.

According to LNRDRS, it performs public record re-checks at the request of the NCRAs, typically within
five business days. LNRDRS reports that in 99.5% of all dispute verification queries it handles on behalf of
the NCRAs, it is able to locate the record at issue, re-check it, and respond to the request. Time lags are a
factor in many public record complaints as it reportedly can take, on average in some state courts, two
months between the time of a judgment and its transcription into a public record. 107

l It is not known how many consumers generate these 1-2 million public record reviews as the average number of

disputes per consumer file is unknown. It is also possible that consumers dispute the same public record with multiple
NCRAs.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 35
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 131 of 145

8. Monitoring and
Measuring Credit
Reporting Accuracy
In consideration of the importance of data accuracy to consumers and to decision makers using credit
reports, there have been several recent initiatives to measure credit report accuracy.

8.1 The FTC’s National Study of Credit Report
Accuracy
The FTC is expected soon to complete a decade-long study on credit report accuracy that the agency was
mandated to undertake in FACTA. At the end of 2012, the FTC expects to issue its fifth interim report of
its “National Study of Credit Report Accuracy.” The FTC expects to issue a final report in 2014. It will
attempt to estimate the proportion of credit files that contain material errors, identify the main types of
errors and their frequency, as well as their impact on consumers’ credit scores and hence the errors’ impacts
on affected consumers’ access to and cost of credit. To accomplish this, the study has recruited 1,000
consumer participants randomly selected from across the country who have reviewed their reports from the
NCRAs with experts who help them understand their report, identify errors, and distinguish material from
non-material errors (in terms of potential impact on the consumers’ credit scores). Identified errors have
been submitted to the respective NCRAs as disputes for resolution. Reinvestigation resolution results will
be indicative of the overall error rate of trade lines and public records, and the percentage of credit reports
containing corrected errors will indicate the overall rate of credit report accuracy. Further, credit reports
containing corrections will be re-scored and differences between credit scores pre- and post-correction will
provide an indication of the materiality of the credit report errors.

8.2 Industry Research
In May 2011, the Policy & Economic Research Council (PERC) published a report commissioned by the
CDIA, which generally followed the FTC’s planned methodology, with significant differences in sample
selection. Further, compared to the FTC study, the participating consumers in the PERC study were not
provided in-person coaching to identify errors. The PERC study found that a sample of 2,338 consumers
viewing their credit reports identified potential errors in 19% of credit reports. 108 Of the potential
inaccuracies, 37% were about “header” information that would not affect a consumer’s credit score. 109
Consumers chose to dispute one or more pieces of trade line information for 7.4% of credit reports. 110 In
45% of the consumer disputes, the consumers’ trade lines were modified. In another 41% of the consumer
disputes, the disputed trade lines were deleted. 111 The study defined corrections leading to a 25 point or

36 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 132 of 145

more change in the consumer’s VantageScore as a material correction that could shift the consumer’s score
into a different pricing tier. The resultant CRA corrections in the relevant trade line information resulted in
credit score increases of 25 points or more in 0.93% of credit reports examined or 10 points or more in
1.78% of the credit reports examined. 112 Extrapolating to one estimate of the U.S. credit-scoreable
population, approximately 3 million Americans would experience score increases of 10 points or more if
they reviewed and disputed inaccuracies in their credit reports. 113

8.3 Consumer Advocate Sponsored Research
A consumer group-sponsored study produced different results. A 2004 survey by the U.S. Public Interest
Research Group (PIRG) of its own members concluded “twenty-five percent (25%) of the credit reports
surveyed contained serious errors that could result in the denial of credit, such as false delinquencies or
accounts that did not belong to the consumer.” 114 The results of the survey must be qualified considering
the small sample size (154 respondents) and the potential biases in the selection of the respondents (surveys
were filled out by PIRG staff, coalition partners, friends and family). 115

8.4 Future Accuracy Measurement and Related
Metrics
Ongoing efforts to measure credit report accuracy will likely continue to rely on consumers to identify
potential inaccuracies in their credit reports and to rely on the dispute resolution system to validate that
inaccuracies have occurred. Because information contained in credit files originates from diverse sources
such as furnishers, consumers (who respond to lender applications with certain personal information), or
public records providers, there is no single source of comprehensive and reliable data regarding the precise
identities of consumers or the status of their credit relationships. For this reason, efforts to measure overall
credit report accuracy have necessarily involved review of credit reports and individual trade lines by
consumers themselves who are most likely to know when information reported about them is correct or
incorrect, although consumers may not always interpret their reports correctly.

