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.
Stuff happens. I get it. Things fall through the cracks. They get lost in the shuffle. They fall off our radar. Is it possible for a collection operation to receive a dispute from a consumer and forget to flag that account as disputed with the credit reporting agencies? Sure. Nobody expects every collection operation to be perfect. But a complaint filed by a plaintiff is accusing not one, not two, not three, but six different collection operations of failing to mark his six different accounts as disputed and alleging that those six operations, as well as two credit reporting agencies, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The background: The details surrounding the plaintiff’s interactions with each of the six different collection operations are very similar. On July 26, 2023, the plaintiff sent dispute letters to two credit reporting agencies, “notifying” them that the account being reported by a collection operation was disputed.
- It was up to the credit reporting agencies to then notify the collection operations that the account was disputed and then up to each of the collection operations to investigate the disputes.
- On September 25, 2023, the plaintiff checked his credit report and none of the six accounts were being reported as disputed.
- The inaccurate reporting from each of the six collection operations caused the plaintiff to be denied credit.
- Either the collection operations failed to investigate the accounts and mark them as disputed, or the two credit reporting agencies failed to do their part, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendants of violating Section 1692e and 1692e(8) of the FDCPA because they allegedly used deceptive and misleading tactics by communicating information which was known or should have been known to be false.
- The complaint also accuses the six collection operations of violating Sections 1692d and 1692f of the FDCPA because they embarrassed the plaintiff by misrepresenting the status of the alleged debts and distributed false information, thereby using unfair or unconscionable means to attempt to collect on the debts.
- The six defendants are also accused of violating Section 1681s-2(B) of the FCRA for failing to properly investigate the alleged disputes.
- The complaint also accuses the two credit reporting agencies of violating Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the FCRA.
