Serve Experian Information Solutions: CT Corp Registered Agent

Filings that name “Experian, Inc.,” “Experian plc,” or “Experian Holdings” as defendant share a common defect: none of those designations corresponds to an active U.S. corporate registration. Experian plc is incorporated under the laws of Ireland and publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange under ticker EXPN — it holds no state corporate filing in any U.S. jurisdiction and has no registered agent authorized to accept service anywhere in the United States. Experian Holdings, Inc. appears in Accurint Connected Businesses data but returns [None Found] across all four state-filing search variants tested in May 2026. A process server dispatched to 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, California on a summons captioned to either entity returns a rejected-service notation before the return date — not because service was defective, but because the named defendant has no corporate existence in any U.S. jurisdiction. That caption error triggers a Rule 12(b)(2) personal-jurisdiction defense and a Rule 12(b)(5) insufficient-service-of-process motion simultaneously, and federal courts in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York have granted both on that basis.

Accurint Comprehensive Business Reports generated in May 2026 identify five distinct entities operating under the Experian brand in the United States. The principal entity — Experian Information Solutions, Inc. — is an Ohio domestic corporation first registered in 1977, qualified to do business in 41 states, and carrying FEIN 31-1343192 and LexID 0000-5108-2027. Revenue attributed to EIS reaches $4.239 billion in one Accurint pull and $4.73 billion in a second cross-referenced report, a variance consistent with the lag between fiscal-year reporting cycles rather than conflicting identity data. Four companion entities — Experian Health, Inc.; Consumerinfo.com, Inc.; CSIDentity, Inc.; and Clarity Services, Inc. — operate as active subsidiaries with their own state registrations and registered agents, each handling a discrete line of business. Confusing EIS with any of these subsidiaries on a caption produces addressable service against the wrong legal person. Two address artifacts from the TRW legacy also appear in older filings — a Dallas, Texas address associated with TRW Information Services before the 1996 acquisition, and a Schaumburg, Illinois address from the 1998 integration — and OCR transcription errors in county-court caption records include the spelling variants “ESPERIAN” and “EMPERIAN,” which appear in pro-se filings with sufficient frequency to warrant a pre-draft name-check against current Accurint output.

C T Corporation System serves as the registered agent for Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in nearly all of the 41 states where EIS maintains a foreign qualification. That concentration is operationally significant: a single-vendor agent means that address verification, agent-status confirmation, and service execution follow a consistent protocol regardless of the forum state. In New York, CT Corp accepts service at 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005 — the address applicable to both FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) federal service and CPLR § 311(a)(1) state service. In California, CT Corp is located at 330 N Brand Blvd, Glendale, California 91203, which is EIS’s registered-agent address in California distinct from its principal-office address at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa. In Texas, the CT Corp address is 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. In Florida, CT Corp accepts service at 1200 S Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida 33324. Confirmed agent-status lookup is required before dispatch in all 41 states because CT Corp has, on prior engagements, merged, moved, or transitioned individual-state registrations without amending the corresponding state filing, and a stale address produces a rejected-service return that restarts the service clock.

This guide addresses one question with precision: which Experian entity carries the corporate registration that makes it the correct defendant for a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, a data-accuracy dispute, or a credit-reporting subpoena, and exactly where that entity accepts service in the 41 states where it operates. The guide does not cover Experian plc, which is not amenable to U.S. state or federal process, and it does not address Experian Holdings or Experian North America, which hold no state registrations. For matters arising from consumer health-data reporting, identity-theft protection products, background screening, or direct-to-consumer credit monitoring, the correct defendant may be one of EIS’s operating subsidiaries rather than EIS itself — those routing decisions are addressed in Section 2. A name on a credit report is not a name on a state corporate register.

Undisputed Legal’s process servers maintain direct-dispatch relationships with C T Corporation System offices in all 41 EIS-qualified states. To order service on Experian Information Solutions, Inc. or one of its operating subsidiaries, call (800) 774-6922 or use the link below.

Order Experian Information Solutions Service Now

Which Experian Are You Trying to Serve?

The Experian entity family contains one U.S.-suable corporate parent, four operating subsidiaries with independent state registrations, and two holding-company designations that appear in financial reporting but carry no corporate filings in any U.S. jurisdiction. Selecting the correct entity before drafting the caption is not a pre-litigation courtesy — it is a jurisdictional prerequisite. A defendant that holds no state registration in New York, California, or any other U.S. jurisdiction cannot be served under CPLR § 311(a)(1), CCP § 416.10, or FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) regardless of how precisely the summons is executed. The table below maps each Experian-brand entity to its service status, registration data, and registered-agent address.

Five-Entity Divergence: Why Accurint Returns Multiple Results

Entity	Jurisdiction	Registered Agent	Service Status
Experian plc	Ireland / UK (LSE: EXPN)	None (U.S.)	NOT SERVICEABLE — no U.S. registration
Experian Holdings, Inc.	None Found (Accurint, May 2026)	None	NOT SERVICEABLE — no state filing
Experian North America	None Found (Accurint, May 2026)	None	NOT SERVICEABLE — trade designation only
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.	Ohio domestic; 41 states	C T Corporation System	PRIMARY TARGET — FCRA, credit-report disputes
Experian Health, Inc.	Not separately verified	Not separately verified	SUBSIDIARY — health-data matters only
Consumerinfo.com, Inc.	Not separately verified	Not separately verified	SUBSIDIARY — direct-to-consumer monitoring only
HireRight, LLC	Not separately verified	Not separately verified	SUBSIDIARY — background screening only

Two Accurint artifacts require identification before caption-drafting. The TRW legacy address — 500 City Parkway West, Orange, California, associated with TRW Information Services before the 1996 acquisition by Great Universal Stores — continues to surface in some Accurint result sets when the search name is entered as “TRW INFORMATION SERVICES.” That address is not a current EIS location and is not staffed by CT Corporation System. The second artifact class is OCR transcription error: “ESPERIAN” and “EMPERIAN” appear in county-court caption records with sufficient frequency to suggest a recurring keying defect in court electronic-filing systems that auto-populate defendant names from prior-case histories. Neither variant corresponds to a corporate registration under that spelling, and both produce search misses in the New York Secretary of State portal and California SOS Business Search when queried directly.

Experian plc: The Non-Serviceable Parent

Experian plc is incorporated in Jersey (Channel Islands), resident in Ireland, and maintains its Irish registered office at Newenham House, Northern Cross, Malahide Road, Dublin 17, Ireland D17 AY61. The company’s operational headquarters is The Sir John Peace Building, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham NG80 1ZZ, United Kingdom. Experian plc trades on the London Stock Exchange under ticker symbol EXPN and is not listed on any U.S. exchange. As of the most recent proxy disclosure, Brian Cassin serves as Group Chief Executive Officer and Lloyd Pitchford serves as Chief Financial Officer — both UK-based executives with no U.S. corporate-registration authority. Experian plc maintains no corporate registration in any U.S. state and no registered agent for service of process in any U.S. jurisdiction.