Further, the consumer dispute process will not identify or ameliorate certain types of errors that may be
associated with the NCRA matching processes. For example, it is difficult for consumers to identify when
their personal information is diverted to an “orphan” file because consumers wouldn’t see such information
in a file disclosure. Additionally, trade lines inaccurately associated with a consumer’s files due to
mismatching of consumers with similar identifying information have high likelihoods of being confirmed as
accurate by furnishers. Finally, to the extent matching processes used to compile credit reports yield
different results in reports provided to users from file disclosures provided to consumers (e.g., because
lenders and other users may provide more limited consumer-identifying information in their inquiries) it is
possible that consumers and users may not always receive the exact same information.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 37
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 133 of 145

On July 20, 2012 the CFPB published its larger participant rule permitting it to supervise companies with
annual receipts from “consumer reporting,” as defined in the rule, of over $7 million. That rule became
effective on September 30, 2012. In announcing the Bureau’s new authorities, Director Richard Cordray
indicated that the agency would treat as its initial priorities in examining consumer reporting agencies for
compliance with the FCRA and other consumer financial protection laws “accuracy of the information
received by the credit reporting companies, their accuracy in assembling and maintaining that information,
and the processes that govern error resolution.” k

The CFPB is also now accepting consumer complaints about credit reporting, giving consumers individual-
level complaint assistance for the first time at the federal level with consumer reporting agencies. Finally, as
part of its supervision of large financial institutions, it is examining the consumer reporting practices of the
furnishers that are responsible for a preponderance of information contained in credit reports. These
efforts will give the CFPB an opportunity to further evaluate the potential roles of credit report accuracy
measurements and of metrics related to the NCRAs’ and furnishers’ various business processes in
improving overall accuracy in the U.S. credit reporting system. As appropriate, the CFPB may consider the
development and implementation of data quality and accuracy metrics to reduce risk to consumers and
assure compliance with FCRA obligations.

k http://www.consumerfinance.gov/speeches/prepared-remarks-by-richard-cordray-on-credit-reporting/

38 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 134 of 145

Glossary
CDIA – Consumer Data Industry Association. The CDIA is an international trade association that
represents consumer data companies including the nationwide consumer reporting agencies.

Consumer Report – Reports provided by consumer reporting agencies to lenders and other users. The
FCRA defines a consumer report as “any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a
consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity,
character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be
used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s
eligibility for (A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (B)
employment purposes; or (C) any other purpose authorized under section 604 [of the FCRA].” The FCRA
provides a limited number of exclusions to this definition.

Consumer Reporting Agency – The FCRA defines a consumer reporting agency (CRA) as “any person,
which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in
the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers
for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of
interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.”

Credit File/Consumer File – The information about a consumer that is contained in the databases of
credit reporting agencies. According to the FCRA, the term “file,” when used in connection with
information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a
consumer reporting agency regardless of how that information is stored.

Consumer File Disclosure – Information provided to a consumer when that consumer requests a copy of
the information in his or her file at the NCRA.

Credit Report – Popular term for consumer reports used or purchased by lenders.

Credit Reporting Agency/Credit Bureau – Popular term for consumer reporting agencies in the business
of providing consumer reports to lenders.

ECOA – Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

e-OSCAR – The Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting. Web-based computer software
system used by Equifax, TransUnion, Experian, and Innovis to communicate with furnishers about
consumer disputes.

FCRA – Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Furnisher – Generally refers to an entity that provides information relating to its own transactions or
experiences with consumers to one or more consumer reporting agencies for inclusion in consumer reports.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 39
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 135 of 145

Inquiry – A request for a consumer report.

Metro 2® – The industry standard format for furnisher data contributions created in 1997 by the CDIA on
behalf of Equifax, TransUnion, Experian, and Innovis.

