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.
A collection operation and its chief executive are being sued for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, state law in Washington, and for identity theft, because the operation allegedly accessed the plaintiff’s credit report without a permissible purpose, falsely adding derogatory information to her credit report, and accessing the plaintiff’s personal information without her knowledge or consent.
The background: There is a lot to unpack and the complaint unfortunately doesn’t always go in chronological order. But, earlier this year, the plaintiff checked her credit report and saw that the defendant had accessed her credit report, without her knowledge or consent.
- In February, the plaintiff hired a private investigator, who prepared a background report on the plaintiff and identified at least four people who were using her Social Security number and other nonpublic identifiable information, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in small claims court against the defendant for identity theft and defamation of character.
- While doing research for her lawsuit, the plaintiff learned the defendant was involved in a data breach last year and the plaintiff was never notified of the breach by the defendant.
- The plaintiff then dismissed her small claims lawsuit and sent the defendant a demand letter, offering to settle her claims for $8,000 before filing another lawsuit. The defendant “failed to respond satisfactorily.”
- In its response to the plaintiff, a lawyer representing the defendant wrote, “In the complaint, you asserted [defendant] violated the law regarding an ATT account in your name … We have investigated the matter and do not discern any basis for liability. Nonetheless, [defendant] has made the business decision to cease collecting the Account.”
- The plaintiff then filed an identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission and a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the defendant responded to the next day.
- The plaintiff contacted the original creditor, who allegedly confirmed the account was never sent to the defendant.
- Then, there is a lot of information about credit reports that I’m not going to get into here.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating the Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act, Sections 1681b and 1681b(a)(1) of the FCRA, and Sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692g of the FDCPA.
