If you’ve experienced unauthorized transactions on a Chime Financial, Inc. account and were denied reimbursement, you are not alone—and the law may be on your side.

The Reality: Fraud Happens Fast—But Responses Shouldn’t Be Slow or Superficial

Consumers across the country report a familiar pattern:

• Unauthorized transactions appear
• A dispute is filed
• The claim is denied—sometimes within hours or days

Some consumers describe “investigations” that appear to be little more than automated denials.

From a consumer perspective, it raises a basic question:
How can a meaningful fraud investigation happen in minutes?

What the Law Requires: The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA)

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (implemented through Regulation E) governs debit cards, prepaid accounts, and fintech platforms like Chime.

When unauthorized transactions occur, the law imposes clear obligations:

Prompt Investigation

Financial institutions must:

• Conduct a reasonable investigation
• Complete it within specific timeframes

Provisional Credit

If more time is needed:

• The institution must provisionally credit your account while investigating

Written Explanation of Denial

If a claim is denied:

• The institution must provide a clear explanation and supporting documentation

Where Things Go Wrong

Regulators have already identified serious compliance issues involving Chime’s practices.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken enforcement action against Chime for:

• Failing to properly investigate and resolve errors
• Lacking adequate procedures for tracking and handling disputes
• Violating consumer rights under the EFTA

Separately, regulators found:

• Consumers waited weeks or even months to get their own money back
• Thousands were harmed by delayed access to funds

Real Consumer Experiences

Across consumer forums, similar stories appear again and again:

“They admitted my card was compromised… but refused to actually investigate the charges.”

“Denied not even a full day after ‘investigating.'”

“No details whatsoever as to why it was denied.”

These accounts reflect a common concern:
denials without meaningful investigation or transparency.

Why This May Violate Federal Law

If a company:

• Fails to conduct a reasonable investigation
• Denies a claim without evidence
• Refuses provisional credit when required
• Uses automated or superficial review processes

…it may be violating the EFTA and Regulation E.

Importantly, fintech companies like Chime don’t avoid these obligations just because they partner with banks. If they handle customer service and disputes, they are still responsible for compliance.

The Financial Harm Is Real

When fraud losses aren’t reimbursed:

• Rent goes unpaid
• Utilities are shut off
• Consumers turn to high-interest credit

Regulators have explicitly recognized that delayed or denied access to funds can cause significant financial hardship.

What You Can Do If Chime Denies Your Fraud Claim

If your claim was denied, you have options:

1. Request Documentation

Demand:

• The investigation file
• Evidence supporting the denial
• Transaction authentication data

2. File a Complaint

Submit a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

This creates regulatory pressure and a documented record.

3. Submit a Written Dispute

Reassert:

• The transaction was unauthorized
• The investigation was inadequate

4. Consider Legal Action

You may have claims for:

• EFTA violations
• Unfair or deceptive practices

The Bottom Line

If your Chime account was drained by fraud and your claim was quickly denied:

• That doesn’t mean the denial was lawful
• That doesn’t mean the investigation was adequate
• And it doesn’t mean you have no recourse

You should contact a consumer protection law firm to protect your rights and seek actual damages for economic and non-economic loss, including emotional distress and other damages.

The post When Your Chime Account Is Drained by Fraud—and You’re Left Holding the Bag appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

These obstacles are even more daunting for individuals with criminal histories. Many employers still view past criminal convictions as a significant red flag when evaluating job applicants. But Pennsylvania job applicants are not without protection. The commonwealth’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) help ensure job seekers with criminal records are treated fairly by limiting how those records can be used against them, and the notice they must receive when those records negatively affect their candidacy.

Recently, in Phath v. Central Transport, LLC, No. 25-1028, the Third Circuit was asked to answer a threshold question about the CHRIA: Do its protections apply when employers learn about an applicant’s criminal history directly from them? The court held that they do.