NCRA – Nationwide consumer reporting agency. For the purpose of this paper, an NCRA means Equifax,
Experian, or TransUnion.

Public Record – Generally, a record that a governmental body is required to maintain, and which must be
accessible to scrutiny by the public. Definitions of public records can vary by federal, state, or local
jurisdiction.

Reinvestigation – An investigation by a consumer reporting agency or a furnisher into the accuracy or
completeness of information in a consumer’s credit file in response to a consumer dispute of such
information.

Trade Line – Information furnished by a creditor to a consumer reporting agency that reflects the
consumer’s account status and activity. Trade line information includes the name of companies where the
applicant has accounts, dates accounts were opened, credit limits, types of accounts, balances owed and
payment histories.

40 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 136 of 145

Appendix
e-OSCAR Dispute Codes
The 29 e-OSCAR dispute codes are as follows:

• Not his/hers
• Belongs to another individual with same/similar name
• Not aware of collection
• Late due to change of address – never received statement
• Settlement or partial payment accepted
• Claims paid the original creditor before collection status or paid before charge-off
• Credit limit and/or high credit amount incorrect
• Included in the bankruptcy of another person
• Claims account closed
• Claims account closed by consumer
• Contract cancelled or rescinded
• Account included in bankruptcy
• Claims active military duty
• Insurance claim delayed
• Account involved litigation
• Claims victim of natural or declared disaster
• Claims account deferred
• Not liable for account (i.e. ex-spouse, business)
• Account reaffirmed or not included in bankruptcy
• Claims true identity fraud, account fraudulently opened
• Claims account take-over, fraudulent charges made on account
• Disputes dates of last payment/date opened/date of first delinquency/date closed
• Disputes present/previous account status/payment history profile/payment rating
• Disputes special comment/compliance condition code/narrative remarks
• Disputes account type or terms duration/terms frequency or portfolio type disputed
• Disputes current balance
• Claims company will change
• Claims company will delete
• Consumer states inaccurate information

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 41
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 137 of 145

1 See, e.g., 15 USC 1681e(b) (requiring consumer reporting agencies to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible

accuracy of the information concerning an individual about whom the report relates”); 15 USC 1681i (requiring a consumer
reporting agency to reinvestigate upon receiving a consumer dispute); 15 USC 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) (prohibiting a furnisher from
furnishing information that it “knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate”); 15 USC 1681s-
2(a)(1)(B) (prohibiting the furnishing of information where the consumer has notified the furnisher that the information is
inaccurate and the information is in fact inaccurate).
2 Experian – Oliver Wyman, Comprehensive Consumer Credit Review, Experian-Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Report, at 7 (2011 Q4).

3 See, e.g., Experian ConnectSM, available at http://www.experian.com/connect/landlord.html.

4 Federal Trade Commission, Credit-Based Insurance Scores: Impacts on Consumers of Automobile Insurance, A Report to Congress (2007),
available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/07/P044804FACTA_Report_Credit-Based_Insurance_Scores.pdf.
5 Marcie Geffner, Banking and your credit score, Bankrate.com (Mar. 17, 2011), available at

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/banks-checking-credit-scores-more-often-1.aspx. Banks may retrieve a credit report
from a credit bureau as part of a review of a bank account application. A bank may also contact a specialty consumer reporting
agency, like ChexSystems, a subsidiary of FIS, to see if the consumer has history of bank-initiated account closures or other negative
activity in connection with previous checking accounts.
6 The FCRA allows for the sharing of credit reports for employment purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(B).

7 Forty-seven percent of firms used credit checks for select job candidates, while thirteen percent used credit checks for all job

candidates. The Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM Research Spotlight: Credit Background Checks, Society Human Resource
Management (2010). Small, medium, and large employers were contacted as part of the survey.
http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/CCFlier_FINAL.pdf. The CFPB, along with all other
federal agencies, use credit reports in their employment screening process (specifically to check for any debts owed to the federal
government).
8 Federal Reserve Board, Report to Congress on Credit Scoring and its Effects on the Availability and Affordability of Credit (August 2007)

(Board Credit Scoring Report), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/creditscore/creditscore.pdf.
9 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b).

10 15 U.S.C. §1681c.

