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.
The exotic, sovereign-citizen, you-threatened-to-have-me-arrested-after-calling-me-37-times-in-one-day-on-my-cell-phone-using-an-autodialer-after-I-revoked-consent cases can be fun to read. But the majority of suits that are filed against companies in the credit and collection industry aren’t that quirky. Most times, it’s a suit filed by a consumer who just didn’t get what he or she wanted. A debt buyer is facing claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act because a consumer disputed a debt that he felt was inaccurate and the debt buyer verified the information was accurate.
The background: Back in September, the plaintiff checked his credit report and “observed inaccurate and incomplete” information from the defendant, according to the complaint. How something can be inaccurate and incomplete is a topic for another story.
- The plaintiff disputed the debt, saying that the “date opened,” “on record until” date were not true and were misleading because the statute of limitations for collections to be reported is seven years. The dispute was made through one of the credit reporting agencies.
- The credit reporting agency forwarded the dispute to the defendant.
- The results came back two days later, with the defendant verifying the information that had been furnished.
- Because the defendant verified what the plaintiff believed to be “blatantly inaccurate and incomplete” information, this had to mean that a reasonable investigation was not conducted, according to the complaint.
- As a result of the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff’s creditworthiness has been negatively impacted and forced the plaintiff to deal with emotional distress, fear, sleeplessness, anxiety, and loss of time, according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violation Section 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) of the FCRA by not conducting a reasonable investigation.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1681s-2(b)(1)(B) of the FCRA because it allegedly failed to review all the relevant information provided by the plaintiff, which resulted in inaccurate and incomplete reporting on the plaintiff’s credit report.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1681s-2(b)(1)(C) of the FCRA — failing to report the results of an investigation — because the inaccurate and incomplete items that were disputed by the plaintiff remain unchanged on his credit report.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1681s-2(b)(1)(D) of the FCRA — failing to report the results of an investigation to all of the credit reporting agencies.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1681s-2(b)(1)(E) of the FCRA — modifying, deleting, or permanently blocking information dound to be inaccurate or incomplete from the plaintiff’s credit report.
