NCLC manual Fair Credit Reporting - Chapter 14 lays out a theoretical plan on how to defeat Fair Isaac. The first step is to get past their trade secret defense, then prove how the inner workings of the model relates to your innacurate file and/or damages.
Somehow I doubt a Competent Court will accept a disclaimer so broad that is simply says the equivalent of "You agree whatever we say is bullsh*t and accept it as bullsh*t" while they are marketing that same service as a watch on your credit. There has to be SOME product liability here.
609 (f) (5) Applicability to credit scores developed by another person.(A) In general. This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumerreporting agency that distributes credit scores developed by another personor entity to provide a further explanation of them, or to process a disputearising pursuant to section 611, except that the consumer reporting agencyshall provide the consumer with the name and address and website forcontacting the person or entity who developed the score or developed themethodology of the score.(B) Exception. This paragraph shall not apply to a consumer reporting agencythat develops or modifies scores that are developed by another person orentity. Still looking to see if this section may apply.
Why would you think that? It is a watch on your report for you, it is not disseminated to anyone other than you. In light of that, to whom are they liable and more importantly, for what?
When a CRA deletes TL's do they REALLY delete?: It depends.. When a CRA deletes TL's do they REALLY delete? Well Fly, to address your orignal question, the answer is "it depends". Looking at the CDIA manual, it looks like it is now a question of did they delete the "account" or the "borrower" field. Based on your description of the problem (merged data), it is entirely possible that to prevent "loss" of the actual account (which belongs to someone else), they deleted "you as borrower". The account would not "show" on your report, but in essence is still there in your "file", perhaps reading as a negative account. To answer you question a bit more fully, the actual historical data is there to "show" the deletion, and there are deletion codes. This makes sense in the realm of "reinserted negative information". If the account was actually deleted, then how could the CRAs "know" to notify you that this is "reinserted data". It should show as "new" information. There is a lot more here than meets the eye. What is interesting is that your "credit file" is actually the electronice one, the "report" that we receive in hard copy, or on-line is a "report based upon the file information. So, we are not seeing the entire "file".
A bit more of an answer... Researching the question, "do they really delete", there is an interesting side to the "consumer file". Consumer files do have a "trailer record", which is a summary of all your activity. Specifically to this question, there is a "record" of how many accounts have been "deleted" from the file/report. I've no idea if this data is "read" by the FICO model, but it is there. It is interesting to note that there are directions to "only fully delete an account that is confirmes fraud". Other "deletes" appear to leave a "trail" behind.
After reading (and learning ) the question comes up...Which goal is worthy to be achieved with the evidence? Which has the most value to Flying.? A. The sacred inner workings of the system? B Monetary damages?
You may wish to re-read this thread a little more closely. It has more to do with penetrating the wall that Fair-Isaac maintains than in collecting monetary damages. Actual damages are being discussed in the context of establishing a cause of action on which to base a complaint that will survive scrutiny.
