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.
Deleting a tradeline is usually how a problem goes away. In this case, a consumer is trying to make it the centerpiece of his lawsuit. A collection operation is facing claims from a pro se plaintiff in Georgia that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Regulation F, and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act by reporting a medical account about five months before it ever contacted the consumer, and then sending him a collection text after he asked it to stop contacting him and after it had already asked the bureaus to delete the account.
The background: In or about December 2025, the defendant began reporting a collection account with a balance of approximately $2,270 to Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax.
- The plaintiff claims he never received a letter, a validation notice, or any other communication from the defendant before the tradeline appeared on his credit file.
- The plaintiff submitted written disputes to Experian and TransUnion challenging the accuracy and validity of the account in April.
- The defendant responded with a letter dated May 1, which the complaint characterizes as the defendant’s first communication of any kind with the plaintiff, roughly five months after the account hit his credit reports. The letter said the defendant does not own the debt, that it had contacted the original creditor, and that the creditor confirmed the name and address on the account and the amount owed. Itemized billing statements were enclosed.
- On May 18, the plaintiff mailed the defendant a written refusal to pay and cease communication notice under Section 1692c(c).
- On May 27, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff stating it had sent a deletion request to the credit reporting agencies on the account. The plaintiff treats that letter as an admission the defendant could not substantiate the debt.
- On June 29, more than a month after the cease notice was delivered and a month after the deletion request, the defendant allegedly sent the plaintiff a text message that read, “You have 1 account(s) totaling $2,270.32… You may be eligible for a payment plan, settlement or significant discount.”
- The defendant’s conduct damaged the plaintiff’s credit reputation and creditworthiness and caused anger, anxiety, frustration, emotional distress, and the loss of time spent disputing the reporting, according to the complaint.
The claims: The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA by reporting the account to the credit bureaus without ever sending an initial validation notice, and Section 1006.34(a)(1) of Regulation F by furnishing the account without ever having communicated with the plaintiff about the debt.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) by sending the June text message after receiving the written cease communication notice, Section 1692e by falsely representing the character and legal status of the debt when it attempted to collect on an account it had already asked the bureaus to delete, and Section 1692f by using unfair and unconscionable means on that same theory.
- A sixth count accuses the defendant of violating Section 10-1-393(a) of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, under which the plaintiff is seeking treble damages, along with punitive damages under a separate provision of Georgia law.