A 2023 Florida UCC financing statement, filing number 202301232575, names “EXPERIAN, PLC” at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, California 92626 as debtor — a demonstration of the pro-se defect pattern in which the parent entity is named because the Costa Mesa address appears in consumer-facing Experian communications without entity-level clarification. That address belongs to Experian Information Solutions, Inc., not Experian plc. Serving process at 475 Anton Blvd on a complaint captioned to Experian plc does not cure the caption defect — it compounds it by adding an insufficient-service notation to a personal-jurisdiction problem already present. Correcting the caption to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. resolves both issues simultaneously because EIS is an Ohio domestic corporation with CT Corporation System accepting service at confirmed agent addresses in all 41 qualified states.

Experian Holdings and Experian North America: The Invisible Intermediaries

Experian Holdings, Inc. and Experian North America appear in investor relations materials and annual reports as intermediate holding and regional-management designations. Neither entity has a discoverable state-of-organization filing in any U.S. jurisdiction as of May 2026 Accurint searches run across four search variants: “EXPERIAN HOLDINGS INC,” “EXPERIAN HOLDINGS,” “EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICA INC,” and “EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICA.” All four searches return [None Found] for state corporate filings. Experian Holdings does appear in Accurint Connected Businesses results as a related entity to EIS, but Connected Businesses output reflects ownership and affiliation data compiled from filings made by other entities — it is not a state-of-organization record and does not establish Holdings as an independently suable defendant.

The 2017 CFPB consent order — File No. 2017-CFPB-0012 — names Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Experian Holdings, Inc. as co-respondents. That administrative captioning reflects the CFPB’s regulatory authority to reach holding-company structures in enforcement actions; it does not establish a model for private FCRA litigation, in which the correct defendant is the entity that directly processed, reported, or furnished the consumer credit data at issue. Naming Holdings as a co-defendant in a private FCRA action does not add a reachable defendant — it adds a Rule 12(b)(2) motion. Revenue figures attributed to EIS ($4.239 billion and $4.73 billion across two Accurint pulls) represent consolidated North American operations reported at the EIS level; that revenue does not establish Holdings as an independent corporate entity distinct from EIS for service-of-process purposes.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.: The Primary Service Target

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio domestic corporation, first registered in 1977, and qualified to do business as a foreign corporation in 41 U.S. states. Its principal place of business is 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, California 92626-7037. FEIN 31-1343192 and Accurint LexID 0000-5108-2027 confirm entity identity across all five Accurint Comprehensive Business Reports pulled in May 2026. Craig Boundy served as CEO as of the most recent Accurint employment record dated 02/16/2026; HiQ Lee is listed as President in the same dataset. Consolidated revenue across the two most recent Accurint pulls is $4.239 billion and $4.73 billion respectively, with 6,765 employees in the most recent headcount record.

C T Corporation System is the registered agent for EIS in substantially all of its 41 qualified states. For FCRA claims filed in the Eastern District of New York or Southern District of New York, service under FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) is executed at CT Corporation System, 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. That address corresponds to the CT Corp office that handles service for EIS’s New York foreign-corporation registration; confirmed agent-status lookup at that address is required before dispatch because CT Corp has, on prior engagements, updated its internal registration records without amending the underlying state filing. In California, CT Corp is located at 330 N Brand Blvd, Glendale, California 91203 — not at 475 Anton Blvd, which is EIS’s principal-office address and not its registered-agent address. Serving at 475 Anton Blvd instead of the CT Corp Glendale address produces a rejected-service return in California state court even though 475 Anton Blvd is an active EIS facility.

For CPLR § 311(a)(1) service in New York state court, the same CT Corp address at 28 Liberty Street applies. CPLR § 311 requires delivery to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or any agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service. CT Corporation System’s authorization is established by the New York Department of State foreign-corporation registration for Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and that authorization is confirmed by the agent-status lookup available through CT Corp’s public records portal before dispatch.

Operating Subsidiary Routing: When EIS Is Not the Correct Defendant

Six Experian operating subsidiaries carry independent corporate registrations and each handles a discrete line of business. Selecting EIS as the defendant in a matter that arose from a subsidiary’s conduct produces the same caption error as selecting Experian plc — the named defendant did not engage in the conduct alleged, and service on EIS however correctly executed does not cure a complaint captioned to the wrong Experian entity. The caption-controls-service doctrine applies across the entire Experian family: the entity named in the caption is the entity that must be served, and service on a different — even closely affiliated — Experian entity does not satisfy that requirement.

For consumer health-data reporting matters — including hospital-billing data, insurance claims data, and health-system credit data — the correct defendant is Experian Health, Inc. (Schaumburg, IL), served per matter-specific state requirements. For direct-to-consumer credit monitoring, identity alerts, and CreditWorks subscription disputes, the correct defendant is Consumerinfo.com, Inc. (Costa Mesa, CA), served per matter-specific state requirements. For identity-theft protection products marketed under the IdentityWorks brand, the correct defendant is CSIDentity, Inc. (Austin, TX), served per matter-specific state requirements. For subprime credit reporting and alternative-data scoring products, the correct defendant is Clarity Services, Inc. (Costa Mesa, CA), served per matter-specific state requirements. For employment background screening and tenant-screening products, the correct defendant is HireRight, LLC (Irvine, CA), served per matter-specific state requirements. For marketing data, targeting analytics, and consumer segmentation products, the correct defendant is Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. (Schaumburg, IL), served per matter-specific state requirements. The routing principle is conduct-based: identify which Experian entity operated the system, maintained the file, or furnished the data that gave rise to the claim — that entity is the correct defendant, regardless of the Experian brand name that appeared in any consumer-facing communication. Five Accurint searches show one entity with state filings — and four without.

The Statutory Service Framework for Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. presents four distinct service paths depending on the forum: Ohio-domestic service (state of incorporation), foreign-qualified state service (41 jurisdictions where EIS holds a foreign-corporation registration), federal court service under FRCP 4(h)(1)(B), and subpoena service under FRCP 45 or state subpoena rules. Each path uses a different procedural authority but converges on the same operational infrastructure: C T Corporation System as the single registered agent vendor across nearly all of EIS’s qualified states. The statutory references below govern which path is available; the CT Corp addresses below govern where service is executed once the correct path is selected.

Ohio-Domestic Service: State of Incorporation

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio domestic corporation. In Ohio-filed actions — including matters before the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Franklin County Common Pleas Court, and the Southern and Northern Districts of Ohio — EIS is suable as an Ohio-domestic defendant rather than as a foreign corporation qualified to do business in Ohio. The governing procedural rule is Ohio Civ. R. 4.2(F), which authorizes service on a corporation by serving a statutory agent, an officer, or another agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service. EIS’s Ohio statutory agent is designated under Ohio R.C. § 1701.07 and appears in the Ohio Secretary of State’s corporate database as C T Corporation System.