11 Evan Hendricks, Credit Scores and Credit Reports: How the System Really Works, at 157 (2004).

12 Id. at 158.

13 Id.

14 Based on CFPB calculations of industry publicly reported revenues.

15 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).

16 15 U.S.C. 1681a(g).

17 Identifying information in credit files is derived from furnisher supplied data and from public records. Furnisher supplied identity
information often comes directly from the consumer, and may vary depending on the identity information consumers provide on
their applications and how comprehensively the consumer and furnisher provide updates when such things as marital status,
address, or phone number change. Identity information supplied in public records can also vary.
18John Ulzheimer, Public Record Information and Credit Reports: What’s There?, Smartcredit.com, (March 3, 2011), available at

http://www.smartcredit.com/blog/2011/03/03/public-record-information-and-credit-reports-whats-there/.
19 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(3)(A).

20 The FCRA’s time limits on the reporting of derogatory information do not apply to certain large financial transactions, namely (1)

a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a principal amount of $150,000 or more; (2) the
underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or (3)
the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000 or more.
15 U.S.C. § 1681c(b).
21 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(4)-(5).

42 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 138 of 145

22 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(2)-(3).

23 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(1). As discussed supra, in note 20, reports may be exempted from these time restrictions in certain
circumstances. In practice, the NCRAs do not utilize these exemptions, and cease reporting negative information after the standard
time limits have elapsed.
24 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(6).

25 A credit score is a defined term in the FCRA which generally means “a numerical value or a categorization derived from a

statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain credit
behaviors, including default...” See 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(f)(2) for full definition.
26 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the Availability

and Affordability of Credit: Submitted to the Congress Pursuant to Section 215 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of
2003 (Aug. 2007), at O-4.
27 One industry observer estimates that FICO had over 90 percent of the market share in 2010 of scores sold to firms for use in
credit related decisions. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, The impact of differences between consumer- and creditor -purchased credit
scores: Report to Congress, at 6 (July 19, 2011).
28 For more detailed information on the variety of credit score models sold to lenders and to consumers, see CFPB, “Analysis of

Differences between Consumer- and Creditor-Purchased Credit Scores,” (September 2012).
29 New York Times, “Why you have 49 different FICO Scores,” available at http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/why-

you-have-49-different-fico-scores/.
30 See supra note 26 at O-5.

31 Id.

32 Deirdre Swesnik and Lisa Rice, National Fair Housing Alliance: Discriminatory Effects on Credit Scoring on Communities of

Color, Prepared for the Symposium on Credit Scoring and Credit Reporting [forthcoming]
33 Industry figures.

34 Industry figures.

35 Industry figures. It is likely that the NCRAs do not uniformly define an institution as a furnisher in the same way (e.g. some large,
complex institutions may be treated as a single furnisher by one NCRA but as multiple furnishers by another); hence estimates cited
in this report from industry sources about the number of furnishers and shares of tradelines by furnishers and industries are
approximations.
36 Industry information.

37 The 2007 Economic Census provides the most comprehensive recent assessment of industry revenue concentration. The survey
identifies 4,506 collection agencies. The largest of these firms (those with over $100 million in annual revenue) take in a minority
proportion of overall industry revenue (32%). See
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_56SSSZ4&prodType=table#
(scroll to NAICS code 56144).
38 Historically, some furnishers have declined to provide certain fields. For example, omitting credit limits prompted
the inclusion of I(b)(2) (iii) in App. E to the Furnisher Rule. 74 Fed. Reg. 31484 (July 1, 2009), available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-01/pdf/E9-15323.pdf. The Furnisher Rule is now codified in 12
C.F.R. pt. 1022. 76 Fed. Reg. 79308 (Dec. 21, 2011). The practice of some furnishers of omitting account opening
date and other fields also prompted the federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA),
and the FTC to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking focused on whether furnishers should be required to
provide this information, 74 Fed. Reg. 31529 (July 1, 2009), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-
01/pdf/E9-15322.pdf.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 43
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 139 of 145

39 74 Fed. Reg 31484 (July 1, 2009). This rule was required by section 623(e) of FCRA, as added by section 312 of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003.
40 Industry information.

