How on earth can they compile data that they don't verify nor is it possible to correct or change data that is incorrect. Under POSSIBLE ASSOCIATES are all people who lived in states that I never lived in so I don't have a clue if they are identity thieves, criminals nor pedophiles and I prefer not being associated with them but they cannot be removed. How is that?
Just received my Accurint report
Started by
bullthistle
, Sep 17 2010 04:46 PM
18 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:46 PM
#2
Posted 17 September 2010 - 06:19 PM
what means did you employ for the dispute?
#3
Posted 17 September 2010 - 07:26 PM
I didn't because I just received it today after requesting it twice. It says right on the cover page that the information is not verified and it is not possible for their computers to correct or change data that is incorrect. That is B.S. I previewed previous posts, from a couple of years ago and they all say nothing can be done so I was wondering if anyone came up with anything new.
#4
Posted 19 September 2010 - 09:22 AM
Just found this:
Adams v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 47123 (D.N.J. May 12, 2010)
Facts: Plaintiff claimed that Defendants LexisNexis (“Lexis”) and Seisint, Inc., violated the FCRA when they sold “Accurint” reports containing allegedly inaccurate information to debt collectors, credit insurers and other entities involved in debt collection. Plaintiff specifically alleged that Defendants are consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”), that an Accurint report is a consumer report as defined by the FCRA, and that Defendants violated various sections of the FCRA by selling those reports to third parties. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiff’s claims because they claimed they were not a CRA, an Accurint report is not a consumer report and that Plaintiff failed to alleged the necessary facts to establish a claim under the FCRA. Defendant’s motion was granted in part, and denied in part.
•Consumer Reporting Agency. Plaintiff alleged that Lexis sold “nationally... a product called an Accurint report to debt collectors, credit insurers and entities involved in the debt collection industry generally, to assist with the collection of delinquent credit accounts...” Plaintiff further alleged that she purchased the Accurint report from Lexis for $8.00. Therefore, Plaintiff claimed that Defendants qualified as CRA. Section 1681a(f) defines a CRA as “any person which, for monetary fees, dues or on a cooperative non-profit basis, regularly engage 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....” Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court held that she had plead sufficient facts to establish that the actions taken by Lexis may make them a CRA, but that the critical question was whether an Accurint report qualified as a consumer report.
•Consumer Report. Under § 1681a(d)(1), a consumer report “means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a [CRA] bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used ...for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for—(A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (
employment purposes; or © any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.”
•Consumer Report. Plaintiff alleged that the Accurint report contained 1) consumer information as defined by § 1681a(d)(1); and that Lexis used or collected information for “permissible purpose” under § 1681b. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Lexis used or collected the information for the permissible purpose of collection of an account. At this early stage of discovery the Court found that Plaintiff could, through discovery, establish that Lexis produced consumer reports and that it qualified as a CRA. Therefore, because Defendants could not establish that there were no material issues of fact concerning whether the Accurint report qualified as a consumer report, the Court denied their motion.
•Willful Violation. Section 1681n provides for civil liability against any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under the FCRA. The Supreme Court recently held that “the standard civil usage...counsels reading the phrase ‘willfully fails to comply’ in § 1681n(a) as reaching reckless FCRA violations....” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57 (2007). Lexis argued that they did not view Accurint reports as qualifying as consumer reports under the FCRA. However, the Court stated that if Plaintiff could prove that Defendants either knowingly or recklessly adopted policies that contravened the FCRA, assuming that she satisfied her burden of showing that the FCRA applied to Lexis, she could succeed in establishing a violation of the FCRA. The Court therefore denied the mo
Adams v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 47123 (D.N.J. May 12, 2010)
Facts: Plaintiff claimed that Defendants LexisNexis (“Lexis”) and Seisint, Inc., violated the FCRA when they sold “Accurint” reports containing allegedly inaccurate information to debt collectors, credit insurers and other entities involved in debt collection. Plaintiff specifically alleged that Defendants are consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”), that an Accurint report is a consumer report as defined by the FCRA, and that Defendants violated various sections of the FCRA by selling those reports to third parties. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiff’s claims because they claimed they were not a CRA, an Accurint report is not a consumer report and that Plaintiff failed to alleged the necessary facts to establish a claim under the FCRA. Defendant’s motion was granted in part, and denied in part.
