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.
How much proof is needed when a consumer claims to be the victim of identity theft? That appears to be the crux of a case filed in California federal court, accusing a bank, a collection operation, and two credit reporting agencies of violating a number of statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state laws by not believing the plaintiff’s claim that the underlying debts were a result of his former roommate and business partner that were taken out in the plaintiff’s name.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that his identity was stolen by a former roommate and business partner, who allegedly used the plaintiff’s personal information to open and use multiple financial accounts without authorization. The complaint claims that the fraudulent activity spanned several years and resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in charges, none of which benefited the plaintiff. The plaintiff maintains that he repeatedly notified the defendants that he was a victim of identity theft and provided extensive documentation, including police reports, account records, and a notarized admission from the alleged perpetrator acknowledging the fraud.
The background: The plaintiff alleges that after discovering the fraudulent accounts, he disputed the debts directly with the original creditor, the subsequent collection operation, and later with the credit reporting agencies. Despite those efforts, the defendants allegedly continued to report the accounts as valid, attempted to collect the balances, and in some instances required additional documentation that the plaintiff claims had already been provided.
- The complaint asserts that even after receiving repeated written notices and evidence of identity theft, the defendants failed to conduct reasonable investigations and continued to treat the debts as legitimate.
- The plaintiff also alleges that the continued reporting and collection activity caused concrete harm, including credit denials, emotional distress, and lost opportunities. The complaint states that the defendants “refused and failed to disassociate the debt from Plaintiff and remove it from his consumer disclosures or credit files,” despite being presented with information supporting the identity theft claim.
The claims: The lawsuit claims the defendants violated the FCRA for allegedly failing to conduct reasonable investigations and for continuing to report inaccurate information after disputes were submitted.
- State law claims include alleged violations of California’s Identity Theft Act, which allows victims to seek civil penalties when creditors continue pursuing debts after receiving notice and evidence of identity theft.
- The complaint also brings claims under California’s consumer credit reporting statute and the state’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging the defendants attempted to collect debts that were not legally owed.