Ohio R.C. § 1701.07(H) provides an alternate service path when the statutory agent cannot be located or no agent is designated: service may be made on the Ohio Secretary of State at 180 E Broad St, Columbus, Ohio 43215. The Secretary of State then forwards service to the corporation’s last known address on file. This path is rarely needed for EIS because CT Corporation System maintains an active agent designation, but it is available as a fallback if CT Corp’s Ohio office cannot accept service on a specific dispatch date. A plaintiff filing in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. therefore has two confirmed service paths without invoking long-arm or Hague Convention procedures: (1) C T Corporation System at its Ohio registered-address location, confirmed via the Ohio Secretary of State’s online entity search before dispatch; or (2) the Ohio Secretary of State at 180 E Broad St, Columbus, Ohio 43215 under § 1701.07(H). Both paths satisfy Ohio Civ. R. 4.2(F).

The Ohio domestic path is relevant beyond Ohio-filed matters because EIS’s FEIN 31-1343192 and LexID 0000-5108-2027 are traceable to its Ohio domestic registration — these are the identifiers that confirm entity identity in Accurint before any dispatch, regardless of forum state. When Accurint searches return multiple Experian results, the Ohio domestic registration with those identifiers is the confirmation that the correct entity has been located.

Foreign-Qualified State Service: The 41-State CT Corp Network

In states where EIS holds a foreign-corporation qualification — 41 states as of May 2026 Accurint verification — service is made on the registered agent on file with that state’s secretary of state. C T Corporation System is the registered agent for EIS in substantially all 41 qualified states. The statutory authority governing service on a foreign corporation varies by state but follows a consistent structure: each state’s long-arm or corporate-service statute authorizes service on the corporation’s designated registered agent.

In New York, the governing authority is CPLR § 311(a)(1), which authorizes service on “an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service.” CT Corporation System is EIS’s authorized agent in New York by virtue of the New York DOS foreign-corporation registration. Service address: C T Corporation System, 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005-1400. Agent-status confirmation via the New York DOS Business Entity Database is required before dispatch; CT Corp has, on prior engagements in New York, updated its internal address records without amending the state filing.

In California — EIS’s principal-office state — the governing authority is California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10, which authorizes service on “an officer of the corporation or the general manager in this state, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.” CT Corporation System is EIS’s designated agent in California. Service address: C T Corporation System, 330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, California 91203-2336. This address is distinct from EIS’s principal-office address at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa — a process server dispatched to Costa Mesa for state-court service in California will produce a rejected return.

In Texas, service on a foreign corporation is governed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 106, which authorizes service on the registered agent. EIS holds Texas foreign-corporation registration number 0011186706 (Accurint Corporation Filing No. 29). CT Corporation System is the registered agent at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. In Connecticut, the governing authority is Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929, authorizing service on the registered agent; CT Corp address: 357 E Center St, Suite 2J, Manchester, Connecticut 06040-4471. In Illinois, service on a foreign corporation is governed by 735 ILCS 5/2-205; CT Corp address: 208 S LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, Illinois 60604-1101. In Massachusetts, Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) governs service on a corporation; CT Corp address: 155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1727.

Agent-status confirmation is required in all 41 qualified states before dispatch — not only in New York. CT Corporation System has a documented pattern of migrating individual-state registrations without immediate state-filing updates. A pre-dispatch CT Corp agent-status lookup at the CT Corp public records portal takes under two minutes and eliminates the risk of a stale-address return. A plaintiff filing in Manhattan Supreme Court against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. can serve EIS via C T Corporation System at 28 Liberty Street under CPLR § 311(a)(1) without invoking any long-arm provision or Hague Convention path — the same operational steps apply in all 41 qualified states, with only the statutory authority citation changing by forum.

Federal Service Under FRCP 4(h)(1)(B)

Federal court service on Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is governed by FRCP 4(h)(1)(B), which authorizes service on a domestic or foreign corporation “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” C T Corporation System qualifies as “any other agent authorized by appointment” by virtue of EIS’s foreign-corporation registrations in 41 states — each of which constitutes an express appointment of CT Corp as agent for service. No additional authorization is required in the forum state beyond the existence of that foreign-qualification filing.

In the Central District of California — where EIS is headquartered and where the CFPB’s active FCRA enforcement action (Case No. 8:25-cv-00024) is venued — federal service may be made either at C T Corporation System, 330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, California 91203-2336, or directly at EIS’s principal executive office, 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, California 92626-7037, by delivering to an officer or managing agent. The direct-principal-office path requires confirmation that an officer or managing agent is available to accept service; the CT Corp path does not require that confirmation because CT Corp is a professional registered-agent service with defined acceptance procedures.

In the Eastern District of New York and Southern District of New York — the primary federal venues for FCRA claims arising from New York consumers — federal service under FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) uses CT Corporation System at 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005-1400. The procedural mechanics are identical to CPLR § 311(a)(1) state-court service at the same address; the only difference is the authority cited on the return of service. A federal FCRA plaintiff in EDNY serves EIS by delivering to CT Corp at 28 Liberty Street — the same address, the same agent, and the same physical steps as state-court service under CPLR § 311(a)(1).

Subpoena Service: FRCP 45 vs. Litigation Process Service

Subpoena practice against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. bifurcates at the purpose of the subpoena. A subpoena duces tecum under FRCP 45 compelling production of a consumer’s credit file — issued as a records-only production request without accompanying litigation process — is routed through EIS’s National Consumer Assistance Center (NCAC): PO Box 9595, Allen, Texas 75013-9595. The NCAC is EIS’s operational records-receiving address for consumer file requests, subpoenas, and regulatory inquiries related to credit-file contents. Subpoenas addressed to the NCAC PO Box reach the EIS records-custodian team that processes consumer file productions. Service at the CT Corp registered-agent address for a records-only FRCP 45 subpoena is not the correct operational path even though CT Corp is the correct address for litigation process.

A subpoena that is part of pending litigation and commands a deposition or the production of documents from an EIS corporate representative — as distinct from a records-only consumer-file pull — follows the same service path as litigation process: C T Corporation System at the registered-agent address in the forum state. The distinction is conduct-based: if the subpoena compels a corporate-representative appearance or commands document production beyond the consumer’s own credit file, CT Corp is the correct recipient. If the subpoena requests only the consumer’s credit file by account number or Social Security number, the NCAC PO Box 9595 Allen Texas path is the operational route.

Two address artifacts that cause rejected subpoenas: (1) serving at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa rather than CT Corp for litigation-related subpoenas — the Costa Mesa address is EIS’s principal office, not its designated agent for legal process; (2) serving at CT Corp for records-only subpoenas rather than NCAC — CT Corp will accept the subpoena but the records-custodian routing adds processing delay. Pre-service identification of subpoena type eliminates both errors.