The CHRIA and FCRA require employers to inform your clients when they lost out on a job because of their criminal history

The CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 et. seq., requires criminal justice agencies to maintain accurate criminal history records that track an individual’s interactions with Pennsylvania’s criminal justice system. Under the statute, employers may request “information collected by criminal justice agencies concerning [job applicants], and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations or other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom.”

Section 9125 of the CHRIA permits employers to use that information to decide whether to hire an applicant. But felony and misdemeanor convictions “may be considered by the employer only to the extent to which they relate to the applicant’s suitability for employment in the position for which he has applied.” If an employer decides not to hire an applicant “based in whole or in part on” their criminal history, the employer must notify the applicant in writing that they did so.

At the federal level, the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., applies to criminal background checks when an employer obtains an individual’s criminal history through a third‑party consumer reporting agency (CRA) and uses it for “employment purposes.” Given the breadth of the term “employment purposes,” the FCRA governs when an employer uses an individual’s criminal history in connection with any employment action, including hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, reassignment, and compensation changes.

Under the FCRA, employers must provide applicants and employees a clear written disclosure explaining that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. Employers must also obtain individuals’ written authorization before requesting their criminal history.

When employers intend to take an adverse action against an applicant or employee based on information in a background check, the FCRA requires them to follow a two-step process. First, they must send a pre-adverse action notice to the individual, which must include both a copy of the background check/consumer report and a copy of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s “Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA” document. Second, employees must give individuals a reasonable opportunity—commonly at least a week—to review the report and dispute any inaccurate information with the CRA.

When employers proceed with an adverse action against an individual based on their criminal history, they must send the affected individual a final adverse action notice. This notice includes contact information for the CRA that provided the criminal history, and information about the individual’s right to dispute the accuracy of the report and obtain a free copy of it.

Together, the CHRIA and the FCRA regulate employers’ use of criminal records during their hiring process, but the statutes address different concerns. The CHRIA limits what information Pennsylvania employers may consider when hiring an employee, generally restricting use to conviction records. The FCRA, on the other hand, focuses on how criminal background information is obtained and used for a broad array of employment purposes when sourced from CRAs. It also requires employers to disclose to and seek authorization from an individual before requesting their criminal history, and to give notice before taking adverse action based on that criminal history.

The Third Circuit expands when the CHRIA applies to an employer’s discovery of an applicant’s criminal history

In Phath v. Central Transport, LLC, No. 25-1028, the Third Circuit recently clarified how the CHRIA’s protections apply when criminal history information is disclosed by a prospective employee during the hiring process. The court confirmed that the statute’s protections apply when employers learn about an applicant’s criminal history directly from the applicant.

Rodney Phath, a Pennsylvanian, applied for a truck‑driver position with Ohio-based Central Transport, LLC. Phath was qualified for the position and held a valid commercial driver’s license. During the hiring process, Phath voluntarily disclosed a 15‑year‑old armed robbery conviction. Central Transport immediately informed Phath it would not hire him because of the conviction.

Phath sued under the CHRIA, alleging that Central Transport improperly used his criminal history and failed to provide the required written notice. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the CHRIA applies only when an employer obtains a criminal history from a state agency. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case back to it for further proceedings.

The Third Circuit’s decision turned on the language from the CHRIA stating that when “an employer is in receipt of information which is part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file, the employer may use the applicant’s prior convictions for the purpose of deciding whether or not to hire the applicant.”

First, regarding the information an employer must be “in receipt of,” the court found that the statute covered information that “is part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file.” Second, the court reasoned that a “criminal history record information file” is “a compilation of criminal history facts collected and maintained by state agencies.” Third, the court reasoned that felony convictions like Phath’s are included in that file, and that Central Transport was “in receipt of” that information when he disclosed it. Finally, the court observed that nothing in the CHRIA’s text required information that was “part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file” to come from a state agency’s file.

Thus, according to the court, Central Transport was “in receipt of information” that is “part of” Phath’s “criminal history record information file” when it received his voluntary disclosure of his conviction, and is subject to the notice requirements of the CHRIA for taking an adverse action against Phath. Had the Third Circuit not held as it did, it would have allowed employers to sidestep the CHRIA by asking applicants directly about their criminal histories and taking adverse action against them when they voluntarily disclosed prior convictions.

