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 collection operation and three credit reporting agencies are facing claims of violating the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the California Identity Theft Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act among other claims, for not believing the plaintiff’s claim that the underlying debt was the result of identity theft.
The background: The plaintiff alleges that an unknown individual opened an account in her name without authorization and used it to obtain medical services with a plastic surgeon, according to the complaint. The plaintiff could not have been responsible for the charges because when they were incurred, she was at a veterinary clinic in a different part of the city taking her pets through surgery of their own.
- The debt was later charged off and placed with a collection operation, which attempted to collect on the balance and, at one point, filed a collection lawsuit that was later dismissed.
- After discovering the alleged fraud, the plaintiff says she filed a police report, submitted an identity theft affidavit with the Federal Trade Commission, and sent written dispute packages to both the furnisher and the three credit reporting agencies. Those disputes allegedly included documentation supporting her claim that the account was fraudulent and did not belong to her.
- Despite those efforts, the complaint alleges the account continued to appear on her credit reports and that collection activity continued. The plaintiff claims the tradeline was not blocked or removed, even months after the identity theft documentation was provided. She also alleges that the collection operation continued to review her credit file and pursue collection activity instead of ceasing efforts and treating the account as the product of fraud.
The claims: The suit alleges violations of multiple California consumer protection statutes.
- The defendants are accused of violating the CCCRAA by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, failing to conduct reasonable investigations and reinvestigations, and continuing to report information that the plaintiff contends was inaccurate after being provided with evidence of identity theft.
- The complaint also asserts violations of the CITA, arguing that the collection operation failed to cease collection efforts and failed to stop furnishing information to the credit reporting agencies after receiving a police report and identity theft documentation.
- In addition, the collection operation is accused of violating the RFDCPA by continuing to attempt to collect a debt that was allegedly the result of identity theft and by failing to properly mark the account as disputed.
- The suit further includes claims under California’s unfair competition law, arguing that the alleged conduct constitutes unlawful and unfair business practices.
