{"took":195,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":28,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6283654","_score":25.549648,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"The advertisement Ive included below is potentially false, misleading, and deceptive. The advertisement appears to suggest that, simply by enrolling in the program a consumer could receive relief of up to the amount advertised. based upon my experience. This is an unlikely outcome, and is likely to deceive the least sophisticated consumer. Although I attempted to locate information about the company so that I could complain directly to them I was unable to, and as a result, I am submitting this complaint. although I am unable to confirm it, I suspect the company is affiliated with or is in fact Freedom Debt Relief based upon on the advertisement. although the publication appears to be reasonable advice to most consumers, it appears that it was created only as a front for this XXXX advertising.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-05T17:50:27.000Z","issue":"Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing","sub_product":"Credit repair services","zip_code":"44212","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6283654","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK","date_received":"2022-12-05T17:35:33.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The advertisement Ive included below is potentially false, <em>misleading</em>, and <em>deceptive</em>. The advertisement appears to suggest that, simply by enrolling in the program a <em>consumer</em> could receive relief of up to the amount advertised. based upon my experience. This is an unlikely outcome, and is likely to deceive the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em>."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["Confusing or <em>misleading</em> advertising or marketing"]},"sort":[25.549648,"6283654"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16633881","_score":22.510082,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I received multiple letters dated XX/XX/year>, from Resurgent Capital Services L.P attempting to collect an alleged debt they claim is owed to LVNV Funding LLC. The letters are formatted to resemble billing statements and include detachable payment coupons directing that payments be made to Resurgent Capital Services, not LVNV. Each letter identifies Resurgent as \" managing '' the account for LVNV Funding LLC, without clearly explaining the legal relationship between the XXXX entities or establishing Resurgent 's authority to collect or receive payments. The correspondence includes computer-generated \" Account Summary Reports '' described as \" verification of debt. '' These reports were created by Resurgent, not the original creditor, and fail to provide any supporting documentation. Referring to these internally produced summaries as \" verification '' misrepresents the legal sufficiency of the evidence and would mislead the least sophisticated consumer into believing the account was fully verified and collectible. This conduct is false, misleading, and noncompliant in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act including : XXXX. Misrepresentation of the character or legal status of the debt. XXXX. Use of deceptive means to collect a debt. XXXX. Failure to clearly identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-16T15:34:12.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"29212","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16633881","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2025-10-16T14:08:55.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Referring to these internally produced summaries as \" verification '' misrepresents the legal sufficiency of the evidence and would <em>mislead</em> the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> into believing the account was fully verified and collectible. This conduct is false, <em>misleading</em>, and noncompliant in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act including : XXXX. Misrepresentation of the character or legal status of the debt. XXXX. Use of <em>deceptive</em> means to collect a debt. XXXX."]},"sort":[22.510082,"16633881"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14879887","_score":21.505661,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I received a letter dated XX/XX/year>, from Resurgence Legal Group , PC regarding an alleged debt originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX, now being collected on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX, with a balance of {$7100.00}. The letter is titled NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE LITIGATION AND INCUR COURT COSTS AND LEGAL FEES. It claims that if I do not resolve the matter, they will pursue litigation in the Superior Court of California, and that a judgment may include court costs and disbursements. The letter references California Code of Civil Procedure 1033 ( b ) ( 2 ). This communication appears to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 5 ), which prohibits a debt collector from threatening legal action that is not actually intended or authorized. If the collector had no real intent or authorization to sue me at the time the letter was sent, this is a false and misleading threat of legal action. In addition, the language in the letter could easily mislead the least sophisticated consumer into believing a lawsuit has already been filed or a judgment is imminent. This may also violate 1692e ( 10 ) for using deceptive collection practices.\n\nThis caused unnecessary confusion, intimidation, and emotional distress. If no real lawsuit was planned or authorized at the time of sending the letter, this communication was improper under federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-25T16:22:19.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"92223","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14879887","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgence Legal Group, PC","date_received":"2025-07-25T16:18:46.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If the collector had no real intent or authorization to sue me at the time the letter was sent, this is a false and <em>misleading</em> threat of legal action. In addition, the language in the letter could easily <em>mislead</em> the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> into believing a lawsuit has already been filed or a judgment is imminent. This may also violate 1692e ( 10 ) for using <em>deceptive</em> collection practices.\n\nThis caused unnecessary confusion, intimidation, and emotional distress."]},"sort":[21.505661,"14879887"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2700364","_score":19.573524,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I received a collection letter from Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP over two unpaid tolls amounting to {$10.00}. The collection notice also added {$50.00} in fees. The tolls were incurred over a year ago. I made multiple efforts to pay the tolls around the time that they were incurred, however I was told multiple times that there was no record of the money owed so I could not pay. I sent a letter via both postal mail and fax explaining my previous efforts to pay, and I enclosed the full amount demanded in order to evidence my good faith effort to pay the debt. By not allowing me to pay the debt, and then subsequently sending a demand letter which includes fees and other charges, this firm is engaging in an unfair and deceptive trade practice. After I sent the letter to the firm, they made no effort to investigate this matter or contact me to resolve this in any way. The letter is dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX and the checks were cashed on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nAdditionally, this firm is violating the FDCPA by sending letters that would confuse the least sophisticated consumer. The letter clearly states that no lawyer has reviewed the account or made a determination as to the legal status. However, the letter also cites the statute which provides for payment of tolls, and then straightforwardly concludes that I owe this money as a result. It is plainly misleading to state that no attorney has made a determination yet state a legal conclusion.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-10-24T12:08:55.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"105XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2700364","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP","date_received":"2017-10-12T17:46:04.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Additionally, this firm is violating the FDCPA by sending letters that would confuse the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em>. The letter clearly states that no lawyer has reviewed the account or made a determination as to the legal status. However, the letter also cites the statute which provides for payment of tolls, and then straightforwardly concludes that I owe this money as a result. It is plainly <em>misleading</em> to state that no attorney has made a determination yet state a legal conclusion."]},"sort":[19.573524,"2700364"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2643553","_score":19.50369,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I logged in to my XXXX XXXX XXXX app on XX/XX/XXXX to check may balance and make a partial payment to my \" Bank of America '' credit card, in order to lower the balance reducing my credit utilization to prevent impact to my credit score. Because a temporary charge from Friday XX/XX/XXXX changed from {$1.00} to {$3.00} after I scheduled my payment of {$60.00} I was {$0.00} cents short of the payment I attempted to make. As a result XXXX XXXX XXXX charged me a {$35.00} NSF fee. I called to ask for a 1 time courtesy waiver due to uncontrollable circumstances and the bank refused to grant me this courtesy after having my account with them for over a year and half and having never requested any fee waivers from them. I explained that their policies are not adequate to the least sophisticated consumer and their practices are misleading and unfair which is a UDAAP violation and that I would close my accounts and discontinue business with them. They advised me they have no retention practices and can not make an exception. I believe this practice is deceptive and abusive and unfair and have caused me an undue hardship. I would like the CFPB to use its rule making power to force this financial institution to make this exception. I am being victimized by the financial services industry and merchant transaction practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-08-15T16:54:32.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"85345","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2643553","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-08-15T16:45:02.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I explained that their policies are not adequate to the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> and their practices are <em>misleading</em> and unfair which is a UDAAP violation and that I would close my accounts and discontinue business with them. They advised me they have no retention practices and can not make an exception. I believe this practice is <em>deceptive</em> and abusive and unfair and have caused me an undue hardship."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[19.50369,"2643553"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14139529","_score":16.1322,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : This letter constitutes a formal notice under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), demanding that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) immediately cease and desist all forms of communication with me concerning the above-referenced alleged debt. \n\nThis includes, but is not limited to, calls, voicemails, text messages, emails, mailed correspondence, or contact through third parties. Any attempt to contact me other than as permitted by law will be regarded as a willful violation of federal consumer protection laws. \n\nLegal Basis for This Demand 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) Once a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing to cease communication, the collector must stop all contact except to confirm termination or notify of specific legal action. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Held that attorneys and debt collectors are both bound by FDCPA restrictions in all collection efforts. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Clarified that debt XXXX are strictly liable for violations ; lack of intent or knowledge is no defense. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Reiterated the least sophisticated consumer standard, meaning collectors must ensure that their actions are not misleading, deceptive, or coercive. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Voicemail messages that pressure consumers or violate cease-and-desist demands may trigger FDCPA liability. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Found that failure to comply with a written cease-and-desist demand is grounds for damages under the FDCPA. \n\n\n\nNotice of Legal Action Should XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continue to contact me after the receipt of this letter except for the limited reasons provided by law you will be in violation of the FDCPA. I will not hesitate to seek statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, as well as actual damages, attorney fees, and court costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k. \n\nPlease provide written confirmation within 15 days that all communication has ceased and that you will honor this request going forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-19T05:44:08.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"770XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14139529","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-19T05:43:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Old information reappears or never goes away"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Reiterated the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> standard, meaning collectors must ensure that their actions are not <em>misleading</em>, <em>deceptive</em>, or coercive. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Voicemail messages that pressure <em>consumers</em> or violate cease-and-desist demands may trigger FDCPA liability."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[16.1322,"14139529"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14181306","_score":16.079971,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : This letter constitutes a formal notice under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), demanding that Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley , Inc. ( CBHV ) immediately cease and desist all forms of communication with me concerning the above-referenced alleged debt. \n\nThis includes, but is not limited to, calls, voicemails, text messages, emails, mailed correspondence, or contact through third parties. Any attempt to contact me other than as permitted by law will be regarded as a willful violation of federal consumer protection laws. \n\nLegal Basis for This Demand 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) Once a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing to cease communication, the collector must stop all contact except to confirm termination or notify of specific legal action. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Held that attorneys and debt collectors are both bound by FDCPA restrictions in all collection efforts. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Clarified that debt collectors are strictly liable for violations ; lack of intent or knowledge is no defense. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Reiterated the least sophisticated consumer standard, meaning collectors must ensure that their actions are not misleading, deceptive, or coercive. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Voicemail messages that pressure consumers or violate cease-and-desist demands may trigger FDCPA liability. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Found that failure to comply with a written cease-and-desist demand is grounds for damages under the FDCPA. \n\n\n\nNotice of Legal Action Should Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley , Inc. continue to contact me after the receipt of this letter except for the limited reasons provided by law you will be in violation of the FDCPA. I will not hesitate to seek statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, as well as actual damages, attorney fees, and court costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k. \n\nPlease provide written confirmation within 15 days that all communication has ceased and that you will honor this request going forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-19T05:44:08.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"770XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14181306","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-19T05:36:47.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Old information reappears or never goes away"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Reiterated the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> standard, meaning collectors must ensure that their actions are not <em>misleading</em>, <em>deceptive</em>, or coercive. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Voicemail messages that pressure <em>consumers</em> or violate cease-and-desist demands may trigger FDCPA liability."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"]},"sort":[16.079971,"14181306"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14181378","_score":15.995041,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : This is a formal notice under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) that I demand Spring Oaks Capital , LLC immediately cease and desist all communication with me regarding the above-referenced alleged debt. \n\nThis includes calls, letters, voicemails, emails, text messages, and all third-party communications. Any further attempt to contact me outside of the narrow exceptions allowed by law will be considered a willful violation of the FDCPA. \n\nLegal Authority and Supporting Case Law 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) A debt collector must cease all communication with a consumer once a written cease-and-desist demand is received, except to notify the consumer of termination of collection or intent to invoke a specific legal remedy. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that even attorneys collecting debts are subject to the FDCPA. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Held that debt collectors are strictly liable under the FDCPA and that a lack of knowledge or intent does not excuse violations. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Clarified that all collection actions are evaluated under the least sophisticated consumer standard, which prohibits misleading, coercive, or deceptive practices. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Held that even voicemails left after a cease and desist request can violate the FDCPA if they attempt to collect the debt. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Found that failure to comply with a written cease-and-desist demand subjects the collector to liability for statutory and actual damages. \n\n\n\nNotice of Legal Liability If Spring Oaks Capital , LLC continues to contact me after the receipt of this noticeexcept as permitted by lawit will constitute a violation of federal law, and I will pursue all remedies available, including : Statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation, Actual damages, Attorneys fees and costs, under 15 U.S.C. 1692k.\n\nPlease confirm in writing within 15 calendar days of receiving this letter that all communication has ceased and that you will comply with this request going forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-19T06:01:58.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"770XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14181378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Spring Oaks Capital, LLC","date_received":"2025-06-19T05:56:05.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Old information reappears or never goes away"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Clarified that all collection actions are evaluated under the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> standard, which prohibits <em>misleading</em>, coercive, or <em>deceptive</em> practices. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Held that even voicemails left after a cease and desist request can violate the FDCPA if they attempt to collect the debt."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"]},"sort":[15.995041,"14181378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14182230","_score":15.899314,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : This is a formal notice under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) that I demand Spring Oaks Capital , LLC immediately cease and desist all communication with me regarding the above-referenced alleged debt. \n\nThis includes calls, letters, voicemails, emails, text messages, and all third-party communications. Any further attempt to contact me outside of the narrow exceptions allowed by law will be considered a willful violation of the FDCPA. \n\nLegal Authority and Supporting Case Law 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) A debt collector must cease all communication with a consumer once a written cease-and-desist demand is received, except to notify the consumer of termination of collection or intent to invoke a specific legal remedy.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that even attorneys collecting debts are subject to the FDCPA. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Held that debt collectors are strictly liable under the FDCPA and that a lack of knowledge or intent does not excuse violations. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Clarified that all collection actions are evaluated under the least sophisticated consumer standard, which prohibits misleading, coercive, or deceptive practices. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Held that even voicemails left after a cease and desist request can violate the FDCPA if they attempt to collect the debt. \n\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Found that failure to comply with a written cease-and-desist demand subjects the collector to liability for statutory and actual damages. \n\n\n\nNotice of Legal Liability If Spring Oaks Capital , LLC continues to contact me after the receipt of this noticeexcept as permitted by lawit will constitute a violation of federal law, and I will pursue all remedies available, including : Statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation, Actual damages, Attorneys fees and costs, under 15 U.S.C. 1692k.\n\nPlease confirm in writing within 15 calendar days of receiving this letter that all communication has ceased and that you will comply with this request going forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-19T06:02:00.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"770XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14182230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-19T06:01:36.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Old information reappears or never goes away"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Clarified that all collection actions are evaluated under the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> standard, which prohibits <em>misleading</em>, coercive, or <em>deceptive</em> practices. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) Held that even voicemails left after a cease and desist request can violate the FDCPA if they attempt to collect the debt."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[15.899314,"14182230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4283830","_score":14.878777,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, to whom it may concern my name is XXXX XXXX XXXX consumer ). I am A federally protected consumer as defined in the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C 1692a ( 3 ) that resign in XXXX XXXX I would like to thank you for the opportunity to let me address my concerns regarding the third party ; AD ASTRA RECOVERY Services INC ( ARS ) Debt collector define in 15 usc 1692a, engaged in the business of a collection agency, using telephone & mail to collect consumer debts for profit, in collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. ARS has infringed upon my rights to privacy under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( a ). On XX/XX/XXXX I entered a consumer credit transaction incurred for personal, family or household purposes, namely a personal consumer loan with XXXX XXXX with my XXXXXXXX XXXX  card XXXX to 15 usc 1602 a ( I ) under the Truth in Lending Act. In the initial communication SXXXX XXXX has failed to disclose who they are, and what their initial intentions were to attempt to collect a debt, failure to disclose this information is a violation under 15 usc 1692e ( 11 ). XXXX XXXX has used an elaborate scheme to hide costs and take advantage of vulnerable borrowers. I XXXX XXXX ( consumer ) Have noticed XXXX XXXX has took a Tax write off on this Charge off account and sold the Debt to AD ASTRA RECOVERY Services INC. Upon my finding and belief, as of the date of exhibit A, the alleged XXXX XXXX  loan debt and Ad Astra had not Purchased the receivables associated with the account. ARS XXXX debt collector XXXX has communicated with me in connection with the collection of a debt which is a violation Under the FDCPA 15 usc 1692c ( a ) I would like to ask how my location information was acquired, and who provided you