Your clients’ unsuccessful job applications might give rise to claims under the CHRIA and/or the FCRA

The Third Circuit’s decision in Phath expands employers’ liability for violations of the CHRIA. It also reinforces that the CHRIA and the FCRA provide your Pennsylvania-based clients a two-pronged approach for challenging employers’ decisions not to hire them when those decisions are based on their criminal histories.

Though the statutes vary regarding their notice requirements and the sources of a client’s criminal history, the CHRIA and FCRA are powerful weapons your clients can use to ensure that if they don’t receive a job offer because of their criminal history, the employer followed both Pennsylvania and federal law regarding the manner in which it used that criminal history and the notice it was required to give them.

John Soumilas is a partner at Center City-based Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., a leading consumer rights law firm. He can be reached at jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com.

The post Third Circuit Strengthens Your Clients’ Right to Know When Their Criminal History Cost Them a New Job appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

The post Jim Francis Presents Oral Argument at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

One of the most significant of these lesser-known reporting agencies is Early Warning Systems, LLC (EWS).

EWS reports are widely used by banks and financial institutions when determining whether to allow a consumer to open a checking or savings account. When the information in an EWS report is inaccurate, the consequences can be severe. Consumers may suddenly find themselves unable to open a bank account, having their existing accounts closed, or being treated as high-risk customers.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) provides important protections to consumers when consumer reporting agencies such as EWS report inaccurate information.

What Is Early Warning Systems?

Early Warning Systems is a consumer reporting agency owned by several major banks. Financial institutions use EWS reports to evaluate the risk associated with opening or maintaining deposit accounts.

EWS reports may contain information such as:

• Prior bank account closures
• Allegations of account abuse
• Returned deposits
• Fraud flags
• Negative balances or unpaid overdrafts
• Suspicious account activity

Banks often rely heavily on these reports when deciding whether to allow a consumer to open a checking or savings account.

Because of this, errors in an EWS report can have immediate and devastating consequences.

How Inaccurate EWS Reports Harm Consumers

Unlike traditional credit reporting issues, inaccuracies in an EWS report can impact a consumer’s ability to access basic financial services.

When a bank reviews an EWS report containing negative or inaccurate information, it may:

• Deny a consumer the ability to open a bank account
• Close an existing bank account without warning
• Restrict access to financial services
• Flag a consumer as a fraud risk
• Prevent the consumer from accessing mobile payment platforms or financial apps

For many consumers, losing access to a bank account can disrupt nearly every aspect of daily life.

Consumers may be unable to:

• Receive direct deposits from their employer
• Pay bills electronically
• Cash checks easily
• Access debit card payments
• Maintain automatic payments for mortgages, utilities, or insurance

In extreme cases, inaccurate EWS reporting can push consumers toward expensive alternatives such as check-cashing services or prepaid debit cards.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act Applies to EWS

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) governs consumer reporting agencies such as Early Warning Systems. Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must follow strict rules to ensure the accuracy of the information they report.

Among other things, the FCRA requires that consumer reporting agencies:

• Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy
• Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes inaccurate information
• Correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable information
• Provide consumers with access to their reports upon request

When a consumer disputes inaccurate information in an EWS report, the agency must conduct a reasonable investigation. Simply relying on automated responses or failing to meaningfully investigate the dispute may violate the FCRA.

Common EWS Reporting Errors

Consumers frequently encounter problems in EWS reports such as:

• Accounts reported as fraudulent when they were legitimate
• Accounts attributed to the wrong consumer
• Accounts reported as closed for cause when they were closed voluntarily
• Negative balances reported after the consumer paid the balance
• Identity theft accounts appearing on the report
• Duplicate reporting of the same account issue

Because EWS reports are not as widely known as credit reports, many consumers are unaware of these errors until a bank denies their application or closes their account.

