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 plenty in this complaint to question, but there is also potentially a lot to learn. A plaintiff is accusing a credit card lender of violating state law in California, including the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, because it furnished information about a debt and attempted to collect on it even though the plaintiff claimed the debt was incurred as a result of identity theft. The defendant is accused, among other claims, of failing to take into account the specifics of the plaintiff’s disputes and responding “with form letters.”
The background: Back in 2021, the plaintiff was contacted by the defendant in regards to an unpaid debt that the plaintiff claimed never to have authorized or opened.
- The plaintiff disputed the debt, but the complaint does not mention a date that the debt was disputed.
- More than 18 months after the first contact was made, in October 2022, the defendant completed its internal investigation and concluded the balance was valid.
- The plaintiff disputed the debt again in March 2025.
- In April 2025, the defendant again reaffirmed the validity of the debt.
- The plaintiff was able to freeze his credit with two of the three major credit reporting agencies, but was unable to do it with the third because of changes that were made to the account. The plaintiff believes the individual who opened the account in the first place was responsible for making the changes to the account with the credit reporting agency. The plaintiff’s credit report now includes fraudulent personal information, including an address in Texas and different variations of the plaintiff’s name, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff submitted an identity theft report to the Federal Trade Commission in June 2025.
- The timing of the disputes and the submission of the ID theft report are not explained in the complaint.
- The plaintiff has suffered from anxiety, frustration, stress, lack of sleep, and embarrassment as a result of this ordeal, and has been unable to obtain credit, according to the complaint.
- The defendant, meanwhile, has “merely responded with form letters that failed to take into account any of the specifics identified” in the disputes.
- The plaintiff is unable to calculate just how much he has lost as a result of the defendant’s actions, but plans on hiring an economist to help figure it out.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating the RFDCPA, California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and California’s Identity Theft Act.
- The case was originally filed in California state court, but was removed to federal court by the defendant.