•Consumer Reporting Agency. Plaintiff alleged that Lexis sold “nationally... a product called an Accurint report to debt collectors, credit insurers and entities involved in the debt collection industry generally, to assist with the collection of delinquent credit accounts...” Plaintiff further alleged that she purchased the Accurint report from Lexis for $8.00. Therefore, Plaintiff claimed that Defendants qualified as CRA. Section 1681a(f) defines a CRA as “any person which, for monetary fees, dues or on a cooperative non-profit basis, regularly engage 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....” Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court held that she had plead sufficient facts to establish that the actions taken by Lexis may make them a CRA, but that the critical question was whether an Accurint report qualified as a consumer report.
•Consumer Report. Under § 1681a(d)(1), a consumer report “means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a [CRA] bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used ...for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for—(A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (
employment purposes; or © any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.” •Consumer Report. Plaintiff alleged that the Accurint report contained 1) consumer information as defined by § 1681a(d)(1); and that Lexis used or collected information for “permissible purpose” under § 1681b. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Lexis used or collected the information for the permissible purpose of collection of an account. At this early stage of discovery the Court found that Plaintiff could, through discovery, establish that Lexis produced consumer reports and that it qualified as a CRA. Therefore, because Defendants could not establish that there were no material issues of fact concerning whether the Accurint report qualified as a consumer report, the Court denied their motion.
•Willful Violation. Section 1681n provides for civil liability against any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under the FCRA. The Supreme Court recently held that “the standard civil usage...counsels reading the phrase ‘willfully fails to comply’ in § 1681n(a) as reaching reckless FCRA violations....” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57 (2007). Lexis argued that they did not view Accurint reports as qualifying as consumer reports under the FCRA. However, the Court stated that if Plaintiff could prove that Defendants either knowingly or recklessly adopted policies that contravened the FCRA, assuming that she satisfied her burden of showing that the FCRA applied to Lexis, she could succeed in establishing a violation of the FCRA. The Court therefore denied the mo
#5
Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:31 AM
a pending case does not give precedential value however...
Generally speaking, Accurint is a compilation of public information. Granted, you may find information related to neighbors who you never knew the names of...
Generally speaking, Accurint is a compilation of public information. Granted, you may find information related to neighbors who you never knew the names of...
#6
Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:52 AM
I Accurint the same as Lexis/Nexis?
#7
Posted 19 September 2010 - 10:56 AM
I Accurint the same as Lexis/Nexis?
Yep.
#8
Posted 19 September 2010 - 11:01 AM
I Accurint the same as Lexis/Nexis?
Yep.
yes and no...it IS a Lexis product, but there are other search capabilities available through Lexis-engined products.
Oh, and for those wondering, there ARE PP-related checkboxes that have to be confirmed with the LN products when running searches on some records...mostly those covered by the Driver Privacy provisions that SOME states have enacted.
(yeah, I have it on the subscription offerings)
#9
Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:47 PM
Since everyone says fighting Accurint's reports is a lost cause I have decided to move forward and sent a letter to the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, Elizabeth Warren, Special Assiatnt to the President, and to Andrew Prozes of LexisNexis Group. Maybe I am spinning my wheels but time will tell. What data collectors are allowed to do to a person's character is defamation on any level.
#10
Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:07 AM
Since everyone says fighting Accurint's reports is a lost cause I have decided to move forward and sent a letter to the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, Elizabeth Warren, Special Assiatnt to the President, and to Andrew Prozes of LexisNexis Group. Maybe I am spinning my wheels but time will tell. What data collectors are allowed to do to a person's character is defamation on any level.
How precisely have you been defamed?
#11
Posted 29 September 2010 - 05:38 PM
Since everyone says fighting Accurint's reports is a lost cause I have decided to move forward and sent a letter to the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, Elizabeth Warren, Special Assiatnt to the President, and to Andrew Prozes of LexisNexis Group. Maybe I am spinning my wheels but time will tell. What data collectors are allowed to do to a person's character is defamation on any level.
How precisely have you been defamed?
especially since the data are not owned by the consumer...
Edited by hegemony, 29 September 2010 - 05:38 PM.