41 Credit Advice from The “Ask Experian” Team, available at

http://www.experian.com/ask-experian/20120118-what-derogatory-means.html
42 Industry figures.

43 Industry figures.

44 Industry information.

45 Industry figures.

46 74 Fed. Reg 31484 (July 1, 2009).

47 76 Fed. Reg. 79308 (December 21, 2011).

48 12 C.F.R. § 1022.42, (2012).

49 12 C.F.R. pt. 1022, Appendix E, III(h) (2012).

50 12 C.F.R. § 1022.42(a) (2012).

51 12 C.F.R. pt. 1022, Appendix E, III (2012).
52 Industry figures.

53 Ben Woolsey and Matt Schulz, Credit card statistics, industry facts, debt statistics, available at http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-

news/credit-card-industry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php (updated February 28, 2012).
54 Industry figures. Since there are 1.3 billon trade lines updated every month and 200 million consumers in each of the NCRA
databases, each consumer appears to have, on average, 6.5 active trade lines.
55 Genealogy Data: Frequently Occurring Surnames from Census 2000. United States Census Bureau. Available at
http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/2000surnames/index.html.
56 Industry information.

57 Industry information.

58 Federal Trade Commission, Report to Congress under Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003, at 9

(December 2008).
59 For a discussion of common credit reporting errors, see Richard J. Hilman, Consumer Credit: Limited Information Exists on Extent of

Credit Report Errors and Their Implications for Consumers, Statement for the Record Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, General Accounting Office at 11 (July 31, 2003).
60 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(C).

61 In 2011, the FTC reported 279,156 complaints alleging identity theft, which was the largest single complaint category of

consumers to the FTC. Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January – December 2011, at 6 (February
2012). See http://ftc.gov/sentinel/reports/sentinel-annual-reports/sentinel-cy2011.pdf.
62 15 U.S.C. §§ 1666-1666j.

63 Industry figures.

64 15 U.S.C. § 1681i.

65 15 U.S.C. § 1681j(a) (requiring NCRAs and nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies to provide free annual reports upon

request if they have been providing consumer reports to third parties on a continuing basis with respect to consumers residing
nationwide for the last 12 months).
66 15 U.S.C. §1681j(b).

67 15 U.S.C. § 1681j(c).

68 Id.

44 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 140 of 145

69 Id.

70 15. U.S.C. §1681j(d).

71 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, The Impact of differences between consumer- and creditor-purchased credit scores: A Report to Congress,

at 9 (July 19, 2011).
72 Id. at 10.

73 Industry figures.

74 Industry figures.

75 Industry figures.

76 Industry figures.

77 Industry figures.

78 Industry figures.

79 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

80 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(B)-(C) and (a)(4).

81 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(2)(A).

82 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(2)(B).

83 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(5).

84 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b); 12 C.F.R. pt. 1022, App. E.2b

85 12 C.F.R § 1022.43(a).

86 12 C.F.R. § 1022.43(e)(3).

87 12 C.F.R § 1022.43(e)(4).

88 Industry figures.

89 Id.

90 Id.

91 Finance companies, also known as personal finance or sales finance companies, are non-depository institutions that generally

provide loans to higher risk borrowers, often to purchase retail items. An example might be a company that partners with a home
retailer to provide a loan to a consumer to purchase bedroom furniture.
92 Id.

93 See The Federal Reserve, An Overview of Consumer Data and Credit Reporting (2003), at). 69. See also Jennifer Steinhauer, “Money &
Medicine; Will Doctors Make Your Credit Sick?” The New York Times, February 4, 2011.
94 See 12 C.F.R. § 1026.39 (2012).

95 Industry figures.

96 Id.

97 Id.

98 The Federal Trade Commission and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report to Congress on the Fair Credit

Reporting Act Dispute Process, at 14 (August 2006).
99 Industry figures.

100 Industry figures.

101 The Federal Trade Commission and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report to Congress on the Fair Credit

Reporting Act Dispute Process, at 24 (August 2006).
102 Stephen J. Hill, GAO Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment, Statement for the Record before the
Committee on Housing, Banking, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, “Consumer Credit: Limited Information Exists on the Extent of
Credit Report Errors and their implications for Consumers, GAO-03-1036T (July 31, 2003).

