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.
There’s a lot that happens behind the scenes when it comes to the collection process. For as transparent as everyone tries to be, accounts are bought and sold or placed or assigned and it can be confusing for consumers. A debt buyer and a credit reporting agency are facing claims they violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not reasonably investigating an identity theft dispute filed by the plaintiff and for continuing to report what is alleged to be inaccurate information.
The background: The plaintiff noticed on her credit report a tradeline that was marked as charged off with a balance of $632 that was owed to a credit card lender. She also received calls and text messages from a debt collector seeking to recover the balance.
- The plaintiff filed an identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission, claiming that the debt did not belong to her.
- Four months later, the plaintiff mailed a dispute to the credit reporting agency, indicating she was the victim of identity theft. She included her driver’s license, the FTC report, and her Social Security number to confirm her identity.
- When she checked her credit report again, she noticed that the debt was no longer being reported by the credit card lender, but now was being reported by the defendant, a debt buyer.
- The plaintiff submitted another dispute to the credit reporting agency, again affirming that the account was not hers and supplying the same information as she did in her first dispute.
- When she checked her credit report again, the tradeline had been updated to indicate the debt was now being disputed by the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff submitted another letter to the credit reporting agency, again including the same information and claiming the account was not hers.
- The information in the plaintiff’s credit report has still not been updated and the plaintiff claims to have never received the results of any of the investigations conducted by the credit reporting agency.
The claims: The credit reporting agency is being accused of violating Sections 1681e(b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of its credit files, such as by allowing representatives to call consumers or witnesses and instead just “parrot[s]” information provided by the furnisher. The credit reporting agency should have also deleted the tradeline when provided the identity theft report, according to the complaint.
- The complaint also accuses the credit reporting agency of violating Section 1681i of the FCRA for the same reasons.
- The credit reporting agency is also accused of violating Secton 1681g of the FCRA by not disclosing to the plaintiff all the information in her credit file.
- The debt buyer is accused of violating Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA by not conducting a reasonable investigation into the plaintiff’s dispute.