FCRA Litigation and Federal Court Service

The Fair Credit Reporting Act is the principal federal statute under which Experian Information Solutions, Inc. faces private litigation, consumer enforcement actions, and regulatory proceedings. FCRA claims are filed in federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and in state courts under the concurrent jurisdiction provision of 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. In both forums, the correct defendant — as confirmed by every circuit court opinion addressing FCRA claims against the Experian family — is Experian Information Solutions, Inc. This section addresses the FCRA statutory framework, the standing requirements controlling FCRA federal filings post-2021, the circuit-level precedent bearing directly on EIS, and the two active CFPB proceedings that define the current enforcement posture against EIS.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act: Operative Provisions

The FCRA, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., imposes duties on consumer reporting agencies — a category that includes Experian Information Solutions, Inc. as the entity that maintains and furnishes consumer credit files. Six provisions govern the majority of private FCRA claims against EIS. Section 1681e(b) requires reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of consumer report information. Section 1681i imposes a reinvestigation duty: when a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of information in a credit file, the CRA must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days of receiving the dispute. Section 1681g requires the CRA to disclose to any consumer, on request, “all information in the consumer’s file.” Section 1681n creates liability for willful noncompliance, authorizing statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Section 1681o creates liability for negligent noncompliance, authorizing actual damages and attorney’s fees. Section 1681p establishes the statute of limitations: two years from the date the plaintiff discovered the violation, or five years from the date of the violation, whichever is earlier.

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the primary basis for FCRA claims filed in federal court. Concurrent jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p permits FCRA claims to be filed in state court as well, and CPLR § 311(a)(1) service applies in New York state court filings on the same terms as any other foreign-corporation action. The choice of forum does not alter the service path — CT Corporation System at 28 Liberty Street is the service address for both federal-court FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) service and state-court CPLR § 311(a)(1) service in New York.

Article III Standing After Spokeo and TransUnion

Two Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the class of FCRA plaintiffs with Article III standing to sue in federal court. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), the Court held that Article III standing requires a “concrete and particularized” injury — a bare statutory violation, without more, does not automatically confer standing. Spokeo established the analytical framework but remanded for application, leaving circuit courts to work out what “concrete” injury means in the FCRA context.

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), applied the Spokeo framework to a certified FCRA class of 8,185 individuals whose TransUnion credit files contained inaccurate OFAC-alert information linking them to terrorist or drug-trafficking watchlists. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a 5-4 majority, held: “Only those plaintiffs who have been concretely harmed by a defendant’s statutory violation may sue that private defendant over that violation in federal court.” The Court found that only 1,853 of the 8,185 class members — those whose inaccurate credit files had actually been disseminated to third-party businesses during the class period — had Article III standing. The remaining 6,332 class members, whose inaccurate OFAC information existed in internal TransUnion files but had not been shared with any third party, lacked standing despite the § 1681e(b) statutory violation in their files.

The operational rule for Experian FCRA matters: no concrete harm, no standing in federal court. Pleadings for FCRA claims against EIS must allege concrete injury beyond the bare § 1681 violation — the inaccurate information must have been disseminated to a third-party creditor, employer, or landlord, resulting in a denial of credit, employment, or housing; an identifiable monetary harm; or a reputational injury traceable to the third-party disclosure. An inaccurate item in an EIS credit file that was never disclosed to any third party during the limitations period does not support a federal § 1681e(b) claim with Article III standing under TransUnion, even if the inaccuracy is clear and EIS failed to correct it on reinvestigation.

Circuit Decisions on Experian FCRA Liability

The Ninth Circuit carries the predominant federal FCRA docket involving Experian Information Solutions, Inc., reflecting EIS’s headquarters in the Central District of California and the concentration of FCRA class actions filed in that district. Four Ninth Circuit decisions bear directly on EIS liability and reinvestigation duties.

In Trinity Warner v. Experian Information Solutions, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Experian, holding that a consumer’s duty to submit a dispute “directly” to the CRA under § 1681i is a threshold requirement — dispute letters submitted through credit-repair agencies do not trigger EIS’s § 1681i reinvestigation duty. Plaintiffs who route disputes through credit-repair vendors before filing a § 1681i claim face a summary-judgment defense at the threshold. In Tailford v. Experian Information Solutions, the Ninth Circuit held that § 1681g(a)(1)’s requirement to disclose “all information in the consumer’s file” is limited to information of the type that has been or will be included in a consumer report — it does not extend to marketing data, internal scoring models, or other information that EIS maintains but has not included in any consumer-facing or creditor-facing report. A § 1681g claim demanding disclosure of proprietary EIS data beyond the credit file fails under Tailford.

In Shaw v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 891 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit held that a credit item is “inaccurate” under the FCRA if it is either “patently incorrect” or “misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions.” Shaw’s “misleading” prong matters for EIS matters involving technically accurate but contextually misleading tradeline entries — a debt shown as active when it is discharged in bankruptcy, or a balance shown at a date that implies currency when the account was closed. In Grijalva v. ADP Screening (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2025), the Ninth Circuit restated the Safeco safe-harbor applicable to FCRA willfulness claims: where the FCRA’s text is “less than pellucid” on a given compliance question, a defendant that follows an objectively reasonable interpretation of the statute will nearly always avoid § 1681n willful liability absent prior adverse appellate interpretation of the same question. First-impression FCRA arguments rarely succeed at the willfulness threshold when EIS can demonstrate a reasonable compliance rationale.

In the Eleventh Circuit, Nelson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (11th Cir. 2025) produced two holdings with opposing effects on EIS. First, the court held that § 1681i(a)’s reinvestigation requirement applies to disputes regarding name, address, and Social Security number information — rejecting EIS’s narrower reading that § 1681i applies only to tradeline disputes. Second, the court tightened the Article III standing analysis under TransUnion: self-initiated costs such as postage and time spent contacting the CRA are insufficient for “concrete” injury under Article III without evidence of third-party disclosure of the disputed information. In Collins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 775 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2015), the court distinguished the “file” from a “consumer report” under § 1681i, a distinction relevant to the scope of EIS’s reinvestigation duty and to what must be corrected when a § 1681i claim is sustained. All circuit decisions name Experian Information Solutions, Inc. — never the brand.

CFPB v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2025)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a complaint against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. on January 7, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:25-cv-00024. A second amended complaint was filed August 22, 2025. The action names a single defendant: Experian Information Solutions, Inc. — not Experian Holdings, not Experian plc, and not any Experian operating subsidiary.

The CFPB’s allegations, as pleaded in the second amended complaint, are: (1) failure to properly conduct reinvestigations of disputed information in consumer credit files, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i; (2) failure to delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverified information from consumer credit files after reinvestigation, in violation of § 1681i(a)(5); (3) failure to provide adequate written notice to consumers of the results of reinvestigations, in violation of § 1681i(a)(6); (4) failure to prevent improper reinsertion of previously deleted information into consumer credit files, in violation of § 1681i(a)(5)(B); and (5) failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information in consumer credit reports, in violation of § 1681e(b). The action also alleges violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5481 et seq. The CFPB’s allegations in Case No. 8:25-cv-00024 document the same categories of dispute-handling failure that appear in the majority of private FCRA matters against EIS — reinvestigation adequacy, deletion after reinvestigation, and accuracy under § 1681e(b). The CFPB chose one defendant — paralegals should choose the same.