Your Right to Dispute EWS Errors

Consumers have the right to dispute inaccurate information appearing in an Early Warning Systems report.

Once a dispute is submitted, EWS must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the disputed information. If the information cannot be verified as accurate, it must be corrected or removed.

If EWS fails to properly investigate a dispute or continues reporting inaccurate information, the consumer may have a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The FCRA allows consumers to recover damages for harm caused by inaccurate reporting. This can include compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and other damages resulting from the reporting errors.

When to Speak With a Consumer Protection Attorney

If inaccurate information in an Early Warning Systems report has caused you to be denied a bank account or led to the closure of your existing account, you may have legal rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

A consumer protection attorney can help you:

• Obtain and review your EWS report
• Identify inaccurate or misleading information
• Submit disputes to the reporting agency
• Pursue legal claims when reporting agencies fail to follow the law

Contact Our Consumer Protection Law Firm

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. represents consumers whose rights have been violated by inaccurate reporting from consumer reporting agencies, including Early Warning Systems.

If you have been denied a bank account or had an account closed because of inaccurate information on an EWS report, you may have a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Get started with a free case review today. Complete our online case review form or call us at 1-877-735-8600 to tell us what happened.

The post Early Warning Systems Reports and the Fair Credit Reporting Act: What Consumers Need to Know appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

For job seekers, this expansion is significant. For employers who fail to comply, it creates serious legal exposure.

What Is “Ban the Box”?

Philadelphia’s Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards Ordinance, commonly known as “Ban the Box,” is designed to prevent employers from disqualifying applicants based on criminal history before evaluating qualifications.

The law recognizes that early criminal history screening often leads to unfair and unlawful employment decisions — particularly when the information is outdated, inaccurate, sealed, or irrelevant to the job.

What Changed Under Philadelphia’s Expanded Law?

The recent amendments strengthen applicant protections in several important ways.

Criminal history questions are delayed until after a job offer

Employers may not ask about criminal history until after a conditional offer of employment is made. This includes questions on applications, during interviews, or through early background check authorizations.

If an employer asks about arrests or convictions before making a conditional offer, that conduct may violate Philadelphia law.

Employers must follow a formal notice and review process

Before rescinding a job offer based on criminal history, employers must provide written notice and give the applicant a meaningful opportunity to respond. This includes time to dispute inaccuracies or submit evidence of rehabilitation.

Skipping this step is a common and costly mistake.

Arrests without convictions are largely prohibited

Employers are generally barred from considering arrests that did not result in a conviction. Even convictions may be off-limits if they are old, unrelated to the position, or otherwise protected. For example, employers may not consider expunged records, sealed records or summary offenses.

Expanded coverage for applicants and workers

The ordinance applies broadly to employers operating in Philadelphia, including many companies with remote workers or regional hiring practices tied to the city.

Background Checks Must Still Comply With Federal Law

Philadelphia’s Ban the Box protections operate alongside the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and other consumer protection laws.

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. regularly sees violations involving:

• Background reports containing inaccurate criminal history
• Reporting of sealed or expunged records
• Failure to provide required pre-adverse and adverse action notices
• Employers relying on flawed third-party background checks
• Job offers rescinded without lawful justification

When these violations occur, the harm is real — lost employment, financial instability, and long-term career consequences.

Warning Signs Your Rights May Have Been Violated

You may have a claim if:

• You were asked about criminal history before receiving a job offer
• A background check reported sealed, expunged, or incorrect information
• A job offer was withdrawn without proper written notice
• You were denied employment based on an arrest that never led to a conviction
• An employer relied on an inaccurate or misleading background report

These cases often reflect systemic failures, not one-time errors.

Why These Protections Matter

Unlawful background screening practices disproportionately affect workers and consumers, preventing qualified applicants from securing employment based on information that should never have been considered.

Philadelphia’s expanded Ban the Box law reinforces a simple principle: employment decisions must be fair, lawful, and based on accurate information.

