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.
Transactions involving debts are links in a chain and you know what they say about chains — they are only as strong as their weakest link. A debt buyer is facing claims of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act among other allegations, and a creditor is also facing claims in a lawsuit filed by a consumer related to a debt that she claims was not opened or authorized by her.
The case, filed in federal court in Kansas, centers on a disputed account that the plaintiff alleges was the result of identity theft, but was nevertheless sold, reported, and ultimately litigated as if it were valid.
The background: The account at issue was allegedly opened in early 2022 using the plaintiff’s personal information without her knowledge or authorization, according to the complaint. The account was later transferred to a bank and ultimately sold to a debt buyer, which began reporting the account to credit bureaus and attempting to collect on it.
- The plaintiff claims she took multiple steps to dispute the debt, including filing disputes with the major credit reporting agencies, submitting complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and providing an FTC identity theft affidavit. Despite these efforts, the debt buyer allegedly continued to verify the account as accurate and pursued collection activity.
- One key turning point in the timeline came in late 2024, when the originating creditor allegedly determined that the account was fraudulent and that the plaintiff was not responsible for the debt. The creditor allegedly indicated it would initiate a buyback of the account, according to the complaint. However, the debt buyer allegedly continued its collection efforts and even filed a lawsuit in 2025 seeking to recover $2,385.61.
The claims: The lawsuit alleges a breakdown at multiple points in the lifecycle of the account, with the plaintiff asserting that both the creditor and the debt buyer failed to conduct reasonable investigations and continued to furnish and act on inaccurate information.
- The complaint frames the case in stark terms, stating it is “about a debt collector refusing to acknowledge the truth even after the original creditor confirmed the debt resulted from identity theft.”
- Against the debt buyer, the plaintiff brings claims under the FDCPA, alleging the use of false, deceptive, and misleading representations, including filing a lawsuit on a debt that “was not permitted by law” because it was not actually owed. The complaint further alleges unfair practices, arguing that pursuing litigation under these circumstances constituted an attempt to collect funds “to which it was not entitled.”
- The creditor is also facing claims under the FCRA, with the plaintiff alleging it failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving disputes and continued furnishing inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies even after having reason to believe the account was fraudulent.
- Additional claims include negligence, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff alleges the reporting and collection activity caused significant harm, including credit denials, reputational damage, and emotional distress.
