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.
Claims that an individual is the victim of identity theft are no joke. Getting to the bottom of the situation is not always easy. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and state law in North Carolina because it had yet to respond to the plaintiff’s claim that he was the victim of identity theft in four months after the plaintiff submitted his evidence.
The background: At some point before the end of June 2025, the plaintiff learned that a third party had opened at least two accounts with T-Mobile using the plaintiff’s personal information, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff discovered two tradelines from the defendant on his credit report.
- The plaintiff completed the Federal Trade Commission’s identity theft report and submitted it to the defendant on or around June 25, along with a letter requesting that all collection activities be ceased, requesting validation of the debt, and provide the plaintiff with any information related to the fraudulent accounts.
- The defendant responded the following day, saying “Please be advised that we are reviewing your concern and will let you know once we have further information on the status of your account.”
- On July 25, the plaintiff sent an email to the defendant requesting the information again, according to the complaint. Three days later, the defendant replied, that it was “reviewing” the plaintiff’s submission.
- The plaintiff has yet to hear back from the defendant, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff attempted to resolve the matter with T-Mobile, but was unsuccessful and was told to contact the defendant to obtain the information he was seeking.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1681g(e)(1) of the FCRA by not providing copies of the application and business transaction records within 30 days of being notified about the identity theft.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA by failing to cease collection of the debt and failing to provide verification of the debt after it had been disputed. The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692f of the FDCPA.