How Francis Mailman Soumilas PC Can Help

Francis Mailman Soumilas PC is a nationally recognized plaintiff-side consumer protection law firm. The firm represents individuals harmed by unlawful employment screening practices and background check violations.

Depending on the facts, affected applicants may be entitled to:

• Statutory damages
• Compensation for lost wages and economic harm
• Attorney’s fees and costs
• Court orders requiring companies to change unlawful practices

Holding employers and background check companies accountable not only helps individual clients — it helps prevent future violations.

Speak With a Consumer Protection Attorney

If you believe your rights were violated during the hiring process, do not assume you have no recourse.

Francis Mailman Soumilas PC can evaluate your situation and explain whether you may have a claim under Philadelphia’s Ban the Box ordinance, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or other consumer protection laws.

The post Philadelphia Expands “Ban the Box” Protections for Job Applicants appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

If that’s you, the best place to start is your credit report.

Before you can improve your financial health, you need to make sure the information being used to judge you is accurate—especially after a year filled with major financial data breaches.

You’re Entitled to a Free Credit Report Every Year

Many consumers don’t realize this, but federal law gives you the right to free credit reports every year from the three largest credit reporting agencies:

• Equifax
• Experian
• TransUnion

The only official website to access these free reports is:

AnnualCreditReport.com

This system exists because credit reports affect nearly every major financial decision: loans, credit cards, housing, insurance, and even employment in some cases.

Why Checking Your Credit Report Matters More Than Ever

In 2025 alone, millions of consumers were notified that their personal and financial information may have been exposed in data breaches involving banks, lenders, retailers, background check companies, and data brokers.

Even if you haven’t experienced obvious identity theft, data exposure increases the risk of errors appearing on your credit report months or even yearslater.

Your credit report may contain information that is:

• Incorrect
• Outdated
• Belonging to someone else entirely

And most people don’t find out until they’re denied credit, housing, or a financial opportunity.

The Most Common Credit Report Errors We See

At Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., we represent consumers nationwide whose financial lives were damaged by credit reporting mistakes. Some of the most common problems we see include:

Mixed Files

Information from another person—often with a similar name or Social Security number—appears on your report. This can include:

• Accounts you never opened
• Collections that don’t belong to you
• Someone else’s late payments or defaults

Outdated Information

Negative information that should have been removed remains on your report past the legal reporting period.

Incorrect Account Status

Accounts reported as:

• Delinquent when they were paid
• Charged off when they were settled
• Open when they were closed
• Duplicate accounts

Identity Theft-Related Accounts

Fraudulent accounts or inquiries appear after your personal information was exposed—even if you never approved them.

Credit Reports Aren’t the Only Consumer Reports That Matter

Many people assume only the big three credit bureaus matter. In reality, your data lives in many consumer reporting agency databases.

These companies collect and sell information used for:

• Employment background checks
• Tenant screening
• Insurance underwriting
• Financial risk assessments

Errors in any of these reports can impact your financial and personal life. That’s why accuracy is critical.

What to Do If You Find an Error on Your Credit Report

If you spot something wrong, you do have the right to dispute it.

1. Identifying the inaccurate information
2. Submitting a dispute to the credit bureau(s) reporting it
3. The credit bureau has 30 days to investigate and respond

However, disputes are not always handled properly. Credit bureaus frequently:

• Verify inaccurate information without a real investigation
• Ignore key documentation
• Fail to correct or remove clearly wrong data

When that happens, your rights under federal law may be violated.

You Have Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires credit reporting agencies to:

• Follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy
• Conduct meaningful investigations when consumers dispute errors
• Correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable information

When they fail to do so, and consumers are financially harmed, legal action may be appropriate.

How Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. Helps Consumers Nationwide

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. focuses exclusively on consumer protection law. We don’t dabble in it; we litigate it every day.

Our firm has:

• Decades of experience holding credit bureaus accountable
• Represented thousands of consumers nationwide
• Taken on Equifax, Experian, TransUnion, and other reporting agencies
• Recovered compensation for clients harmed by reporting errors

If a credit reporting agency refuses to fix clear mistakes, we know how to take the next step.