The 2017 CFPB Consent Order: Scope and Caption Significance

The 2017 CFPB consent order — File No. 2017-CFPB-0012, filed March 23, 2017 — named three entities: Experian Holdings, Inc., Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. (doing business as Experian Consumer Services). The consent order imposed a $3 million civil money penalty and resolved CFPB allegations that Experian engaged in deceptive marketing of credit scores in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act and in improper pre-report advertisement display in violation of FCRA. The underlying conduct involved Experian’s “PLUS Score” — a proprietary credit-scoring model that Experian marketed to consumers in ways the CFPB alleged created a false impression of lender-decision relevance, when in fact the PLUS Score is not a score used by lenders in credit decisions.

File No. 2017-CFPB-0012 is the only federal enforcement action in which Experian Holdings, Inc. appears as a separately-named respondent. That naming reflects the CFPB’s authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act to reach affiliated holding-company structures in administrative enforcement proceedings — it does not establish Holdings as an entity with an independent state corporate registration, and it does not establish a precedent that private FCRA litigants can reach Holdings as a defendant. The consent order’s caption is an administrative captioning decision by the CFPB, not a judicial finding that Holdings is a suable entity distinct from EIS for private-litigation purposes. Private FCRA captions should name Experian Information Solutions, Inc. as the sole Experian defendant regardless of the Holdings co-respondent status in File No. 2017-CFPB-0012.

FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) Federal Service: Unified Path for All Federal FCRA Matters

Federal FCRA matters against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. use the same CT Corporation System service infrastructure as state-court FCRA matters. FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) service on EIS requires delivery to “an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law” — and CT Corporation System’s appointment is established by the EIS foreign-corporation registration in each of the 41 qualified states. For matters filed in the Central District of California, where the CFPB’s Case No. 8:25-cv-00024 is venued and where EIS maintains its principal executive office, the two confirmed federal service addresses are C T Corporation System at 330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, California 91203-2336, and EIS’s principal executive office at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, California 92626-7037 (the latter requires delivery to an officer or managing agent rather than to a professional agent-acceptance desk). For federal matters in all other districts, C T Corporation System at the registered-agent address for that district’s state is the correct service address — the same address used for state-court service in that state. Federal FCRA matters against EIS have a unified service path across 41 foreign-qualified states: one agent, state-specific addresses, consistent acceptance protocol.

Where to Serve Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. maintains active foreign-corporation qualifications in 41 U.S. states as of May 2026 Accurint Corporation Filings. C T Corporation System is the registered agent in substantially all 41 qualified states. The sections below identify verified service addresses for eight key states, the operational rules for service at EIS’s principal executive office at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, and the distinction between litigation service of process and consumer-file records requests routed through the National Consumer Assistance Center in Allen, Texas.

The C T Corporation System Service Network

C T Corporation System’s single-vendor presence across EIS’s 41 foreign-qualified states means that multi-state FCRA matters and nationwide class-action dispatches use the same agent-type, the same acceptance protocol, and the same pre-dispatch verification procedure regardless of the forum state. The Wolters Kluwer-verified Texas address — 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136 — is representative of the CT Corp address format across the network: suite-level specificity matters because CT Corp co-locates registered-agent services for multiple entities in shared commercial facilities, and a suite-number error in the dispatch address produces a rejected return even when the street address is correct.

Agent-status confirmation before every dispatch is required across all 41 states. CT Corporation System has a documented pattern of updating its internal address records without simultaneously amending the corresponding state foreign-corporation filing. A pre-dispatch lookup via the CT Corp public records portal — under two minutes — retrieves the current active address for EIS in the forum state and catches any divergence from the state-filing address before the document leaves the office. The table below lists verified CT Corp addresses for eight states; for all remaining qualified states, address confirmation via the state Secretary of State portal and CT Corp portal is required before dispatch.

State	Authority	C T Corporation Address
Ohio (state of incorporation)	Ohio R.C. § 1701.07 / Ohio Civ. R. 4.2	C T Corporation System (verify current via Ohio SoS before dispatch)
New York	CPLR § 311(a)(1)	28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005-1400 (verify current via NY DOS portal — portal unavailable May 2026 dispatch)
California	CCP § 416.10	330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, CA 91203-2336
Texas	Tex. R. Civ. P. 106	1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136
Connecticut	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929	357 E Center St, Suite 2J, Manchester, CT 06040-4471
Illinois	735 ILCS 5/2-205	208 S LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, IL 60604-1101
Massachusetts	Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)	155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, MA 02110-1727
Florida	Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070	1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324

Headquarters Service at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s principal executive office is located at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, California 92626-7037. This address appears in Accurint records under FEIN 31-1343192 and LexID 0000-5108-2027, and is the address used in investor-relations disclosures and CFPB correspondence. It is not the registered-agent address for state-court service of process in California. California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10 requires service on the designated registered agent, an officer, or a general manager in California. C T Corporation System at 330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, California 91203-2336 is EIS’s designated agent in California — the Glendale address, not Costa Mesa. A process server dispatched to 475 Anton Blvd for CCP § 416.10 state-court service delivers to EIS’s front-desk reception, which is not a professional registered-agent acceptance desk and is not authorized to accept state-court service of process for EIS.

FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) federal service at 475 Anton Blvd is permitted, but only with delivery to an officer, managing agent, or general agent — not to a reception desk or security desk in the lobby. The general operations phone number at 475 Anton Blvd is 714-830-7000. Calling ahead to confirm an officer or managing agent is available at the Costa Mesa address before dispatch reduces the risk of a non-acceptance return and supports the FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) return documentation.

Allen, Texas: NCAC Campus vs. Litigation Service Address

The National Consumer Assistance Center campus is located at 601 Experian Parkway, Allen, Texas 75013-3701, a property owned by 601 EXP LP, a Texas limited partnership, and operated as EIS’s primary consumer credit-file handling facility. The NCAC mailing address for consumer records requests is PO Box 9595, Allen, Texas 75013-9595. This PO Box is the correct routing address for FRCP 45 records-only subpoenas commanding production of a consumer’s credit file by account number, Social Security number, or date of birth.

Litigation service of process at 601 Experian Parkway or PO Box 9595 is an error that produces a rejected return. The NCAC operations team processes consumer file pulls — it is not the litigation service desk and is not authorized to accept service of process on EIS’s behalf. C T Corporation System at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136 is the correct service address for litigation matters in Texas. The geographic proximity of Allen and Dallas — both in the DFW metro — creates a dispatcher-familiarity risk: a process server familiar with the Allen campus may treat 601 Experian Parkway as an EIS facility that accepts legal process. It does not.

Scope of Services — What Undisputed Legal Does and Does Not Do

Undisputed Legal delivers legal documents to the designated service target for Experian Information Solutions, Inc. — registered agent, corporate officer, or principal executive office — per applicable federal or state service rules. UL documents every service event with GPS-verified affidavits including device-coordinate timestamps and photo documentation of the agent-acceptance interaction at the CT Corporation System professional desk. UL confirms receipt by the designated recipient through return-of-service mechanics and records the agent’s name, role, time, and jurisdiction. UL coordinates multi-state dispatches across the C T Corporation System network when a matter requires simultaneous service in multiple jurisdictions. UL flags apparent operational issues — refused service, unavailable agent, address mismatch — for counsel’s attention on the dispatch day.

