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.
A creditor and two credit reporting agencies are facing claims of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act over a $36,000 loan that the plaintiff claims was originated by someone else who signed the plaintiff’s name on a contract to obtain the funds, although the complaint makes no mention of the plaintiff obtaining an identity theft affidavit to bolster his claims.
The background: The plaintiff discovered in August of 2023 that someone back in May of that year signed a contract to open an account. The plaintiff learned of this when the creditor sent a copy of the contract to the plaintiff. The plaintiff mailed a letter to the creditor, explaining that he never signed the document and claimed the signature was fraudulent.
- In December, the plaintiff obtained copies of his credit report and noticed that two of the credit reporting agencies were reporting derogatory information on his credit report regarding the account.
- The plaintiff mailed dispute letters to the two credit reporting agencies and included the letter he had sent to the creditor back in August.
- Only one of the credit reporting agencies responded back with results of their investigation, and while it acknowledged it had made a changed based on the dispute, it was still reporting the balance and past due status on the plaintiff’s credit report.
- The plaintiff disputed the debt again in June 2025 with the two credit reporting agencies. This time, both responded back with results of their investigations and both acknowledged they had made changes based on the disputes. But both continued to report the account and both had the account listed as “charged off.”
- The two credit reporting agencies “refuse to perform … statutorily mandated FCRA investigation[s] and instead delegate all action in response to consumers disputes to a third-party outsourced vendor located overseas,” according to the complaint.
- The complaint accuses the credit reporting agencies of forwarding the disputes to the creditor, “who did nothing.”
- The defendants’ actions have harmed the plaintiff’s credit opportunities, made him fearful of being denied credit and apprehensive to apply for new credit, cost him time and money to address the inaccuracies, along with causing him mental anguish, stress, aggravation, “and other related impairments to the enjoyment of life,” according to the complaint.
The claims: The complaint accuses the two credit reporting agencies of violating Section 1681(b) of the FCRA for publishing inaccurate information in the plaintiff’s credit report.
- The credit reporting agencies are also accused of violating Section 1681i(a) of the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into the plaintiff’s dispute.
- The creditor is accused of violating Section 1681s-2(b)(A) & (B) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into the plaintiff’s disputes. The creditor is also accused of violating Section 1681s-2(b)(C) & (D) of the FCRA by publishing false information, failing to note the account was being disputed, and failing to correctly report results of an accurate investigation. The creditor is also accused of violating Section 1681s-2(b)(E) of the FCRA by failing to accurately correct and update or delete information from the plaintiff’s file after receiving the disputes.
