Experian NEW EXPERIAN FRAUD SCHEME Irvine, California

We were billed $14.95 by Experian on 11/22/11. 12/22/11, 1/22/12 and 2/22/12 for a total of $59.80 on our Citi AAdvantage Visa Card. We NEVER subscribed to any services from Experian and we protested these charges that were refunded on 03/08/12. Then, the next day (3/09/12) Experian again billed us $14.95 and on 3/11/12 for $19.95, both on a Citi MasterCard that was never used since the beginning on October 2011. When I called Experian, they said four people used my one credit card number and eight different people used my other credit card number. I asked them, If you know many other people are using our cards and the cards of other innocent victims, why do you bill the real owners of the cards who have never even contacted you for any services? I also asked, Why do you not require people who sign on for your so-called Free Credit Report to include the security code on the back of the card to insure that someone is not using another persons card without authorization? Their lame responses to these questions led me to conclude that Experian has devised a new fraud scheme that could yield them hundreds of millions of dollars if they are not stopped. Because Experian is billing thousands of people who have never contacted Experian for credit reports or fraud protection services, they are collecting money monthly from thousands of people who (unlike us) do not know they are being ripped off. When I typed in "$19.95 $14.95 Experian" in a search engine, I was led to a website, www.consumeraffairs.com in which several people submitted reports that replicated the exact experience I had. After researching this matter, I have come to the conclusion Experian intentionally does not ask people for the security code on the back of their credit cards because they want to use credit card numbers of people like ourselves whom they bill without even having our names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and other contact information in their files. This arrangement can provide them with DENIABILITY which they did not have when the FTC fined them in 2005 for deceptive and fraudulent marketing.