A District Court judge in Wisconsin has decided to let a jury decide whether a defendant satisfied its obligation to investigate an identity theft claim by sending a letter to the plaintiff asking for proof of residence — which the plaintiff claims never to have received — or whether it needed to do more when the plaintiff disputed the debt before filing a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Simonson v. I.Q. Data International can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff — who lives in Wisconsin — was the victim of identity theft when someone used her identity to rent an apartment in Arizona and then failed to pay nearly $6,000 in rent. The owner of the apartment hired the defendant to collect on the debt. The defendant began reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies. When the plaintiff saw the debt on her credit report, she notified the defendant and the credit reporting agencies about the identity theft. The defendant reported the debt as disputed, but refused to stop reporting the debt. The defendant claims it sent a letter to the plaintiff asking for proof of residence, which the plaintiff claims never to have received. The plaintiff sued, alleging the reported debt made it more difficult for her to get a student loan, forced her to spend time correcting her credit report, and caused emotional distress. The defendant should have more thoroughly investigated her dispute and claim of identity theft.
Both sides filed motions for summary judgment, which Judge James D. Peterson of the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied. Whether the investigation that the defendant conducted after the plaintiff disputed the debt was reasonable or not is for a jury to decide because it is a question of fact and not a question of law, Judge Peterson noted.
There is enough evidence on both sides for the parties to make their cases that they were in the right and did everything they were supposed to, Judge Peterson determined. “A reasonable jury could find that IQ Data satisfied its obligations by asking Simonson for proof of her address, but a reasonable jury could also find that IQ Data should have done more when it received more information,” he wrote.