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012 45
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 141 of 145

103 In-person briefing
for CFPB staff on e-OSCAR with David Vaughn, General Manager, Central Source LLC and Stuart Pratt,
President, CDIA (December 5, 2011).
104 15 U.S.C. § 1681i (a)(2)(B) (emphasis added).

105 National Consumer Law Center, Automated Injustice: How a mechanized dispute system frustrates consumers seeking to fix errors in their credit

report, at 23 (January 2009).
106 Industry figures.
107 Id.

108 Michael A. Turner, PhD et al., U.S. Consumer Credit Reports: Measuring Accuracy and Dispute Impacts, the Policy & Economic Research

Council (PERC), at 33 (May 2011).
109 Id. at 37.

110 Id. at 38.

111 Id. at 39.

112 Id. at 43.

113 This calculation assumes that 200 million Americans have credit reports, and of these, 32 million have files that are too thin to

score. Information Policy Institute, Giving Underserved Consumers Better Access to the Credit System: The Promise of Non-Traditional Data, at
7 (July 2005).
114 Allison Cassady and Edmund Mierzwinski, Mistakes do Happen: A Look at Errors in Consumer Credit Reports, National Association of

State PIRGs, at 4 (June 2004).
115 Id. at 16.

46 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, DECEMBER 2012
Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document 49-1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 142 of 145

Exhibit D
7/7/22, 9:20 AM Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document
U.S. 49-1 Filed
Bankruptcy Court, 08/26/22
District of Arizona Page 143 of 145

FeeWaiverPending, CLOSED

U.S. Bankruptcy Court
District of Arizona (Phoenix)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 2:19-bk-02380-EPB
Date filed: 03/06/2019
Assigned to: Judge Eddward P. Ballinger Jr. Date terminated: 05/31/2019
Chapter 7 Debtor dismissed: 03/18/2019
341 meeting: 04/08/2019
Voluntary Deadline for objecting to discharge: 06/07/2019
No asset

Debtor disposition: Dismissed for Failure to File
Information

Debtor represented by WAYNE CLIFFORD
WAYNE CLIFFORD PRO SE
313 N. 57TH PLACE
MESA, AZ 85205
MARICOPA-AZ
SSN / ITIN: xxx-xx-9827

Trustee
DINA ANDERSON
21001 N. TATUM BLVD., #1630-608
PHOENIX, AZ 85050
480-304-8312

U.S. Trustee
U.S. TRUSTEE
OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE
230 NORTH FIRST AVENUE
SUITE 204
PHOENIX, AZ 85003

Filing Date # Docket Text

1 Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Master Mailing List due by
(8 pgs) 3/13/2019, filed by WAYNE CLIFFORD (Medina, Diane) Additional
attachment(s) added on 3/7/2019 (McCormick, Janel). (Entered:
03/06/2019 03/06/2019)

2 Meeting of Creditors scheduled for 04/08/2019 at 11:00 AM at US Trustee
Meeting Room, 230 N. First Avenue, Suite 102, Phoenix, AZ (341-PHX).
Complaints objecting to discharge due by 06/07/2019. (Medina, Diane)
03/06/2019 (Entered: 03/06/2019)

3 Identification Requested, Identity Confirmed Filed by Non Debtor. Copy of
03/06/2019 (2 pgs; 2 docs) Debtor(s) ID due 03/20/2019, (Medina, Diane) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019 4 Deficiency Notice to Debtor and Attorney for Debtor That All Required
(4 pgs; 2 docs) Documents Were Not Filed. (Medina, Diane) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
https://ecf.azb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?122829988424283-L_1_0-1 1/3
7/7/22, 9:20 AM Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document
U.S. 49-1 Filed
Bankruptcy Court, 08/26/22
District of Arizona Page 144 of 145

6 Statement of Social Security Number Submitted (related document(s)1
03/06/2019 Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition) (McCormick, Janel) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

7 Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury for Debtors Without an Attorney
03/06/2019 (1 pg) (McCormick, Janel) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

8 Chapter 7 Statement of Your Current Monthly Income Form 122A-1 filed
03/06/2019 (2 pgs) by WAYNE CLIFFORD. (McCormick, Janel) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

