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.
Is continuing to furnish information about a debt an attempt to collect? A collection operation and two credit reporting agencies are facing claims of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act over a debt that the plaintiff claims was actually incurred by his mother and for which he has no connection to.
The background: The plaintiff, a California resident, alleges that a collection account in the amount of $5,160 appeared on his credit reports in 2025 and identified him as jointly responsible with his mother for a rental debt tied to an apartment complex in Michigan.
- The plaintiff contends that he has lived in California since 2015, has maintained separate finances from his mother, and has not signed a lease agreement since 2014. He alleges that the debt stems from rental obligations incurred by his mother after he relocated and that he never signed any lease or agreement that would make him liable.
- The complaint states that in July 2025 the collection operation sent a collection notice seeking payment of the $5,160 balance. In August 2025, the plaintiff sent a written dispute and debt validation request asking for a signed lease agreement, the date the debt was incurred, an itemized accounting, and information about the original creditor. He alleges that no documentation was provided in response.
- Around the same time, the plaintiff disputed the account with the credit reporting agencies. He claims he provided detailed documentation, including proof of his California residency, a copy of his validation request, and an explanation that the account belonged to his mother. Despite those submissions, both agencies allegedly verified the account as accurate and continued reporting it as a collection account with a past due balance.
The claims: The lawsuit asserts that the collection operation violated the FDCPA by falsely representing the character, amount, and legal status of the debt and by attempting to collect an amount not authorized by any agreement. The plaintiff also alleges that after receiving his validation request, the collector failed to cease collection activity, and that continuing to report the account to the credit bureaus constituted ongoing collection in violation of Section 1692g(b).
- The plaintiff also alleges that the furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice of the disputes from the credit bureaus under the FCRA and California’s parallel statute, and that the credit reporting agencies failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations and to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.
