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 is nothing particularly sexy or unusual about this complaint. If you were looking for a man-bites-dog type of story, you’re likely to be disappointed. The reason I chose to write about this particular complaint is precisely because of how not-unusual it is. For companies in the credit and collection industry, the claims that are being made in this suit are the most common claims they are facing today, and likely will be facing for the foreseeable future. A debt buying organization and two credit reporting agencies are facing claims of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the plaintiff didn’t recognize a new on her credit report, disputed it, and then didn’t see the debt disappear from her credit report.
The background: The plaintiff noticed an item on her credit report that she didn’t recognize. Believing the item to be the result of fraud, she filed a identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission.
- Back in December, the plaintiff sent dispute letters to the two credit reporting agencies, and included the identity theft affidavit.
- Despite the plaintiff’s claims to the contrary, the account remained on her credit report.
- The two credit reporting agencies failed to conduct an investigation, failed to contact the plaintiff or anyone else, or otherwise review the information, according to the complaint. Instead, they only relied on their judgment and the information provided by the debt buyer “rather than grant credibility to the information provided by Plaintiff,” according to the report.
The claims: The two credit reporting agencies are accused of violating:
- Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA for failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the plaintiff’s credit report.
- Section 1681i of the FCRA for failing to delete inaccurate information from the plaintiff’s credit report after receiving notice of the inaccuracies, failing to conduct lawful reinvestigations, failing to maintain reasonable procedures with which to filter and verify disputed information in the plaintiff’s credit report, and failing to provide the plaintiff with a description of its procedures.
The debt buyer is accused of violating:
- Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA for failing to properly and fully investigate the plaintiff’s dispute, failing to review all the relevant information regarding the dispute, failing to respond to the credit reporting agencies, verifying false information, and failing to correct its own internal records to prevent the re-reporting of false information.
- Section 1692e of the FDCPA for using false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of the debt by including reporting false information to the credit reporting agencies, and for failing to correct the false information once disputed.