consent to communicate with I ( consumer ) which I would like ARS to provide me my written consent of such action, If the request can not be provided, this will be in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( a ). During my initial communication with ARS, I requested the debt collector to provide me validation of debt, whom the Original creditor was on that debt and to Cease all further collection efforts regarding to the accounts under federal law 15 usc 1692C ( c ). On XX/XX/XXXX ARS has communicated with me defined by 15 usc 1692 ( 2 ) with Statements Exhibit A is a form debt collector use to attempt to collect alleged debt. These form fails to validate the request I asked for and the cease & desist request I made clearly with them. This letter was misleading and confusing because it fails to provide the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. This form provided information that would allow the least sophisticated consumer to determine the minimum amount he or she owes at the time of the receipt of the letter, this letter failed to provide information that would allow, I to determine what will I need to pay to resolve the debt at the time of the receipt of the letter also this letter failed to provide information that would allow the least sophisticated consumer to detriment the amount of billing fees owed and whether any additional billing fees will be added, the date they be added, & the amount that be added. ARS used symbols other than the debt collectors address on envelope, which a debt collector may only use the business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business. Which is a violation of 15 usc 1692F ( 8 ). Also, ARS have accused me ( consumer ) of this alleged debt which is a violation under federal law 15 usc 1692b ( 1 ) ( 2 ) In Exhibit A, ARS states that AD Astra reviewed its accounts information with its clints but does not identify who Ad Astas client is, nor state the name of the current creditor. In Exhibit A ARS states that XXXX XXXX  is the Original Creditor But also states that the debt was assigned on XX/XX/XXXX which in fact this firm was just the creditor of the credit sale. Although the letter identified the correct creditor, it did not identify it as the current creditor. It instead labeled the creditor as the Original Creditor. The letter therefore was misleading to whom the Original creditor is not the current Creditor. This debt collector clearly did not make it clear that the original creditor is the current creditor. ARS has harassed me to coerce payment on a debt that they have advertised to me which has ruined my reputation by furnishing my information publicly without my consent this Is a violation of 15 usc 1692d ( 1 ) ( 4 ) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Any person who receives a debt collection letter containing a violation of the FDCPA is a victim of abusive practice. See 15 usc 1692 ( e ) This is the 2nd time I have disputed the validity of this debt, and for this debt collector to cease further Communication with me through any median. I have sent my document to them certified mail with return recipe to keep a file if litigation process is needed on XX/XX/XXXX. I the original creditor I am requesting actual and statutory damages brought by Defendant AD ASTRA RECOVERY SERVICES INC for violating the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT, 15 U.S.C 1692 et seq Which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices this is a violation of 15 usc 1692g ( 5 ). 15 usc 1692e ( 10 ) prohibits the \" use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. I request all further collection efforts against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the accounts and any negative credit reporting be removed off any database. In addition, to the damages I am requesting five thousand five hundred ( 5,500 ) to settle. If this offer is not accepted, my next step will be taking this case to legal proceeding to litigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-08T04:52:18.000Z","issue":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"84116","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4283830","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CURO Intermediate Holdings","date_received":"2021-04-08T04:52:14.000Z","state":"UT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This form provided information that would allow the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> to determine the minimum amount he or she owes at the time of the receipt of the letter, this letter failed to provide information that would allow, I to determine what will I need to pay to resolve the debt at the time of the receipt of the letter also this letter failed to provide information that would allow the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> to detriment the amount of billing fees owed and whether any additional billing"]},"sort":[14.878777,"4283830"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4281009","_score":14.835228,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, to whom it may concern my name is XXXX XXXX ( consumer ). I am A federally protected consumer as defined in the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C 1692a ( 3 ) that resign in Utah ; I would like to thank you for the opportunity to let me address my concerns regarding the third party ; AD ASTRA RECOVERY Services INC ( ARS ) Debt collector define in 15 usc 1692a, engaged in the business of a collection agency, using telephone & mail to collect consumer debts for profit, in collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. ARS has infringed upon my rights to privacy under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( a ). On XX/XX/XXXX I entered a consumer credit transaction incurred for personal, family or household purposes, namely a personal consumer loan with Speedy cash, with my accepted credit card presume to 15 usc 1602 a ( I ) under the Truth in Lending Act. In the initial communication SPEEDY CASH has failed to disclose who they are, and what their initial intentions were to attempt to collect a debt, failure to disclose this information is a violation under 15 usc 1692e ( 11 ). Speed cash has used an elaborate scheme to hide costs and take advantage of vulnerable borrowers. I XXXX XXXX ( consumer ) Have noticed Speedy Cash has took a Tax write off on this Charge off account and sold the Debt to AD ASTRA RECOVERY Services INC. Upon my finding and belief, as of the date of exhibit A, the alleged speed cash loan debt and Ad Astra had not Purchased the receivables associated with the account. XXXX ( debt collector ) has communicated with me in connection with the collection of a debt which is a violation Under the FDCPA 15 usc 1692c ( a ) I would like to ask how my location information was acquired, and who provided you consent to communicate with I ( consumer ) which I would like XXXX  to provide me my written consent of such action, If the request can not be provided, this will be in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( a ). During my initial communication with XXXX, I requested the debt collector to provide me validation of debt, whom the Original creditor was on that debt and to Cease all further collection efforts regarding to the accounts under federal law 15 usc 1692C ( c ). On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX has communicated with me defined by 15 usc 1692 ( 2 ) with Statements Exhibit A is a form debt collector use to attempt to collect alleged debt. These form fails to validate the request I asked for and the cease & desist request I made clearly with them. This letter was misleading and confusing because it fails to provide the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. This form provided information that would allow the least sophisticated consumer to determine the minimum amount he or she owes at the time of the receipt of the letter, this letter failed to provide information that would allow, I to determine what will I need to pay to resolve the debt at the time of the receipt of the letter also this letter failed to provide information that would allow the least sophisticated consumer to detriment the amount of billing fees owed and whether any additional billing fees will be added, the date they be added, & the amount that be added. XXXX used symbols other than the debt collectors address on envelope, which a debt collector may only use the business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business. Which is a violation of 15 usc 1692F ( 8 ). Also, XXXX have accused me ( consumer ) of this alleged debt which is a violation under federal law 15 usc 1692b ( 1 ) ( 2 ) In Exhibit A, XXXX states that AD Astra reviewed its accounts information with its clints but does not identify who Ad Astas client is, nor state the name of the current creditor. In Exhibit A XXXX states that Speedy Cash is the Original Creditor But also states that the debt was assigned on XX/XX/XXXX which in fact this firm was just the creditor of the credit sale. Although the letter identified the correct creditor, it did not identify it as the current creditor. It instead labeled the creditor as the Original Creditor. The letter therefore was misleading to whom the Original creditor is not the current Creditor. This debt collector clearly did not make it clear that the original creditor is the current creditor. XXXX  has harassed me to coerce payment on a debt that they have advertised to me which has ruined my reputation by furnishing my information publicly without my consent this Is a violation of 15 usc 1692d ( 1 ) ( 4 ) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. Any person who receives a debt collection letter containing a violation of the FDCPA is a victim of abusive practice. See 15 usc 1692 ( e ) This is the 2nd time I have disputed the validity of this debt, and for this debt collector to cease further Communication with me through any median. I have sent my document to them certified mail with return recipe to keep a file if litigation process is needed on XX/XX/XXXX. I the original creditor I am requesting actual and statutory damages brought by Defendant AD ASTRA RECOVERY SERVICES INC for violating the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT, 15 U.S.C 1692 et seq Which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices this is a violation of 15 usc 1692g ( 5 ). 15 usc 1692e ( 10 ) prohibits the \" use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. I request all further collection efforts against I ( XXXX ) regarding the accounts and any negative credit reporting be removed off any database. In addition, to the damages I am requesting five thousand five hundred ( 5,500 ) to settle. If this offer is not accepted, my next step will be taking this case to legal proceeding to litigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-08T04:52:10.000Z","issue":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"84116","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4281009","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CURO Intermediate Holdings","date_received":"2021-04-08T04:38:35.000Z","state":"UT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This form provided information that would allow the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> to determine the minimum amount he or she owes at the time of the receipt of the letter, this letter failed to provide information that would allow, I to determine what will I need to pay to resolve the debt at the time of the receipt of the letter also this letter failed to provide information that would allow the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> to detriment the amount of billing fees owed and whether any additional billing"]},"sort":[14.835228,"4281009"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4281125","_score":14.709857,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, to whom it may concern my name is XXXX XXXX XXXX consumer ). I am A federally protected consumer s defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) that resigns in Utah ; I would like to thank you for the opportunity to let me address my concerns regarding the third party ; I.C. system ( I.C. ) Debt collector define in 15 usc 1692a, engaged in the business of a collection agency, using telephone & mail to collect consumer debts for profit, I.C. has infringed upon my rights to privacy under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( a ). On XX/XX/XXXX I entered a consumer credit transaction with XXXX XXXX with my accepted credit card presume to 15 usc 1602 a ( I ) under the Truth in Lending Act. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a debt as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 5 ) In the initial communication XXXX XXXX as failed to disclose who they are, and what their initial intentions were to attempt to collect a debt, failure to disclose this information is a violation under 15 usc 1692e ( 11 ). I XXXX XXXX ( consumer ) Have noticed XXXX XXXX has took a Tax write off on this Charge off account and sold the Debt to I.C. system. I.C then took my information, furnished an alleged debt for {$800.00} to the consumer reporting agency without my prior consent. I.C. system ( debt collector ) has communicated with me in connection with the collection of a debt which is a violation Under the FDCPA 15 usc 1692c ( a ) I would like to ask how my location information was acquired, and who provided you consent to communicate with I ( consumer ) which I would like I.C system to provide me my written consent of such action, If the request can not be provided, this will be in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( a ). During my initial communication with I.C. system I requested the debt collector to provide me validation of debt, whom the Original creditor was on that debt and to Cease all further collection efforts regarding to the accounts under federal law 15 usc 1692C ( c ). On XX/XX/XXXX I.C. systems have communicated with me defined by 15 usc 1692 ( 2 ) with Statements not respecting the validation request I asked for and the cease & desist request I made clearly with them. This letter was misleading and confusing because it fails to provide the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. This form provided information that would allow the least sophisticated consumer to determine the minimum amount that i owed at the time of the receipt of the letter. This letter failed to provide information that would allow, I to determine what will I need to pay to resolve the debt at the time of the receipt of the letter also this letter failed to provide information that would allow the least sophisticated consumer to detriment the amount of billing fees owed and whether any additional billing fees will be added, the date they be added, & the amount that be added. The tender of an illusory settlement is a deceptive means to attempt to coerce a payment from the debtor. .I.C. system used symbols other than the debt collectors address on envelope, which a debt collector may only use the business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business. Which is a violation of 15 usc 1692F ( 8 ). Also I.C. system have accused me ( consumer ) of this alleged debt which is a violation under federal law 15 usc 1692b ( 1 ) ( 2 ) I.C. system has harassed me to coerce payment on a debt that they have advertised to me which has ruined my reputation by furnishing my information publicly without my consent this Is a violation of 15 usc 1692d ( 1 ) ( 4 ) I have found in my investigation that I.C. has claimed the original creditor was XXXX XXXX which in fact this firm was just the creditor of the credit sale. The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. This is the 2nd time I have disputed the validity of this debt, and for this debt collector to cease further Communication with me through any median. I have sent my document to them certified mail with return recipe to keep a file, if litigation process is needed. I the original creditor I am requesting actual and statutory damages brought by Defendant I.C. system for violating the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT, 15 U.S.C 1692 et seq Which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices this is a violation of 15 usc 1692g ( 5 ). I request all further collection efforts against I XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the accounts and any negative credit reporting be removed of any database. In addition, to the damages I am requesting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to settle. If this offer is not accepted, my next step will be taking this case to legal proceeding to litigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-08T07:27:22.000Z","issue":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"84116","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4281125","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"I.C. System, Inc.","date_received":"2021-04-08T07:11:55.000Z","state":"UT","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This letter was <em>misleading</em> and confusing because it fails to provide the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. This form provided information that would allow the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> to determine the minimum amount that i owed at the time of the receipt of the letter."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[14.709857,"4281125"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17760799","_score":14.705604,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I transferred {$30000.00} into a SoFi high yield savings account after seeing SoFis promotional language stating Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY and Earn up to 4.30 % APY on the account opening page. These statements appeared prominently and implied that opening the account would provide access to the advertised APY. The conditions were not clearly presented on the pages I accessed when I signed up for the account. \n\nAfter depositing the funds, I discovered that my APY was conditional on meeting recurring XXXXday requirements that were not made clear upfront. The requirement shown to me only after depositing stated : To keep earning our highest APY *, at least XXXX account holder must complete XXXX of the following : Receive a direct deposit every XXXXDay Evaluation Period, Deposit {$5000.00} or more every XXXXDay Evaluation Period, Pay the SoFi XX/XX/XXXX subscription fee every XX/XX/XXXX days. This requirement was never presented clearly before my deposit. \n\nI contacted SoFi support. My initial message said : Hi. I need help immediately. The APY requirements on my account were not clearly disclosed when I opened it. I am filing a CFPB complaint about misleading presentation of the rate terms, and Im preparing to move all my funds out as soon as they clear unless this can somehow be resolved. \n\nWhen the agent asked what requirements I was referring to, I pasted their own APY condition text. I told them : I would never knowingly agree to a savings rate that requires paying a subscription fee. That is XXXX of the least consumer-friendly practices Ive ever seen. The requirement was buried and absolutely not presented in a clear or prominent way. \n\nThe SoFi representative responded : Yes that is really the requirements of sofi to get the highest apy. \n\nLater, the supervisor said : These are the requirements for maintaining our highest available APY and they are not able to be changed. \n\nDuring the escalation process, I stated : It was not presented clearly on the pages I accessed to sign up for the account and requested a resolution. I asked them clearly for confirmation : I want confirmation that you will maintain my current APY for this evaluation period without requiring a SoFi XX/XX/XXXX subscription or any additional qualifying deposit. \n\nThey refused and reiterated that the APY conditions could not be changed. \n\nAt no point did SoFi offer to honor the APY they advertised at the time I deposited {$30000.00}, nor did they address the lack of clear disclosure during signup. Instead, they insisted the rate would only apply if I paid a subscription fee or met recurring deposit requirements. \n\nSoFis advertising ( Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY, Earn up to 4.30 % APY ) did not clearly disclose these paywalled conditions. The APY terms are only shown in fine print ( Earn up to 4.30 % APY on XXXX XXXX with a 0.70 % APY Boost Open a new SoFi Checking & Savings account and enroll in SoFi XX/XX/XXXX Rates variable, subject to change ), and these terms were not apparent during the signup flow. \n\nThis creates a misleading and deceptive impression that simply opening the account provides access to the advertised APY, when in reality the rate is locked behind ongoing requirements, including paying a subscription fee.\n\nI am withdrawing my funds from SoFi as a result and request that the CFPB review SoFis APY advertising and onboarding disclosures for compliance with federal truth-in-savings and unfair or deceptive practices standards. \n\nThe conduct described above is not only misleading in a common-sense consumer understanding, it also aligns closely with what federal courts and regulators have repeatedly held to be deceptive under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( XXXX ), the Truth in Savings Act ( XXXX ), and the long-standing FTC Act deception standard incorporated into CFPB enforcement. \n\nUnder XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, a practice is deceptive if : A representation, omission, or practice is likely to mislead a consumer The consumers interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances The misleading information is material Every part of this standard fits SoFis APY advertising. \n\nXXXX. Likely to mislead hidden APY conditions courts reject Federal courts have consistently held that financial advertisements are deceptive when the headline promise is contradicted by buried or unclear conditions. \nExamples include : FTC v. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX held a marketing claim deceptive because the \" net impression '' of the offer misled consumerseven though technical conditions existed somewhere in the fine print. The court emphasized that what matters is the overall takeaway, not isolated disclaimers. \n\nCFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX ) The court affirmed that financial offers are deceptive when key conditions are buried in secondary text, making consumers reasonably believe a benefit is available when it is not. \n\nCFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ) The deception finding turned on how a company structured its product so consumers were inevitably misled despite the existence of detailed terms elsewhere. \n\nSoFis use of Earn up to 4.30 % APY in bold, large fonts while burying the SoFi XXXX condition below the fold fits the exact pattern these cases condemn. \n\nXXXX. Reasonable consumer standard headline APY dominates The CFPB applies a reasonable consumer standard, not a sophisticated financial-professional standard. \n\nThe big bold headline Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY defines the reasonable consumers understanding. \n\nHigh Yield Savings Account - Op Courts have repeatedly ruled that : Consumers read headlines, not footnotes Fine-print or Terms apply language does not cure a misleading headline See : FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) underlying district court findings emphasized that consumers initial takeaway controls. \n\nIn re XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( FTC ) disclaimers can not take back the promise made upfront. \n\nA reasonable consumer opening an account after reading earn up to 4.30 % APY would not assume they must pay a subscription fee everyXX/XX/XXXX days to maintain the rate. \n\nXXXX. Materiality APY is a core financial term APY is XXXX of the most material terms in retail banking. \n\nUnder XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and CFPB official commentary : Interest rate disclosures must be clear and conspicuous at the time of advertising. \n\nMaterial conditions affecting APY must be disclosed in close proximity to the APY statement Advertisements may not present a higher APY without immediately and clearly disclosing conditions required to obtain that APY SoFis presentation separates : Headline : Supercharge your savings and earn up to 4.30 % APY Hidden condition : Enroll in SoFi XX/XX/XXXXPay the SoFi XX/XX/XXXX subscription fee every XX/XX/XXXX days These conditions are nowhere near the headline, violating the proximity requirement recognized in XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ). \n\nXXXX. The net impression test the nail in the coffin Both the FTC and CFPB rely on the net impression test, reaffirmed in : FTC XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) CFPB XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX. XXXX ) Even if all SoFis terms existed somewhere on the page, what matters is the impression created in the consumers mind by the marketing. \n\nThe net impression of the SoFi page is that opening the account allows consumers to earn the 4.30 percent APY. The fact that the rate is actually contingent on : paying a subscription fee or repeatedly hitting deposit rules or maintaining direct deposits changes the substance of the offer. \n\nCourts uniformly treat this mismatch as deceptive. \n\nXXXX. Paywalling an APY is itself unusual and material Courts have held that when a financial institution conditions a benefit on non-standard or surprising requirements, those requirements must be clearly and prominently disclosed. \n\nSee : CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) undisclosed non-standard conditions on financial benefits were ruled deceptive and unfair. \n\nA bank requiring a subscription fee to obtain an interest rate is non-standard in retail banking and requires unmistakable disclosure. \n\nXXXX. Misleading by omission buried conditions are treated as deception The law recognizes deceptive omission when a company fails to disclose material restrictions that would affect a consumers decision. \n\nThis was reaffirmed in : FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) SoFis failure to place its APY conditions clearly alongside the APY statement is an omission that directly impacts a consumers financial decision precisely the type regulators target. \n\nConclusion ( for the CFPB reviewer ) SoFis advertising meets every element of a deceptive financial practice under the CFPA, violates the clear and conspicuous requirements of the Truth in Savings Act, and creates a misleading net impression under binding federal case law. Conditioning an advertised APY on a hidden subscription fee or recurring direct-deposit requirements is not standard industry practice and must be disclosed prominently at the point where the APY is advertised.