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.
What to do when an individual claims to be the victim of identity theft is not as straightforward as it probably should be. As with many of the types of disputes filed by consumers, the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires furnishers to conduct a reasonable investigation, but what constitutes reasonable is for a judge, or jury, to decide. A furnisher is being accused of violating the FCRA because, among other allegations, it did not contact law enforcement to investigate a plaintiff’s claim and because its handwriting analysis was not up to par, if it did one at all.
The background: An account was opened in the plaintiff’s name with the defendant. Whomever opened the account — the plaintiff claims it was someone impersonating him — used the plaintiff’s name, date of birth, and Social Security number, but used a different mailing address. The defendant began reporting information about the debt to the credit reporting agencies.
- The plaintiff started disputing the debt in 2023, and has disputed the debt with a credit reporting agency at least 12 times, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff has submitted examples of his signature, identity theft reports, and copies of his driver’s license.
- The defendant has verified the debt and not only has it continued to report the debt, it has not marked the debt as disputed, according to the complaint.
- The defendant has not contacted any law enforcement agency to validate or invalidate the plaintiff’s claim, and has not conducted any handwriting analysis, according to the complaint. The defendant has also failed to review any of the other documentation submitted by the plaintiff.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1681s-2(b)(1)(A), 1681s-2(b)(1)(B), and 1681s-2(b)(1)(D) of the FCRA because it failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and failed to mark the account as disputed.