Make This the Year You Protect Your Financial Future

Financial resolutions are about progress, but progress starts with accurate information.

• Get your free credit reports
• Review them carefully
• Take action if something doesn’t look right

And if your dispute is ignored, mishandled, or dismissed, you don’t have to fight alone.

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. is here to help protect your rights and your financial future.

GET A FREE CASE REVIEW

The post New Year, New Financial Goals: Start by Checking Your Credit Report appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

The decision builds on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent limiting standing for federal statutory claims and rejects the idea that state courts can hear FCRA cases without a showing of real harm. The court concluded that an alleged increased risk of identity theft—without evidence of misuse or actual damage—was too speculative to support a claim for damages.

Why This Matters

The ruling raises the bar for FCRA litigation in Illinois by requiring plaintiffs to show actual harm, such as identity theft, credit damage, or a lost employment or housing opportunity. It also signals increased scrutiny of no-injury class actions and may influence how Illinois courts—and potentially courts in other states—evaluate standing under federal consumer protection statutes.

About the Author

Mark Mailman is Managing Shareholder of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C.

This post summarizes an article originally published in The Legal Intelligencer on January 5, 2026. The full article is available to subscribers.

The post Illinois Supreme Court Requires ‘Concrete Injury’ for FCRA Claims appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

To start fresh.

To build a better life.

But what happens when a background check company refuses to let you?

That’s exactly what happened when RentGrow reported an eight-year-old vacated conviction that should never have appeared on a tenant screening report.

Trying to Build a Better Life

Our client was looking for an apartment closer to work and family, a place that would make everyday life a little easier and more stable. Like most renters, they agreed to a background check as part of the application process.

There was no reason to worry.

Years earlier, a misdemeanor assault case had been fully resolved. The court vacated the conviction. All fines were paid. Probation was completed. Life had moved on.

Until RentGrow dragged the past back into the present.

When the Past Is Wrongly Rewritten

Despite clear court records showing the conviction was vacated eight years earlier, RentGrow listed it as an active conviction on the screening report.

That single mistake changed everything.

Our client’s rental application was denied. The apartment that fit their needs, close to work, the right size, in the right location, was suddenly out of reach. They were forced to start the search over and ultimately had to settle for a smaller apartment, much farther from work.

And then came the humiliation: being told “no” over something that legally no longer existed. Something they had already taken responsibility for. Something they had worked hard to move beyond.

The Emotional Toll of Careless Reporting

Background check errors aren’t small administrative glitches; they hit people where it hurts most: housing, stability, dignity, and the ability to move forward.

After years of staying out of trouble and rebuilding their life, our client suddenly found themselves judged by a mistake RentGrow made, and a conviction that wasn’t even supposed to be part of their record anymore.

The fear that this could happen again was overwhelming. And it’s a fear many people share after being harmed by inaccurate tenant screening reports.

You Have the Right to Move Forward

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires companies like RentGrow to report accurate, up-to-date information. Listing a vacated conviction is a serious violation of those rights.

Our firm filed a lawsuit to hold RentGrow accountable for the harm caused and to help our client regain control of their future.

After everything our client went through, the case was ultimately resolved through settlement, a step that finally allowed them to breathe, move on, and reclaim the progress they had worked so hard for.

If This Feels Familiar, You’re Not Alone

When a background check company reports outdated or false information, it can derail your life. But you do have rights, and you do not have to face this alone.

Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., helps consumers fight back against tenant screening errors and reclaim the opportunities they deserve.

Contact us today for a free case review.
You pay nothing unless we win your case.

The post When Your Past Is Supposed to Be Behind You, But a Background Check Error Brings It All Back appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

MYTH #1: “You can remove any negative information from your credit report if you dispute it.”

Reality: You can remove negative information only if it’s inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated.

The FCRA requires credit reporting agencies (CRAs), like Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, to report information accurately. They do not have to remove negative information simply because it’s hurting your credit score.