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-21T02:12:24.000Z","issue":"Opening an account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"21060","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17760799","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-21T01:27:30.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive terms that were advertised"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX, a practice is <em>deceptive</em> if : A representation, omission, or practice is likely to <em>mislead</em> a <em>consumer</em> The <em>consumers</em> interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances The <em>misleading</em> information is material Every part of this standard fits SoFis APY advertising. \n\nXXXX. Likely to <em>mislead</em> hidden APY conditions courts reject Federal courts have consistently held that financial advertisements are <em>deceptive</em> when the headline promise is contradicted by buried or unclear conditions."]},"sort":[14.705604,"17760799"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3464242","_score":13.892739,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I originally applied for a short sale on XX/XX/XXXX and was approved. I presented 3 offers and unfortunately SPS took too long to process offers. All three buyers withdrew their offers. The real estate agents and potential buyers were disappointed because SPS has been completely disagreeable, disrespectful, difficult, extreme inability to be flexible, display of unprofessional business practices and the lack of knowledge/training of customer service agents giving wrong information which caused delay in the process. Also SPS has a bad reputation in the industry. On the Consumer Affairs website SPS has year to date 76 reviews and all of them have a one star rating, which is the lowest. The XXXX XXXX XXXX has 334 complains in the past three years. In the past 12 months SPS 140 closed complains. This information was very discouraging to agents and buyers. I did not have any control of any of those factors which hurt me on the long run. I was the victim of SPS poor reputation and unfair lending practices. \n\nI need to sell my property on a short sale because I had financial issues due to medical expenses. The FDCPA is broadly interpreted to protect debtors, because all consumers, even those who have mismanaged their financial affairs resulting in default on their debt, deserve the right to be treated in a reasonable and civil manner. The FDCPA lists several practices that are illegal, including using misleading or false statements to collect a debt, from the standpoint of the least sophisticated consumer. SPS have engaged in unlawful and deceptive acts, practices and misconduct in connection with the ownership and servicing of my residential mortgage loan, including, but not limited to charging unlawful inspection charges. SPS uses false, deceptive, misleading, unfair and unconscionable practices. \n\nMy loan was sold / transfer on XX/XX/XXXX to SPS. The loan was a conventional loan without PMI with a principal balance of {$320000.00}. As of XX/XX/XXXX it has a principal balance of {$480000.00} and a payoff of {$580000.00}. \n\nSince I stared the short sale process I have made 657 ( SIX HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN ) phone calls trying to get SPS to cooperate and speed the process up so the buyers would not get frustrated with the process. \n\nMost of the time I would get the wrong information from the SPS representative. I would follow the instructions given to me and when I would call to follow up and check status of short sale I would be told that the information given to me by the SPS representative was wrong and I had to start all over. I called for my relationship manager XXXX XXXX 46 ( FORTY SIX ) times and was not able to reach him. \nI left messages for Mr. XXXX to call me back and I only received 4 ( FOUR ) returned calls. Eight times I was told that I did not have a relationship manager and they could not explain why Mr. XXXX was no longer my relationship manager and the reason my file did not have one. \n\nI have been told several times that I only get one shot at the Short Sale process but your letters disclose the opposite. All the other offers did not work out because of SPS not cooperating, lack of consistency on their requirements, unfair lending practices, employees lacking the experience to deal with certain loan issues and complicating and delaying process. \n\nAccording to your disclosures the property appraised at {$390000.00}. We have an offer in the amount of {$390000.00} and buyer has been approve and ready to close. We have provided all that information to SPS. \n\nIt is very unfortunate that SPS is discriminating against my race and national origin and has treated me very unfair in the process. I feel you have violated fair lending practices. \n\nSPS is willing to foreclose on a property than give me the opportunity to sell property on a short sale for the current appraise value. If SPS forecloses on this property it will not sale for the appraised value and SPS will have to pay all the expenses of foreclosing on property. \n\nSTOP DISCRIMINATING AND ENFORCE FAIR LENDING PRACTICES. PLEASE REVALUATE MY APPEAL AND DO THE FAIR AND RIGHT THING.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-12-12T16:59:27.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"70003","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3464242","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2019-12-10T22:11:06.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The FDCPA is broadly interpreted to protect debtors, because all <em>consumers</em>, even those who have mismanaged their financial affairs resulting in default on their debt, deserve the right to be treated in a reasonable and civil manner. The FDCPA lists several practices that are illegal, including using <em>misleading</em> or false statements to collect a debt, from the standpoint of the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em>."]},"sort":[13.892739,"3464242"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7249163","_score":12.005632,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FDCPA Fair Debt Collection Practices Act FTC Federal Trade Commission CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notification from XXXX Reporting Credit that Credit Corp Solutions added a new collection XXXXXXXX for Account Reference # XXXX # XXXX which is considered continued collection activity. I am disputing for all of the reasons listed below : 1. The XXXX is scheduled to expire on XXXX \n2. I am in the middle of a mortgage closing process and CCS is suddenly using this XXXX as leverage to intimidate me to pay the outstanding balance. Parking this account will result in sub-prime rates and loan terms. ( FDCPA violation ) 3. I am currently a defendant in a frivolous debt lawsuit from CCS ( Plaintiff ) for another alleged debt. In that case, CCS has yet to dismiss the case or set a trial date during the legal process filed in XXXX. I have been to court hearings at least 6 times and will be attending a 7th date on XX/XX/XXXX with no resolution. The plaintiff has violated my due process rights throughout the entire legal process by not showing up at hearing dates and have never sent me official notifications for court dates. To date, CCS attorneys have neither dismissed the lawsuit or scheduled a trial date which is an indication that the suit is frivolous. I have spent over {$7000.00} in travel expenses since I no longer live in Illinois and am a resident of South Carolina. As part of my legal defense for a new suit against CCS, I will be using the claim that CCS is retaliating against me for the current debt lawsuit by adding a new negative XXXX to my credit reporting.\n\n4. I will claim that CCS parked the account on my credit reports with malicious intent to cause financial harm to my credit due to : 1 ) The current mortgage loan approval process or 2 ) As retaliation for the current CCS debt lawsuit which I am defending. Either way, why would CCS choose now to submit a negative reporting ( collection account ) with only 4 months remaining on the XXXX for any reason other than malintent?\n\n5. CCS has never properly validated this account. As part of debt validation, CCS provided a blank stock version of the Loan Agreement with blank details during validation as well as a fabricated account statement. The Truth In Lending Statement is only an ESTIMATE. ( See attachments ) 6. CCS reported a balance of {$1200.00}, a balance which has never been submitted to myself or validated by CCS. CCSs original claims was for {$960.00}.\n\n7. CCS did not inherit the right to earn interest nor are they not allowed to collect interest on a charged off account. The original creditor stopped charging interest after Charge-off ( FDCPA Violation ) 8. And if even CCS were allowed to charge interest, they are required to provide a monthly periodic account statement outlining the charges. CCS has never provided such statements ( FDCPA Violation ) 9. The original debt sale affidavit only states a pool of charged accounts and does not provide any proof that my individual account was purchased from XXXX XXXX ( See Court Case CCS vs XXXX XXXX XXXX ) or does not prove any chain of assignment or any mention of this specific account 10. Given the above circumstances, I will not hesitate to see legal recourse and file suit against CCS for : a. Financial harm due to lower mortgage rates or sub-prime lending options as this is the only collection on my report b. Full amount for any difference due to sub-prime rates c. In addition to financial recourse, I will be seeking damages for any duress caused from my interactions with CCS .\n\nd. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the higher courts has set precedent for illegal debt collection practices by lawsuit mills and debt buyers in which CCS falls into this same category of debt collection practices ; i. CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Case No. XXXX ) ii. CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Civil Action No. XXXX  ) iii. CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX  11. Refer to CCS vs XXXX XXXX XXXX ( OK Supreme Court Case XXXX XXXX/Lower Court Case XXXX  : Photocopies of barely legible mass-produced documents arent enough to compel payment of a past-due debt.\n\nCCS failed to provide authenticated exhibits : o The appellate judges observed that in its petition for relief, Credit Corp Solutions states that XXXX, a XXXX industrial bank using the web-based platform XXXX XXXX XXXX , provided a loan to XXXX.\n\no CCS wrote that it purchased XXXX loan from XXXX, and subsequently XXXX defaulted on the loan and thus became indebted to Credit Corp Solutions.\n\no The court file contains a photocopy of an Original Debt Sale Affidavit signed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX of XXXX XXXX ; the letter is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, and was typed in XXXX XXXX, California. In the notarized affidavit, XXXX states that on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX sold a pool of charged off accounts to CCS.\n\no Credit Corp submitted seven exhibits that constituted the evidentiary basis for its alleged undisputed facts. XXXX attorney, XXXX, disputed them as inadmissible. Those exhibits did not qualify as business records because there was no accompanying affidavit or testimony as required by state law, she pointed out. \no The Court of Civil Appeals concurred because CCS failed to authenticate its exhibits with written declarations. \nInconsistent terms o The Civil Appeals court pointed to inconsistent contractual terms. For example, the loan agreement includes a principal balance between {$1000.00} and {$35000.00}, a loan term of either three or five years, and the truth-in-lending disclosure includes an interest rate of 21.69 % but the interest rate on the purported payment schedule includes an interest rate of 19.24 %. \no A contract that is indefinite and uncertain in its terms can not be enforced and therefore is invalid, state courts ruled in a 1946 lawsuit.