Undisputed Legal does not verify the legal sufficiency of the caption naming Experian Information Solutions, Inc. versus another Experian-family entity. UL does not ensure that service complies with the specific procedural requirements of the plaintiff’s chosen forum or circuit. UL does not track statute-of-limitations deadlines, filing deadlines, or matter-management timelines. UL does not classify the underlying claim — whether it arises under § 1681e(b), § 1681i, § 1681g, or a state FCRA analog — or determine which Experian entity’s conduct gave rise to the claim. UL does not advise on caption strategy, multi-defendant joinder decisions, or class-action coordination.

FCRA matters carry elevated unauthorized-practice-of-law risk because caption decisions and procedural strategy interact directly with Article III standing requirements under Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), and with circuit-specific dispute-handling precedent under Trinity Warner, Tailford, Shaw, and Nelson. Strategic judgment on those matters cannot be delegated to a process-service vendor. Undisputed Legal provides the operational delivery infrastructure; counsel provides the legal strategy.

How Undisputed Legal Approaches Experian Service

Undisputed Legal’s operational approach to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. service reflects direct-dispatch experience with the C T Corporation System network across all 41 EIS-qualified states. Pre-dispatch verification, GPS-documented service events, and multi-state coordination protocols address the specific failure modes — stale agent addresses, NCAC routing errors, and caption mismatches — that produce rejected returns in FCRA matters against EIS.

Pre-Dispatch Entity Verification

Undisputed Legal verifies the Accurint corporate filing record for Experian Information Solutions, Inc. before every dispatch. The protocol confirms three items in sequence: (1) the entity name in the caption matches the current state filing in the forum state — “Experian Information Solutions, Inc.” must appear verbatim in the state SoS record, not as “Experian, Inc.” or “Experian Information Solutions”; (2) C T Corporation System is confirmed as the active registered agent as of the dispatch date; and (3) the CT Corp address on the state filing matches CT Corp’s current internal records via the CT Corp public records portal. Item (3) is the critical step — a state-filing address that passes item (2) but diverges from CT Corp’s current internal records produces a stale-address dispatch, and the portal lookup under two minutes catches that divergence before the document leaves the office.

The caption-match check at item (1) also catches the most common EIS caption error before dispatch: a summons naming “Experian Information Solutions” without “, Inc.” or a complaint captioned to “Experian, Inc.” A caption mismatch identified at the pre-dispatch stage is escalated to the ordering attorney — not dispatched and returned.

GPS-Verified Affidavits and Documentation Standards

Every service event on Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is documented with a GPS-verified affidavit that includes device-coordinate timestamps at the moment of delivery, photo documentation of the agent-acceptance interaction at the CT Corporation System professional desk, and a record of the agent’s acknowledged receipt — name, role, time, and jurisdiction. The affidavit format meets the proof-of-service requirements for federal-court FCRA matters, where the return of service is entered into the CM/ECF docket and subject to challenge by EIS’s litigation counsel. CT Corporation System’s professional-acceptance protocol produces a cleaner service record than officer-level service at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa — the CT Corp agent’s name and role are documented by position rather than by individual officer identification, which eliminates the “wrong officer” challenge that arises from direct executive service. GPS-verified affidavits with device-coordinate timestamps create the documentation an FCRA defendant cannot easily challenge.

Attorney Engagement — Direct Line to NYC Office

For FCRA matters filed in the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, or New York Supreme Court — or for matters where the FCRA plaintiff is located in the New York metropolitan area — Undisputed Legal’s NYC office handles service dispatches directly at (212) 203-8001. New York metro FCRA matters, including CPLR § 311(a)(1) service at 28 Liberty Street for SDNY and EDNY filings, are routed through the NYC office for same-day or next-day dispatch coordination. This is a separate operational channel from the toll-free national intake line, providing direct access to the NYC-office team that handles New York metro service dispatches rather than a general intake queue.

Multi-State FCRA Class Action Coordination

For nationwide FCRA class actions naming Experian Information Solutions, Inc. as defendant — including matters coordinated with or following the CFPB’s Case No. 8:25-cv-00024 in the Central District of California — Undisputed Legal coordinates simultaneous dispatches across all 41 EIS-qualified states through the C T Corporation System network. Single-vendor registered-agent infrastructure makes 41-state coordination operationally feasible without per-state vendor variance: the same CT Corp acceptance protocol applies across all 41 states, with only the physical address and statutory authority citation changing by forum state.

A nationwide FCRA class action filed in C.D. Cal. requires service at CT Corporation System, 330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, California 91203-2336. Where related class members’ state-law FCRA analog claims require service in additional forum states, UL coordinates synchronized dispatches: CPLR § 311(a)(1) service at 28 Liberty Street, New York for New York state claims; Tex. R. Civ. P. 106 service at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas for Texas claims; and equivalent CT Corp paths in the remaining qualified states. Pre-dispatch entity verification in each forum state precedes every dispatch in that state.

Common Pitfalls in Serving Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

PITFALL 1: Naming “Experian, Inc.” or “Experian plc” in the Caption. The most common caption error in FCRA matters against the Experian family is naming “Experian, Inc.” as the defendant. “Experian, Inc.” is not a separately registered corporate entity in any U.S. state — it is a brand designation that appears in consumer-facing communications but has no corresponding state corporate filing. A plaintiff who names “Experian, Inc.” on the summons has named an entity with no state registration, no registered agent, and no suable corporate existence in the forum state. EIS’s litigation counsel moves on Rule 12(b)(5) insufficient service before the case reaches the merits, because service on a non-existent defendant cannot satisfy any state or federal service statute.

“Experian plc” presents the compounded version of the same defect. Experian plc is incorporated in Jersey (Channel Islands), resident in Ireland, listed on the London Stock Exchange under ticker EXPN, and maintains no corporate filing in any U.S. jurisdiction. A 2023 Florida UCC financing statement, filing number 202301232575, names “EXPERIAN, PLC” as debtor at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa — a pro-se filer’s caption error traceable to the Costa Mesa address appearing in consumer-facing Experian communications. Serving process at 475 Anton Blvd on a complaint captioned to Experian plc triggers Rule 12(b)(2) (no personal jurisdiction — Experian plc holds no U.S. contacts establishing general jurisdiction in any state) and Rule 12(b)(5) simultaneously. Correcting the caption to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. resolves both threshold motions before they are filed.

PITFALL 2: Service at 475 Anton Blvd for State-Court Matters. 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa, California 92626-7037 is Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s principal executive office — the address on file under FEIN 31-1343192 and the address used in CFPB correspondence. It is not the registered-agent address for state-court service in California. California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10 requires service on the designated registered agent, an officer, or a general manager in California. C T Corporation System at 330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, California 91203-2336 is EIS’s designated registered agent in California. A process server dispatched to 475 Anton Blvd for CCP § 416.10 service delivers to a front-desk reception that is not authorized to accept state-court process on EIS’s behalf — the resulting return is challenged as insufficient service, and the service clock restarts.