You can have negative items removed if:

• The information does not belong to you (mixed file, identity theft, reporting another person’s account)
• The information is factually incorrect (wrong balance, wrong dates, wrong status)
• The information is being reported longer than legally allowed (e.g., most negative items must fall off after 7 years)
• The creditor cannot verify the information after your dispute
• The CRA failed to investigate properly

You cannot remove the item just because it’s negative if:

• The account is accurate
• The debt is yours
• The late payment or charge-off actually happened
• The reporting is within the legal time limits

Legitimate negative information must legally remain on your report, even if you dispute it 100 times.

MYTH #2: “The credit bureaus must delete anything you dispute.”

Reality: They must investigate your dispute, but only delete it if it’s wrong or unverifiable.

When you file a dispute, the credit bureau has 30-45 days to:

1. Contact the furnisher (the company that supplied the information)
2. Review the evidence
3. Correct, update, or delete information that can’t be verified

But here’s the part social media skips:
They are allowed to keep the information if the furnisher verifies it, even if the verification is wrong.
They can reject disputes they consider frivolous or repetitive.
When that happens, you may need legal intervention to fix an error on your credit report. We can help.

MYTH #3: “Credit repair companies have special tools to delete accurate information.”

Reality: No company can delete accurate, lawfully reported information, not even the bureaus themselves.

Any company promising to delete bankruptcies, late payments, charge-offs, repossessions, or collections simply because you hired them is misleading you.
Under the FCRA, accurate and verifiable information is allowed to stay.
The only time negative items can be removed is when they violate the law.

MYTH #4: “If your dispute is denied, you’re stuck with the error.”

Reality: A denied dispute may actually strengthen your legal claim.

If you dispute an error and the credit bureau or furnisher refuses to correct it, even after you provide evidence, you may now have grounds for a lawsuit.

You may have a claim if:

• The CRA failed to conduct a reasonable investigation
• The furnisher verified false information
• You are the victim of identity theft
• Your file was mixed with someone else’s
• The CRA reinserted an item that they previously removed
• The error caused harm, such as:
  • Being denied credit, housing, or employment
  • Paying higher interest rates
  • Emotional distress
  • Lost financial opportunities

A dispute denial is not the end; it’s often the beginning of your legal rights.

MYTH #5: “You can sue a credit reporting agency just because something negative is on your report.”

Reality: You can sue only when the agency violates the FCRA.

Negative information alone, even if truly damaging, is not grounds for a lawsuit if it is accurate and legally reported.

You may have a lawsuit if the bureau or furnisher:

• Reports information that belongs to someone else
• Refuses to remove proven incorrect information
• Fails to fix errors after a proper dispute
• Fails to mark accounts as disputed
• Does not investigate disputes reasonably
• Provides outdated or legally obsolete information
• Mishandles identity theft documentation
• Causes you measurable harm through negligence

When these violations occur, you can recover:

• Money damages
• Attorney fees
• Court costs
• Punitive damages in serious cases

And you do not pay anything out of pocket to hire an FCRA attorney; the credit reporting agency pays the fees if you win.

GET A FREE CASE REVIEW

The Most Common Errors That Are Removable

Here are real situations where the law is on your side:

• Accounts that aren’t yours (mixed files)
• Identity theft records
• Incorrect dates, balances, or account statuses
• Duplicate accounts
• Hard inquiries you didn’t authorize
• Public records that do not belong to you
• Criminal records attached to your credit file (rare, but it happens)
• Re-aged accounts are used to extend how long a debt stays on your report

These are all fixable and often lawsuit-worthy if not corrected after a dispute.

The Items You Cannot Remove If They’re Accurate

Even though social media says otherwise, the following cannot be deleted simply because they hurt your score:

• Accurate late payments
• Accurate charge-offs
• Legitimate collections
• Repossessions
• Foreclosures
• Bankruptcies within the reporting window
• Student loan defaults (if correct)
• Accurate judgments

Everything has a legal reporting time limit, but accuracy is what controls whether the item stays.

