| What actually happens: 1. Alice does have debt, and does intend to acquire debt in the future, like most people. The presence of this fraudulent debt in her credit report makes credit more expensive and hard to get. 2. Before filing suit and going to court, BigBank makes persistent but usually polite attempts to collect. But when she says "that wasn't me" they don't believe her, because lots of deadbeats say that sort of thing too. 3. Perhaps BigBank sells the debt to a collection agency, which is far more aggressive and (willfully?) ignorant of laws regulating how and when they can contact Alice. Perhaps they call Alice's employer, threaten to garnish her wages (even if they legally can't), or lie about Alice's ability to contest the debt. 4. If Alice is determined enough to keep fighting and go to court, she has still sunk significant time and money into fighting this. It's unlikely she'll be compensated fairly for that. I agree the credit reporting agency is in some ways helping Alice, and would add that these agencies probably do reduce the rate of fraud overall. But they also have a responsibility to do a good job minimizing errors. We can't expect them to never make a mistake, but they should have some skin in the game when their inaccuracies hurt a credit applicant. |
Don't kill the messenger. The credit reporting agencies are doing what they are obligated to do in that business. There needs to be penalties for BigBank beyond the money BigBank lost in the scam perpetrated by criminal.
Blaming the credit reporting agencies for bad credit reports is intellectually lazy. Blaming them for garbage computer security is much more appropriate in this story. A more interesting discussion here would be about the technical details of the hack.