Federal FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) service at 475 Anton Blvd is permitted, but requires delivery to an officer, managing agent, or general agent. A delivery to the lobby reception desk does not satisfy FRCP 4(h)(1)(B). Pre-dispatch confirmation that an officer or managing agent is available at 475 Anton Blvd — via 714-830-7000 — reduces the non-acceptance risk for federal service at the Costa Mesa address.

PITFALL 3: Subpoena Routing Confusion — NCAC vs. CT Corp. Two subpoena routing errors produce rejected returns in EIS matters. The first: routing a records-only FRCP 45 subpoena commanding production of a consumer credit file to C T Corporation System rather than to the National Consumer Assistance Center at PO Box 9595, Allen, Texas 75013-9595. CT Corp is the correct recipient for litigation process and litigation-related subpoenas commanding corporate-representative depositions or document productions beyond the consumer’s own credit file; it is not the operational routing point for records-only consumer file production requests. A records-only subpoena delivered to CT Corp reaches the wrong internal team and adds processing delay while CT Corp routes it to the NCAC records-custodian group.

The second error: routing a litigation subpoena commanding a deposition or document production to PO Box 9595 Allen, Texas rather than to C T Corporation System. The NCAC operations team processes consumer file pulls and is not the litigation service desk. A deposition notice or corporate-representative production subpoena delivered to PO Box 9595 generates a failure-to-appear or failure-to-produce result because the records-custodian team that receives NCAC mail is not authorized to route litigation process to EIS’s legal department.

PITFALL 4: Stale Registered-Agent Addresses. C T Corporation System has a documented pattern of updating its internal registered-agent address records without simultaneously amending the corresponding state foreign-corporation filing for EIS. A process server who pulls EIS’s registered-agent address from the state SoS filing without cross-referencing the CT Corp public records portal may dispatch to a location that CT Corp has vacated — a building CT Corp no longer occupies for that state’s EIS registration. The resulting rejected return restarts the service clock and may implicate statute-of-limitations consequences in matters filed close to the FCRA’s two-year discovery limitation.

The pre-dispatch CT Corp portal lookup — under two minutes — returns CT Corp’s current active address for EIS in the forum state and catches any divergence from the state-filing address before dispatch. In New York, as of the May 2026 dispatch window, the NY DOS Business Entity Database was temporarily unavailable for real-time verification, making the CT Corp public records portal the sole pre-dispatch verification source for New York dispatches. Any state where the state-filing address and the CT Corp portal address diverge is an escalation before dispatch — not a force-send to the state-filing address.

PITFALL 5: Multi-Entity Joinder Errors. FCRA plaintiffs sometimes add Experian Holdings, Inc. or Experian plc as co-defendants alongside Experian Information Solutions, Inc., pointing to the 2017 CFPB consent order (File No. 2017-CFPB-0012) as support for the proposition that Holdings is a separately suable entity. That inference is incorrect. File No. 2017-CFPB-0012 named Holdings as a co-respondent under the CFPB’s administrative authority to reach holding-company structures in regulatory enforcement — it does not establish Holdings as a state-registered suable defendant in private FCRA litigation. Experian Holdings, Inc. has no state corporate filing in any U.S. jurisdiction as of May 2026 Accurint verification across four search variants.

Adding Holdings or plc as co-defendants in a private FCRA action does not add a reachable defendant — it adds a Rule 12(b)(2) motion (no personal jurisdiction over a non-registered entity) and a Rule 12(b)(5) motion (insufficient service on an entity with no U.S. registered agent) that EIS’s counsel files before the first substantive hearing. The delay and cost of briefing those threshold motions falls on the plaintiff’s side; the substantive FCRA claims are not advanced. An EIS-only caption proceeds directly to the merits without threshold jurisdictional briefing.

PITFALL 6: Operating Subsidiary Mismatch. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is the correct FCRA defendant for matters arising from consumer credit-file maintenance, accuracy, reinvestigation, and disclosure under 15 U.S.C. § 1681. It is not the correct defendant for matters arising from Experian’s healthcare data operations, direct-to-consumer credit monitoring products, identity-theft protection products, or background screening services — each operated by a separate Experian subsidiary with its own state registration and registered agent. A complaint naming EIS for conduct that arose from Experian Health, Inc.’s hospital-billing credit data processing faces a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim against EIS — the named defendant did not engage in the alleged conduct, and service on EIS however precisely executed does not cure a complaint that identifies the wrong Experian entity as the liable party.

Pre-filing matter classification is the mechanism that prevents this error: identifying which Experian entity operated the system, maintained the file, or furnished the data that gave rise to the claim determines the correct defendant. For consumer health-data reporting disputes, the correct defendant is Experian Health, Inc. (Schaumburg, IL). For CreditWorks and direct-to-consumer monitoring disputes, the correct defendant is Consumerinfo.com, Inc. (Costa Mesa, CA). That classification is a pleading decision within counsel’s scope; it precedes any service decision within Undisputed Legal’s operational scope, and it cannot be reversed after the service return is filed.

Why Undisputed Legal for Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Service

Multi-State CT Corporation Network Direct-Dispatch

Undisputed Legal maintains direct-dispatch relationships with C T Corporation System offices in all 41 states where Experian Information Solutions, Inc. holds a foreign-corporation qualification as of May 2026 Accurint verification. For single-forum FCRA matters, UL dispatches to the CT Corp registered-agent office in the forum state after completing the three-step pre-dispatch verification protocol. For nationwide FCRA class actions requiring simultaneous service across multiple states, UL functions as a single coordination point: one matter coordinator, one pre-dispatch verification chain per forum state, one unified return-of-service documentation package formatted for CM/ECF docketing.

The operational consequence for multi-jurisdiction class actions: a C.D. Cal. FCRA class action requiring service on EIS plus state-law FCRA-analog service in New York, Texas, Illinois, and Connecticut proceeds through a single UL coordinator dispatching simultaneously to CT Corp Glendale (330 N Brand Blvd, Suite 700, Glendale, California 91203-2336), CT Corp New York (28 Liberty Street, New York 10005-1400), CT Corp Dallas (1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136), CT Corp Chicago (208 S LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, Illinois 60604-1101), and CT Corp Manchester (357 E Center Street, Suite 2J, Manchester, Connecticut 06040-4471). No per-state vendor onboarding, no hand-off delays between jurisdictions, and no divergence in documentation standards across the five concurrent service events. All five returns are formatted to the same CM/ECF-ready affidavit standard as the lead C.D. Cal. filing.

Pre-Dispatch Verification Protocol

Undisputed Legal applies a three-step pre-dispatch verification protocol before every EIS service event. Step one is the caption-match check: the entity name in the caption is verified against the current state filing in the forum state via the state Secretary of State portal. A caption naming “Experian, Inc.,” “Experian Information Solutions” without “, Inc.,” or any Experian-brand designation without a corresponding state corporate filing is escalated to the ordering attorney before dispatch — not dispatched and returned. Step two is active registered-agent confirmation: CT Corporation System’s active-agent status for EIS in the forum state is confirmed via the CT Corp public records portal, not inferred from the state-filing date or a prior engagement’s address. Step three is the address divergence check: the CT Corp address on the state filing is cross-referenced against CT Corp’s current internal records to catch any migration since the last state-filing amendment.