#12
Posted 02 October 2010 - 10:48 AM
<!--quoteo(post=4300741:date=Sep 24 2010, 07:07 AM:name=centex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (centex @ Sep 24 2010, 07:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=4300741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=4300240:date=Sep 23 2010, 04:47 PM:name=bullthistle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bullthistle @ Sep 23 2010, 04:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=4300240"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since everyone says fighting Accurint's reports is a lost cause I have decided to move forward and sent a letter to the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, Elizabeth Warren, Special Assiatnt to the President, and to Andrew Prozes of LexisNexis Group. Maybe I am spinning my wheels but time will tell. What data collectors are allowed to do to a person's character is defamation on any level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How precisely have you been defamed?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
especially since the data are not owned by the consumer...
I guess no one on the board has heard the term "guilt by association." In Utah a guy went to look at a car for sale and was arrested as he started to drive away. The seller was a drug dealer and the cops implied he was there to buy drugs. They dropped the first charge and came back with a DUI. He had to hire a lawyer and eventually it was thrown out. Possible associates on my background could endanger me as an accessory if anyone committed a crime. Sometimes the law is desparate to find anything on some people to prove a point.
#13
Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:30 AM
For those of you who say nothing can be changed on Accurint's reports, although their computer says it cannot be changed, I thought I would inform everyone, anything can be chenged, you just must approach it from the right direction. I received a call today from LN in Washington. They are mailing me my reports with the known associates gone. That was my biggest gripe. It may be garbage in but garbage can also be removed and I was told if anything ever negative surafced because of the Accuritn information I am to call a certain number in Washington. So when people tell you nothing can be changed take it with a grain of salt. I've learned that consumers can change anyone's perspective, as some have seen going to court pro se against a debtors' attorney, if they are prepared and push the right buttons.
#14
Posted 08 October 2010 - 03:11 PM
How about information on Lexis/Nexis can be change?
Sorry to hijack, I didnt want to start a new thread.
Sorry to hijack, I didnt want to start a new thread.
#15
Posted 08 October 2010 - 06:35 PM
Well if something burns a fire within you write a letter. Everyone said it cannot be changed but no one really tried, heck even in Accurint's cover letter it said computers cannot make changes, that's B.S. Sent a letter to the FTC and to the special consumer advisor at the White House, both Fed Ex's and to the CEO of LN, Priority mail. This morning a call from Washington. I was pissed at the known associates and sent examples of guilt by association matters in the USA since it was two full pages of people I never crossed paths with and had no clue who they were except that someone waved a magic wand. Something that might damage your character by implication. It is bad enough when we ourselves make mistakes but when someone else makes them that may damage us get pissed. Everyone sees life differently, but when someone tells you "it's impossible" find out for yourself. This is not the first time that I proven people wrong so I know for a fact things can change, just apply pressure points. SS
#16
Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:48 PM
Are you satisfied that they REALLY deleted the data?
I'm just so leery on Lexis Nexis as they are the same ones that release to government requests.
It makes me wonder if there are 2 versions of their information..some technicality, like "public record for sale" vs. "personal file."
They have so many types of products of personal information, are you sure they deleted the data from ALL the file formats they may own?
Here is a brief link that describes some forms they have:
http://www.lexisnexi.../for-consumers/
PS, proud of you for those letters! Good for you!
I'm just so leery on Lexis Nexis as they are the same ones that release to government requests.
It makes me wonder if there are 2 versions of their information..some technicality, like "public record for sale" vs. "personal file."
They have so many types of products of personal information, are you sure they deleted the data from ALL the file formats they may own?
Here is a brief link that describes some forms they have:
http://www.lexisnexi.../for-consumers/
PS, proud of you for those letters! Good for you!
#17
Posted 09 October 2010 - 05:10 PM
There are no guarantees however what I am being sent they were removed, but I have a number to call if a problem arises.
#18
Posted 18 November 2010 - 01:47 AM
How long did it actually took for you to get the report?
I requested mine like 30 days ago and still nothing.
I requested mine like 30 days ago and still nothing.
#19
Posted 18 November 2010 - 02:29 AM
How long did it actually took for you to get the report?
I requested mine like 30 days ago and still nothing.
It's been at least 3 Weeks for me and still nothing also...
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