\n\no CCS produced no admissible evidence proving it had obtained all rights to a valid contract from a person entitled to enforce it, XXXX insisted. \no The length of the loan agreement necessitated that XXXX sign a contract, but none of the exhibits CCS submitted includes XXXX signature, the appellate judges noticed. \no In this case there is no contract or verified evidence that XXXX alleged loan was purchased by Credit Corp, the Court of Civil Appeals wrote. Without evidentiary support showing it is the party in interest, Credit Corp does not have standing to bring this lawsuit. \no Consequently, the trial judges summary judgment in favor of CCS was reversed. \n\nAt this time, I will also inform you that CCS is reporting invalidated information to any of the three major credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX ), this action constitutes fraud under both federal and state laws. Due to this fact, any negative mark found on any of my credit reports by CCS, I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against CCS for the following : Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. I am sure CCS will agree that non-compliance with this request could put CCS in serious legal trouble with the CFPB, FTC and other state or federal agencies.\n\nSince CCS as not provided the proper documentation within my rights, I will require that CCS delete the reported account immediately. If CCS fails to delete the account, I will consult with my current legal counsel for suit as well as reaching to FTC and the offices of Attorney General within South Carolina. This includes any listing of any information to a credit-reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated. All references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.\n\nIf CCS does not delete any negative XXXX reporting immediately, I will not hesitate to file a lawsuit for damages for both alleged debts ( Current lawsuit and negative XXXX reporting account ) First Affirmative Defense Alleged Debtor denies the balance owed due to a variance in Demand Letters and insufficient details from CCS ( FDCPA Violation/Dodd-Frank Act/FTC Act ) during the initial validation period a. On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor received the initial Demand Letter from CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS ( CCS ) INC which stated : 1. all rights, title, and interest in the above listed debt have been assigned to CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC 2. Because of interest, late charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater.\n\n3. The CCS is not entitled to interest, late charges and fees since the original account is a Charged-Off balance. \nb. On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor requested the following documentation for Debt Validation which CCS failed to provide : 1. Agreement with the original creditor that authorized CCS to collect on the alleged debt 2. Complete Payment History on this account along with an accounting of all additional charges being assessed 3. CCS is licensed to collect in the State of Illinois 4. CCSs License Numbers and Registered Agent c. On XXXX CCS responded to initial request for Debt Validation which included : 1. Written statement on CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC letterhead : we confirm that on XXXX XXXX XXXX all rights, title and interest in the above listed debt have been assigned to CCS. Therefore, no bill of sale agreement was provided.\n\n2. CCS provided an account statement fabricated on CCSs letterhead with a starting balance as of XX/XX/XXXX. Since the CCS failed to provide a bill of sale agreement nor a complete account history from the original creditor, the start date and balance were ambiguous and confusing to the least sophisticated customer. \nd. On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor sent a 2nd request for the following documentation for Debt Validation which CCS failed to provide prior to Summons and Complaint : 1. Agreement between original creditor and CCS that authorizes CCS to collect on this alleged debt 2. Agreement bearing my signature stating that I agreed to assume the debt 3. CCS is licensed to collect in the state of Illinois 4. CCSs License Number and Registered Agent 5. Agreement that I entered into a binding contract with CCS ( also known as Repudiation ).\n\n6. Explanation on how the CCS calculated the alleged debt e. On XXXX, CCS responded with Second Response to Dispute stating : We are of the firm view that our initial response is adequate to demonstrate how your liability has arisen in this matter and to confirm the accounts assignment to CCS. Should you have any genuine concerns with respect to the veracity of the accounts assignment to CCS, we invite you to confirm this directly with the original credit provider. \n\nAs the appropriate documentation has now been provided to verify the debt, CCS has closed your dispute. Please note that further communication of the same nature may not be responded to.\n\nIn the said letter, the CCS claimed that the Outstanding Balance Owed equals {$970.00}. In the said letter, CCS closed the Alleged debtors dispute and considered the matter closed. The CCS requested additional documentation such as Affidavits of Fraud and Police Reports to be provided by the Alleged debtor. Per FDCPA rules, it is the accountability of the CCS to provide accurate debt validation.\n\nfXXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor sent 2nd request for debt validation g. CCS misstated a debt which may constitute a false statement in an attempt to collect a debt which is an FDCPA Violation with no tie back to any Account Summary : h. While it is typical for collection letters to state an amount due or an balance outstanding, it is not typical for a letter to state that the amount owed is as of a specific date as such language would imply the potential of a different balance on a different date. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Dist. XXXX XXXXXXXX ( \" If a collection letter is ambiguous as to interest, then it violates 1692e. Alleged debtor recognizes that ambiguity can be indicative of a misleading or deceptive communication. But Alleged debtor compels the conclusion that any ambiguity as to post-dated accruals in a collection notice gives rise to a claim under the general prohibition of 1692e even if the ambiguity does no harm or even inures to the benefit of the debtor. '' Language such as the \" Balance Outstanding '' is insufficient disclosure to a debtor that her balance is either dynamic or static.\n\ni. The FDCPA requires debt collectors, when notifying consumers of their account balance, to disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees ; failure to include such disclosures would harm consumers such as the Alleged debtor who may hold the reasonable but mistaken belief, that timely payment will satisfy their debts and it would abrogate the Congressional purpose of full and fair disclosure to consumers that is embodied in Section 1692e.\n\nj. Collection notices that state only the Balance Outstanding, but do not disclose that the balance might increase due to interest and fees, are misleading within the meaning of Section 1692e.\n\nk. The CCS violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) for misrepresenting the amount of the debt owed by the Defendent.\n\nl. 15 U.S.C. 1692e of the FDCPA provides : A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section : ( 2 ) The false representation of -- ( A ) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or ( 10 ) the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. \n\nm. CCSs demand letters are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e ( 2 ), and 1692e ( 10 ), for failing to clearly state the correct amount of the debt, which is due and owing, by implying that a payment sooner rather than later will be more economical for the consumer and by employing false, deceptive, and misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt.\n\nn. Alleged debtor suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the CCS.\n\no. Alleged debtor suffered actual harm by being the target of the CCSs misleading debt collection communications. \np. CCS violated the Alleged debtors right not to be the target of misleading debt collection communications.\n\nq. CCS violated the Alleged debtors right to a truthful and fair debt collection process.\n\nr. CCSs communications ( via XXXX reporting ) were designed to cause the debtor to suffer a harmful disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to CCSs collection efforts. \ns. The FDCPA ensures that consumers are fully and truthfully apprised of the facts and of their rights, the act enables them to understand, make informed decisions about, and participate fully and meaningfully in the debt collection process. The purpose of the FDCPA is to provide information that helps consumers to choose intelligently. The CCSs false representations misled the Alleged debtor in a manner that deprived Alleged debtor of her right to enjoy these benefits and these materially misleading statements trigger liability under section 1692e of the Act.\n\nt. These deceptive communications additionally violated the FDCPA since they frustrate the Alleged debtors ability to intelligently choose her response. \n\n\nSecond Affirmative Defense Affirmative Defense : Debt Buyer Can not State Prejudgment Interest Owed for Period After Debt Charged Off. \nWhile charging off a debt does not extinguish the consumers obligation, card issuers often have a voluntary policy of not charging interest on a debt for the period after a charge-off, in part because this may eliminate their obligation to continue sending out periodic statements. If the creditor has waived the right to such interest, a debt buyer assignee can not seek such interest either. ( 1 See National Consumer Law Center, Collection Actions 5.2.3.4 ( 3d ed. 2014 ), updated at XXXX 2 See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). See also National Consumer Law Center, Collection Actions 5.2.3.5 ( 3d ed. XXXX ), updated at XXXX  ) Debt Buyers Statement That Prejudgment Interest Owed Results in FDCPA Liability At least one debt buyer has sought to evade this prohibition by seeking not contract interest after the charge-off, but statutory prejudgment interest. The Sixth Circuit on XX/XX/XXXX has just ruled that filing a complaint stating that demanding prejudgment interest is owed in this context violates the FDCPA. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at *10 ( 6th Cir. XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Interpreting Kentuckys usury statute, the Sixth Circuit found that the original credit agreement had replaced the statutory prejudgment interest rate with the interest rate specified in the credit card contract. The court ruled that, under Kentucky law, the statutory prejudgment interest rate was not revived when the original creditor waived its right to collect interest at the contract rate, saying the creditor can not recover the right it bargained away simply because it later chose to waive the right for which it bargained. ( Ky. Rev. Stat. 360.010 ( 1 ). ) A debt buyer can not acquire a right to statutory interest that its assignor did not possess. \nWhile under Kentucky law prejudgment interest may be awarded by Kentucky courts in certain cases as a matter of equity, the Sixth Circuit distinguished the debt buyers complaintnoting that the debt buyer asserted its entitlement to prejudgment interest as a factual matter rather than including a request for interest in the prayer for relief. \n\nHolding that the FDCPA applies to claims made in a state court collection suit and that the content of the debt buyers complaint, like any alleged FDCPA violation, must be viewed from the standpoint of the least sophisticated consumer, the court found violations of 1692e ( 2 ) 5 and 1692f ( 1 ) 6 to be adequately alleged. Noting that the XXXX XXXX had previously concluded that complaints and other court filings may constitute threats under the FDCPA, the court also concluded that the least sophisticated consumer could take the debt buyers statement that it was entitled to prejudgment interest as a threat under 1692e ( 5 ).\n\n( 15 U.S.C.A. 1692e ( 2 ) ( The false representation of ( A ) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt ) ; 15 U.S.C.A. 1692f ( 1 ) ( The collection of any amount ( including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation ) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. ) ; 15 U.S.C.A. 1692e ( 5 ) ( The threat to take any action that can not legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. ). ) Third Affirmative Defense Language is confusing and vague in the initial validation notices for both CCS.\n\nPayment instructions are vague or non-existent in the initial validation notices for both CCS and CCSs Attorney.\n\nInitial Validation Notices do not specify a payment due date or address to send payment to for both CCS and CCSs Attorney. \nBalances Owed varies for each Demand Letter leading to ambiguity and confusion for the least sophisticated consumer. \n\nFourth Affirmative Defense Affirmative Defense : CCS used verbatim Safe Harbor language in its dunning letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor received the initial validation notice ( i.e., dunning letter ) from CCS which included XXXX XXXX language on a Charged-Off account. \n\n1. Dunning Letter from CCS stated, As of the date of this letter, you owe {$960.00}. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write the undersigned or call XXXX. \n2. The CCS is not entitled to interest, late charges and fees since the original account is a Charged-Off balance.\n\nThe U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ( covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin ) ruled that a debt collector who used the Seventh Circuits recommended safe harbor language in its dunning letter to a debtor violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Court determined that the debt collectors use of the safe harbor language was deceptive when applied to the facts of the case. The dunning letter stated that the debtor might owe late charges and other charges when, in fact, the debt collector could not impose such charges. Therefore, the Court concluded that the debt collector was not entitled to safe harbor. \nIn XXXX, the Seventh Circuit took the unusual step of drafting specific language for debt collectors to use in their dunning letters. This safe harbor language advises debtors that : As of the date of this letter, you owe $ [ the exact amount due ]. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write the undersigned or call XXXX [ phone number ]. \nIn XXXX, the Court that authored the safe harbor language has made it clear that the safe harbor is not completely safe. In that case, the debt collector used the Seventh Circuits safe harbor language thinking that by simply using the language it was immune from liability under the FDCPA. The Court disagreed, stating that a debt collector can not copy and paste the safe harbor language. The Court explained that use of the safe harbor language created by the Court is not the same thing as complying with the FDCPA. The language used must be tailored to the facts of the case. A debt collector is only entitled to safe harbor protection if the information he furnishes is accurate and he does not obscure it by adding confusing other information ( or misinformation ). Because the debt collector in the XXXX case used the safe harbor late charges and other charges language, despite the fact that late charges and other charges were not permitted by law, the Seventh Circuit determined that the debt collector failed to comply with the FDCPA. \nThe debt collector must match the recommended language to the facts of the case and tailor the language accordingly. Failing to tailor the language when required by the facts, likewise, takes away the safe harbor and has failed to comply with the FDCPA.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-13T18:03:21.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"297XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7249163","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Credit Corp Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-07-13T17:04:02.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Noting that the XXXX XXXX had previously concluded that complaints and other court filings may constitute threats under the FDCPA, the court also concluded that the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> could take the debt buyers statement that it was entitled to prejudgment interest as a threat under 1692e ( 5 )."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"]},"sort":[12.005632,"7249163"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14884348","_score":11.9409485,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Notice of Dispute and Demand for Validation of Debt Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) and Applicable Law To Whom It May Concern : This correspondence serves as a formal demand for validation of an alleged debt as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., specifically 1692g ( b ), 1692e, and 1692f, and pursuant to rights and remedies provided under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), including but not limited to 1-308, 3-501, and 9-210.\n\nBe advised that this is a notice of dispute regarding the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt you claim I owe. This letter is written in accordance with and demands compliance under : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) the right to dispute and seek validation ; 15 U.S.C. 1692e protection against false, deceptive, or misleading representations ; 15 U.S.C. 1692f protection from unfair and unconscionable collection means ; UCC 3-501 presentment and demand for proof of claim or instrument ; UCC 1-308 reservation of rights without prejudice ; UCC 9-210 demand for an accounting and full disclosure of obligation terms ; Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. full material disclosures ; Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices. Demand for Validation of Debt Pursuant to federal law, I hereby demand that you provide the following to validate the alleged debt, failing which you must cease collection and correct any adverse reporting : 1. The name and address of the original creditor, the full account number ( not redacted ), and a full itemized statement of the alleged account showing all debits and credits, including all charges, interest, fees, payments, and adjustments from inception.\n\n2. A certified copy of the original contract or promissory note bearing my signature, demonstrating that I agreed to assume liability for this specific alleged debt.\n\n3. Chain of title, including all assignments, transfers, or sales of the accountfully notarized and recordedto prove your legal standing and authority to collect.\n\n4. Proof of your license to collect debt in my state, including your bonding information, and the name and address of your registered agent.\n\n5. An affidavit or sworn statement under penalty of perjury from an authorized agent of the original creditor affirming the debts validity.\n\n6. If you claim to be a third-party debt buyer, provide a copy of the bill of sale or assignment agreement proving legal transfer of rights under applicable contract law.\n\n7. Proof of full compliance with the FDCPA, including initial notice within five days of first contact, and full disclosure of rights under 1692g ( a ).\n\n8. Copies of all material disclosures required by TILA at the time of the alleged origination.\n\n9. An explanation of how any alleged default or charge-off complies with 15 U.S.C. 1666 and whether such charge-off follows proper accounting practices under GAAP or FASB 140 .\n\nApplicable Case Law Supporting this Demand Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services , Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 ( 9th Cir. 2006 ) : Debt collectors are strictly liable for violations of the FDCPA ; compliance with its requirements is mandatory.\n\nFields v. Wilber Law Firm, 383 F.3d 562 ( 7th Cir. 2004 ) : Demands clarity and transparency in validation and collection notices.\n\nSpears v. Brennan, 745 N.E.2d 862 ( Ind. Ct. App. 2001 ) : Simply providing an account statement does not constitute sufficient validation.\n\nChaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 ( 4th Cir. 1999 ) : Debt validation requires verification, which includes detailed accounting and creditor identity.\n\nRosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218 ( 3d Cir. 2008 ) : Communications from a debt collector must not be misleading or confusing to the least sophisticated consumer.\n\nHeintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ) : Attorneys engaged in debt collection are also subject to the FDCPA.\n\nGonzalez v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 ( 9th Cir. 2011 ) : Failure to properly validate debt bars further collection efforts.\n\nReservation of Rights and Notice of Arbitration In accordance with UCC 1-308, I hereby reserve all rights, remedies, and defenses under commercial and constitutional law, without prejudice and without admission of liability.\n\nPlease be advised that continued collection activity or failure to validate the alleged debt constitutes a violation of federal law and may result in complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) under its authority in 12 U.S.C. 5565, the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and may be subject to mandatory arbitration, in accordance with your own consumer contract terms and Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq.\n\nAny further communication attempting to collect this debt without providing the demanded validation shall be construed as a willful violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) and deceptive conduct under 15 U.S.C. 1692e, and may trigger statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees.\n\nThis is a good-faith attempt to resolve this matter ; failure to comply within 30 days will be interpreted as your inability or refusal to validate the debt and a waiver of collection rights.\n\n-- - Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308 All rights reserved","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-25T13:15:30.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"33544","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14884348","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2025-07-25T13:08:35.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218 ( 3d Cir. 2008 ) : Communications from a debt collector must not be <em>misleading</em> or confusing to the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em>.\n\nHeintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ) : Attorneys engaged in debt collection are also subject to the FDCPA.\n\nGonzalez v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 ( 9th Cir. 2011 ) : Failure to properly validate debt bars further collection efforts."]},"sort":[11.9409485,"14884348"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2045406","_score":11.022252,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Yesterday my bank accounts as well as my XXXX year old son 's bank accounts were wiped clean from what was claimed to be a \" wage garnishment '' from a debt collection agency, Machol & Johannes , LLC. I had received a letter from them XXXX stating that they had filled a claim against me in the Washington Supreme Court and had \" summons '' stamped on the letter It went on to say that it was for the plaintiff, XXXX XXXX, for debt that was written off in XX/XX/XXXX. When I received that letter I called the court and asked them if there had in fact been a claim filed against me and I was told there was no claim. I then pulled my credit report- XX/XX/XXXX- to see if there was a XXXX XXXX XXXX on my report. There was not. I called Machol & Johannes , LLC to refute their claim of alleged debt. They stated that it was originally from a XXXX XXXX and that XXXX XXXX had purchased a portfolio of written off debt from a XXXX XXXX. As XXXX XXXX was also not on my credit report, I told them that I had called the court and that there was no claim filed as stated in the letter and that there was no record of any debt they were claiming that fell within the statute of limitations. I questioned if alleged debt was even mine considering I had no record of said credit card, and regardless that they were in violation of the FDCPA. I had absolute defense against alleged debt as it was no longer valid according to Washington States statue of limitations. I did not hear from them again until I received a letter on XXXX XXXX stating that it was in an attempt to collect alleged debt for XXXX XXXX and that I could call The Federal Trade Commission if I wanted to file a complaint about their methods. I did not contact them after receiving that letter since I believed that they had no legal grounds to pursue me, not did I contact the FTC for the same reason. ( The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict liability statute, and prohibits deceptive or misleading debt collection from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer. ) On XXXX XXXX, XXXX I was trying to purchase food for my son 's special needs diet and my debt card declined. I immediately check my bank to see that my entire balance including my son 's savings account balanced had been cleared out under a \" descriptive withdrawal- XXXX garnishment ''. Bank stated that they received a court order and gave me a number to call. That number lead me back to the debt collector, XXXX XXXX XXXX. LLC. \n\nMy complaint is that Machol & Johannes , LLC are in complete violation of the FDCPA. Their illegal actions have caused a severe hardship on myself and my son. It is directly impacting my ability to work and continue my income. It is affecting my future earnings. It is directly impacting my ability to feed my son. It is directly impacting my son 's health as he in currently under treatment with XXXX XXXX XXXX that I am unable to continue without the funds to do so. It is directly impacting my career, my clients, as well as my financial, emotional, and mental well being. Their illegal actions are having a harmful impact as my son 's mental, emotional, and physical well being. \n\nMy claim that their actions are illegal are based on the following : They threatened to sue me on debt that was too old to sue for. Claimed to have filed a judgment when they had not actually done so yet in the state of Washington. The FDCPA prohibits falsely representing the legal status or character of a debt. I told them to cease and desist yet they went ahead and filed a judgment against me for a debt that well exceeded the statute of limitations. There was no way for them to determine my funds were not exempt and yet they took everything out of my account and my sons leaving me at a {$0.00} balance.