9 Declaration of Evidence of Employer Payments filed by WAYNE
03/06/2019 (1 pg) CLIFFORD. (McCormick, Janel) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

10 Debtor Application to Waive Payment of Chapter 7 Filing Fee filed by
03/06/2019 (3 pgs) WAYNE CLIFFORD. (McCormick, Janel) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

11 Schedules and Statements for Individuals filed by WAYNE CLIFFORD.
03/06/2019 (47 pgs) (McCormick, Janel) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

12 BNC Certificate of Notice (related document(s)3 Identification Requested,
03/06/2019 (2 pgs) Identity Confirmed Filed by Non Debtor.) (Admin.) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

13 BNC Certificate of Notice (related document(s)4 Deficiency Notice to
03/06/2019 (4 pgs) Debtor (Missing Documents Form)) (Admin.) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

5 Notice to Debtor Not Represented by an Attorney (admin) (Entered:
03/07/2019 (4 pgs; 2 docs) 03/07/2019)

14 BNC Certificate of Notice (related document(s)5 Notice to Debtor Not
03/07/2019 (4 pgs) Represented by an Attorney) (Admin.) (Entered: 03/09/2019)

15 ***ENTERED IN ERROR*** Deficiency Notice to Debtor and Attorney
(5 pgs; 2 docs) for Debtor That All Required Documents Were Not Filed. (McCormick,
03/18/2019 Janel) Modified on 3/20/2019 (McCormick, Janel). (Entered: 03/18/2019)

16 ORDER Dismissing Case Debtor . (McCormick, Janel) (Entered:
03/18/2019 (3 pgs; 2 docs) 03/18/2019)

17 BNC Certificate of Notice (related document(s)15 Deficiency Notice to
03/18/2019 (5 pgs) Debtor (Missing Documents Form)) (Admin.) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

18 BNC Certificate of Notice - Notice of Dismissal Order (related
03/18/2019 (3 pgs) document(s)16 Order Dismissing Case) (Admin.) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

04/11/2019 19 Chapter 7 Trustee's Report of No Distribution: I, DINA ANDERSON,
having been appointed trustee of the estate of the above-named debtor(s),
report that this case was dismissed or converted. I have neither received any
property nor paid any monies on account of this estate. I hereby certify that
the chapter 7 estate of the above-named debtor(s) has been fully
administered through the date of conversion or dismissal. I request that I be
discharged from any further duties as trustee. Key information about this
case as reported in schedules filed by the debtor(s) or otherwise found in
the case record: This case was pending for 1 months. Assets Abandoned
(without deducting any secured claims): Not Applicable, Assets Exempt:
Not Applicable, Claims Scheduled: Not Applicable, Claims Asserted: Not

https://ecf.azb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?122829988424283-L_1_0-1 2/3
7/7/22, 9:20 AM Case 2:21-cv-01145-DJH Document
U.S. 49-1 Filed
Bankruptcy Court, 08/26/22
District of Arizona Page 145 of 145

Applicable, Claims scheduled to be discharged without payment (without
deducting the value of collateral or debts excepted from discharge): Not
Applicable. Debtor appeared. (ANDERSON, DINA) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

20 The case having been dismissed; IT IS ORDERED that the case is closed
and if a trustee has been appointed, the trustee is discharged from and
relieved of his trust. Judge Eddward P. Ballinger Jr. (Jones, Shawn)
05/31/2019 (Entered: 05/31/2019)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/07/2022 09:19:34
PACER Client
alstonbird
Login: Code:
2:19-bk-02380-EPB Fil or Ent: filed
From: 1/1/2019 To: 7/7/2022 Doc
Docket Search
Description: From: 0 Doc To: 99999999 Headers:
Report Criteria:
included Format: html Page counts for
documents: included
Billable
2 Cost: 0.20
Pages:

https://ecf.azb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?122829988424283-L_1_0-1 3/3

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.azd.1270616.49.1.pdf
Size: 4,671,272 bytes
SHA-256: acb6b856b7337516cef18b9730ab5107a2f9c7def8fb844783569eb069ad74af
Our copy: gov.uscourts.azd.1270616.49.1.pdf
Original: www.courtlistener.com