EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
An individual who was allegedly the victim of identity theft has filed a lawsuit against a defendant for allegedly violating the debt parking provisions of Regulation F by furnishing information about the debt to the credit reporting agencies without first attempting to notify the plaintiff that the debt was going to be reported.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the District of Minnesota, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-03175 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff disputed the debt with the three major credit reporting agencies in September, and two of them removed the item from his credit report. The plaintiff claims never to have been a client of the original creditor and was the victim of either identity theft or mistaken identity, according to the complaint. The debt was reported to the credit reporting agencies by the defendant in July and allegedly did not communicate with the plaintiff prior to placing the item on his credit report. Section 1006.30(a)(1) of Regulation F prohibits reporting debts to credit reporting agencies unless the collector speaks with the consumer over the telephone or sends a letter or email and waits a reasonable amount of time to receive a notice of undeliverability. The complaint also accuses the defendant of illegally adding interest and or late fees to the debt and falsely reporting the amount as due and owing on the plaintiff’s credit report.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation after the plaintiff disputed the debt.