The three-step protocol eliminates the three EIS service failure modes with the highest rejection frequency: caption defects that produce Rule 12(b)(5) motions (Pitfall 1 in this guide), stale registered-agent addresses that restart the service clock (Pitfall 4), and operating-subsidiary mismatches identified at the caption-review stage (Pitfall 6). A dispatch that passes all three steps proceeds to the CT Corp office with a confirmed agent address and a matching caption. A dispatch that fails any step proceeds to the ordering attorney with a specific identification of the failure point.

GPS-Verified Affidavits and CM/ECF-Ready Documentation

Every service event on Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is documented with a GPS-verified affidavit that includes device-coordinate timestamps at the moment of delivery, photo documentation of the CT Corporation System professional-desk acceptance interaction, and a complete agent receipt record — name, role, time, and jurisdiction. The affidavit package is formatted for direct CM/ECF docket entry in federal court FCRA matters, satisfying FRCP 4(l) proof-of-service requirements without supplemental affidavit preparation by the ordering attorney’s office. CT Corporation System’s professional-acceptance protocol at its registered-agent desks produces a consistently documented service record: the CT Corp agent’s name and role are recorded by position rather than by individual officer identification, which eliminates the “wrong officer” challenge that arises in direct executive service at 475 Anton Blvd, Costa Mesa.

Service rates for Experian Information Solutions, Inc. matters: New York metropolitan market (Tier 1) — routine $100–$150; priority $200–$250; expedited $250–$300; same-day $325–$425; affidavit-only $75. All other markets (Tier 2) — routine $150–$250; priority $250–$350; expedited $300–$400; same-day $425–$525; affidavit-only $75. To order service on EIS or one of its operating subsidiaries, call (800) 774-6922. First service attempt on Experian Information Solutions, Inc. occurs within 3–7 business days of dispatch authorization, with same-day and expedited tiers available for FCRA matters with imminent statute-of-limitations deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions — Serving Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Who is the correct defendant — “Experian, Inc.” or Experian Information Solutions, Inc.?

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is the correct defendant for FCRA matters arising from consumer credit-file maintenance, accuracy, reinvestigation, and disclosure under 15 U.S.C. § 1681. “Experian, Inc.” has no state corporate registration in any U.S. jurisdiction — it is a brand designation that appears in consumer-facing communications but has no corresponding corporate filing. A caption naming “Experian, Inc.” produces a Rule 12(b)(5) insufficient-service-of-process motion before the matter reaches the merits. Every Ninth and Eleventh Circuit decision addressing FCRA claims against the Experian family captions the defendant as Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Where is the correct service address for FCRA matters filed in New York?

For New York Supreme Court matters under CPLR § 311(a)(1) and for federal FCRA matters in the Eastern District of New York or Southern District of New York under FRCP 4(h)(1)(B), the service address is C T Corporation System, 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005-1400. The state-court and federal-court addresses are identical because CT Corporation System holds EIS’s New York foreign-corporation registration and qualifies as “agent authorized by appointment” under both CPLR § 311(a)(1) and FRCP 4(h)(1)(B). Pre-dispatch address verification via the CT Corp public records portal is required — the NY DOS Business Entity Database was unavailable during the May 2026 dispatch window.

Does service timing affect the FCRA statute of limitations?

Yes. 15 U.S.C. § 1681p sets the FCRA limitations period at the earlier of two years from the consumer’s discovery of the violation or five years from the date of the violation. A rejected service return restarts the service clock, which can implicate the two-year discovery limitation in matters filed close to that deadline. The three-step pre-dispatch CT Corp verification protocol — applied before every EIS dispatch — eliminates the stale-address return risk that most frequently causes service-clock resets in FCRA matters against EIS.

Why can’t Experian plc be named as the U.S. defendant?

Experian plc is incorporated in Jersey (Channel Islands), resident in Ireland, and listed on the London Stock Exchange under ticker EXPN. It holds no state corporate registration in any U.S. jurisdiction and has no registered agent for service of process anywhere in the United States. Captioning to Experian plc triggers Rule 12(b)(2) (no personal jurisdiction — Experian plc holds no U.S. corporate contacts establishing general jurisdiction in any state) and Rule 12(b)(5) simultaneously. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is the Ohio domestic corporation qualified in 41 states and the correct FCRA defendant.

What is the difference between subpoena service for records and litigation service?

FRCP 45 records-only subpoenas commanding production of a consumer’s credit file go to the National Consumer Assistance Center: PO Box 9595, Allen, Texas 75013-9595. Litigation subpoenas commanding a deposition or document production beyond the consumer’s own credit file go to C T Corporation System in the forum state — the same address as litigation service of process. A records-only subpoena delivered to CT Corp adds internal routing delay; a litigation subpoena delivered to PO Box 9595 Allen, Texas reaches the records-custodian team rather than the litigation service desk, generating a failure-to-appear or failure-to-produce result.

Should I join Experian Holdings, Inc. as a co-defendant?

No. Experian Holdings, Inc. has no state corporate filing in any U.S. jurisdiction as of May 2026 Accurint verification across four search variants. The 2017 CFPB consent order, File No. 2017-CFPB-0012, named Holdings as a co-respondent under the CFPB’s administrative enforcement authority — that captioning does not establish Holdings as a suable defendant in private FCRA litigation. Adding Holdings introduces Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 12(b)(5) threshold motions without adding a reachable defendant. An Experian Information Solutions, Inc.-only caption proceeds directly to the FCRA merits.

What if my matter involves Experian’s healthcare data operations?

Healthcare data matters — including hospital-billing data, insurance claims data, and health-system credit data — name Experian Health, Inc. (Schaumburg, Illinois) as the correct defendant, not Experian Information Solutions, Inc. EIS maintains consumer credit files under the FCRA; Experian Health handles healthcare revenue-cycle management under separate regulatory frameworks. The caption-controls-service doctrine applies across the Experian family: the correct defendant is the entity whose systems and operations gave rise to the conduct alleged. Pre-filing matter classification is a pleading decision within counsel’s scope, not a service decision within Undisputed Legal’s scope.

Does Undisputed Legal coordinate nationwide FCRA class action service?

Yes. Undisputed Legal coordinates simultaneous dispatches across all 41 EIS-qualified states through the C T Corporation System network. Single-vendor registered-agent infrastructure makes 41-state coordination operationally feasible without per-state vendor variance — the same CT Corp acceptance protocol applies across all 41 states, with only the physical address changing by forum state. For FCRA class actions filed in the Central District of California — the venue of the CFPB’s active enforcement action, Case No. 8:25-cv-00024 — or in any other federal district, Undisputed Legal provides unified dispatch coordination, GPS-verified documentation, and CM/ECF-ready return-of-service handling across all forum states.