When Should You Talk to a Consumer Protection Attorney?

You should reach out if:

• You disputed an error, and it was not fixed
• You were denied housing, credit, or employment because of inaccurate information
• A credit bureau mixed your file with another person
• You are a victim of identity theft
• Your report shows duplicate accounts
• A bureau or furnisher ignored your evidence
• An item was deleted and then reinserted without proper notice

These situations aren’t just frustrating; they are potential legal violations.
At Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., we help consumers across the U.S. fix inaccurate reports and pursue compensation when credit bureaus break the law.

Bottom Line

You do have the power to remove negative information from your credit report, but only when it is wrong, outdated, or unverifiable.

You do not have the power to erase accurate information just because it’s negative.
But when a credit reporting agency refuses to fix an error or violates the FCRA, you may have a strong lawsuit, and a team of attorneys ready to help.
GET A FREE CASE REVIEW – 1-877-735-8600

The post Myth vs. Reality: What You Can and Cannot Remove From Your Credit Report, and When You May Have a Lawsuit appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

Starting Fresh in a New State and an Unexpected Accusation

Our client applied for a rental home as part of a relocation for work. With no criminal history and no reason to expect problems, the tenant screening process felt routine.
Until the results arrived.
The Resident Verify report didn’t show a clean record.

It showed a felony conviction for a violent crime.

• A crime our client never committed.
• A crime committed in a state where our client had never lived.
• A crime committed by someone who was actually incarcerated at the time of the housing application.

Even more alarming: the real offender had a middle name, and our client does not. The court records made this difference unmistakably clear.
But Resident Verify ignored it.

A Common Name, an Uncommon Failure

Resident Verify knows certain last names are extremely common and require heightened matching standards to avoid exactly this kind of mistake. But instead of exercising caution, they matched our client to a violent criminal’s record simply because the first and last names were the same.
Identity reduced to two names.
A life changed by a careless match.

Disputing the Truth and Being Ignored

Shocked and terrified, our client disputed the inaccurate record.
But Resident Verify didn’t listen. They “verified” the false felony as accurate and continued reporting it. To be falsely labeled a violent felon, and then told the information is “verified”, is more than an error.


It’s a serious mistake.
It’s a threat to your stability, your career, your future.

Because of that false verification, the landlord denied the housing application.

Fighting to Be Seen Correctly

Our client disputed the information again, insisting that the report be corrected. Only after the second dispute did Resident Verify finally remove the criminal history. With the corrected report, our client returned to the landlord and was able to secure an apartment. But the approval didn’t erase the damage done.

Trauma That Doesn’t Go Away

Even after the mistake was fixed, the emotional harm stayed. Our client had never committed a crime, not even close, yet they were labeled as someone dangerous. Someone violent. Someone they are not. They were embarrassed, humiliated, and deeply shaken.
And even after securing the apartment, they worried:

What if the landlord still wonders?

What if this happens again?

What if Resident Verify makes the same mistake the next time I apply for housing?

These are fears no one should have to live with.

The Law Protects You From Being Misidentified

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires background check companies to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information they report, especially when matching records to people with common names. Resident Verify failed that obligation. Twice.

At Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., we represent people who have faced life-altering consequences because of these errors: people who have been wrongly labeled criminals, denied homes and jobs, and treated as though a false record defines who they are.

• You deserve better.
• You deserve accuracy.
• You deserve to be seen for who you really are.

If a Background Check Says Something You Know Isn’t True, We Can Help

If you’ve been denied housing or harmed because a background check listed crimes you didn’t commit, you have rights, and you can take action. Contact our consumer attorneys now; we are here to help you.

Contact Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., for a free case review.

Get a Free Case Review>>> Fill out the online form or call 1-877-735-8600
Your identity should never be up for debate.
Not by a background check company.
Not by anyone.

The post When a Background Check Calls You a Violent Felon and You’ve Never Committed a Crime appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..