It's a really good point about Apple willfully using an Experian service as part of this strategy. As to defamation, I don't think that's clear. Apple is intentionally using the term to be as legally vague as possible about how it externally reports its past connection to its ex-payees. This is mostly liability management, essentially saying less that can't be called false, instead of the defamatory tactic of saying more that is not true.
as·so·ci·ate (n)
1. a partner or colleague in business or at work.
2. a person with limited or subordinate membership of an organization.
3. joined or connected with an organization or business.
- Source: Google search results fed by Oxford Languages
This kind of vague hedging in communication for legal purposes is pretty longterm characteristic of the organization. It's the "say absolutely nothing after termination that can be dissected in court later" school. The school has adherents all over the place.
While I agree it’s probably not defamation and is just meant to say as little as possible, there’s no way this would be the end all in court - apple surely keeps the original records internally so a court case could easily find your original title.
Well said- it's as much or more to try to provide minimum reasoning to allow a party to bring them to court as influence proceedings in court. But the lack of statements made after termination is undeniably helpful to parties with this kind of MO if things end up there.