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-08-03T22:37:20.000Z","issue":"Taking/threatening an illegal action","sub_product":"Credit card","zip_code":"983XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2045406","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Machol & Johannes, LLC","date_received":"2016-08-03T22:37:20.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Seized/Attempted to seize property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I did not contact them after receiving that letter since I believed that they had no legal grounds to pursue me, not did I contact the FTC for the same reason. ( The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict liability statute, and prohibits <em>deceptive</em> or <em>misleading</em> debt collection from the perspective of the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em>. ) On XXXX XXXX, XXXX I was trying to purchase food for my son 's special needs diet and my debt card declined."]},"sort":[11.022252,"2045406"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3109857","_score":10.805105,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear XXXX and XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, CFPB, This is in response to your letter dated XX/XX/2018 via the CFPB portal. \n\nXXXX and XXXX demands monies for an alleged debt for which no proof of said debt, nor proof of ownership of said debt, has been verified and exhibited. XXXX and XXXX provide no relationship to said creditor hence could be viewed as fraudulent practice. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, the compliance attorney as shown on the letter from XXXX and XXXX explained they are not the owner of the said debt, but however failed to provide answers to my previous questions on fraud and the company violations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX may be qualified to explain what XXXX and XXXX did or with respect to its own records or data created during its time, but he can not establish a foundation for the bank data XXXX XXXX XXXX has no personal knowledge, XXXX XXXX was not a custodian of the banks records while they were with XXXX XXXX, and the records in the XXXX and XXXX possession do not qualify as ordinary business records. Because the electronic file transferred to XXXX and XXXX  did not come to XXXX XXXX XXXX as ordinary business records of XXXX XXXX, it can not be said that the data in this file became routine business records of XXXX and XXXX, maintained in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, the documents created by XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX and XXXX copy of the electronic file from the transferred accounts could not be said to be routine records maintained in the ordinary course of XXXX XXXX  business. This means that XXXX XXXX XXXX affidavit is inadmissible and XXXX XXXX did not have a foundation to be a witness to identify the source documents, the monthly statements or the cardholder agreement. Furthermore, XXXX XXXX avers that he is a compliance attorney of XXXX and XXXX. This means he is not an employee of XXXX bank or previous collection agency that have collected money from XXXX XXXX, and therefore has no cognizable standing as either a custodian or qualified person to establish the nature of file data as a business entity, without first establishing an adequate foundation of the witness as a person with actual knowledge, and then establishing how he obtained any of the knowledge to which he testifies. \n\nMost disturbingly is the fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX intentionally failed to respond to my accusation of re-aging debt which has been reported. \n\nThe Federal Trade Commission has stated that disclaiming the accuracy of information is common and recurrent ( FTC DEBT BUYER REPORT, supra note 2, at iii, 25 ). The Restatement ( Second ) of Torts describes a fraudulent misrepresentation as being when the maker does not have the confidence in the accuracy of his representation that he states or implies or knows that he does not have the basis for his representation that he states or implies. \n\n\nWithout a copy of the underlying contract, XXXX XXXX has no objective way to assess the veracity of Plaintiffs claim. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute intended to be liberally construed to protect consumers ( XXXX v. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir XXXX ). XXXX is not an element of proving an FDCPA violation. Misleading or deceptive representations made as a result of carelessness or negligence are actionable under the FDCPA. All a court needs to find for an FDCPA violation is that the communications from the debtto the consumer would have been misleading to the least sophisticated consumer ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). XXXX XXXX your communication was clearly misleading as evidence from your first letter dated XX/XX/XXXX to your most recent letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Your company alleged the account has not been reviewed and then on request for validation claimed it was reviewed. \n\nIn XXXX and XXXX submitted documents and brief there are two contradictory Balances which XXXX XXXX XXXX claims XXXX XXXX owes, in Exhibit 1 for {$1600.00} and in Exhibit 2 for {$1500.00}, demonstrating thereby a lack of sufficient indicia of trustworthiness for accounting in this instance to be considered reliable ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ). \n\n\nXXXX and XXXX alleges that XXXX XXXX retains XXXX and XXXX for the purpose of legal collections on the account on XX/XX/XXXX. Yet they wrote a letter 4 days after stating the it has not been personally reviewed. XXXX attached dated XX/XX/XXXX. Then XXXX and XXXX made it very clear that XXXX remains the owner and holder of the account. Which means XXXX and XXXX is a third party with lack of standing to sue. Since XXXX XXXX neither have a contract with XXXX and XXXX and neither have XXXX and XXXX  disputed that fact, I will suggest that XXXX and XXXX  identify and provide If XXXX XXXX  card company had made an agreement with the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, then XXXX XXXX is not a party to those terms. Just because an assignment clause exists in a credit agreement does not mean that it is sufficient to create a new obligation with the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. The assignment clause merely takes away the rights of XXXX XXXX  which is the original credit card company to collect if they decide to assign it to another company, in this case XXXX and XXXX XXXX   XXXX. The collection company would then have to offer you a new contract, you would have to agree to its terms, and you would finally have to sign this new contract. If you have not signed a contract with the collection company, you owe them nothing. \n\nXXXX XXXX is not an assignee for the purported agreement, and XXXX XXXX representing XXXX and XXXX has not offered any evidence to the contrary. \n\nXXXX and XXXX has not produced any evidence that supports any related claims or assumptions. XXXX and XXXX for the collection company has failed to produce any document that shows they are assigned by XXXX cards or any original credit card company has named them as assignees, nor has he even shown that the original credit card company has any knowledge of his actions, or that the original credit card company has even given this collection company, all rights and control.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-12-26T18:25:22.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"77498","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3109857","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Law Office of Michael J. Scott, PC","date_received":"2018-12-26T18:09:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All a court needs to find for an FDCPA violation is that the communications from the debtto the <em>consumer</em> would have been <em>misleading</em> to the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). XXXX XXXX your communication was clearly <em>misleading</em> as evidence from your first letter dated XX/XX/XXXX to your most recent letter dated XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[10.805105,"3109857"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4742509","_score":9.897971,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"This letter shall serve as a formal complaint against American Express regarding violations under the XXXX XXXX with their credit card product. The applicant applied for an American Express XXXX XXXX credit card online on XX/XX/XXXX. He called American Express customer service and explained to the representative that he wished to apply using his business LLC EIN, and there was no space on the application to enter his EIN. The American Express representative instructed the applicant to call back to American Express after the application was approved, and he received the card in the mail to add his business EIN. The applicant was approved and did receive the card in the mail. \n\nHowever, when the applicant called American Express to have his business LLC EIN added to the card, as instructed, he was advised by the American Express representative that the card was issued in his name solely as a sole proprietor and unable to add his business LLC EIN. The American Express representative then informed the applicant that he needed to activate the card before adding his business LLC EIN to the card. After the American Express representative activated the card, the representative told the applicant they could not add his business LLC EIN because the card was solely in his name. The applicant explained he did not want to activate the card because it was not the product he applied for and asked the representative why she activated it without his consent. The American Express representative replied, \" I am sorry I activated in error because I am new to this position. '' The applicant explained this was not the product he wished to obtain and advised that American Express misled him when the representative provided false information when told he would be able to add his business LLC EIN after the card arrived in the mail. American Express then told the applicant that he would need to cancel the American Express XXXX XXXX credit card issued solely in his name and reapply for another American Express XXXX XXXX credit card using his personal and information and business LLC EIN. The American Express representative then canceled the American Express XXXX XXXX credit card, and the applicant completed a second application at the directive of the American Express representative. The applicant provided his social security number, date of birth, home address, financial figures, and business LLC EIN. The representative gathered all the information and told the applicant to hold, and the call disconnected. \n\nThe applicant waited for someone from American Express to call him back after the call disconnected, but no one called back. The applicant called back to American Express and explained he was in the middle of submitting a second application due to misinformation provided by American Express. He also explained that the call disconnected without anyone from American Express calling him back. The American Express representative advised the applicant that the second application was denied as it was \" a ghost card and considered a duplicate application because American Express approved the first application. '' The applicant expressed that American Express 's actions were unfair, and their abusive practices resulted in him receiving a product without his business LLC EIN, and now had two hard inquires on his credit due to American Express providing misinformation. The applicant requested to have all credit inquires American Express performed removed from the credit bureaus. The American Express representative told him that he would need to dispute the inquiries with the credit bureaus as they could not remove them. The applicant spent several hours on the phone with American Express, pleading and demanding they remove the credit inquires resulting from misleading and deceptive practices from American Express, but to no avail. \n\n\nThe applicant called back a few hours later to American Express and requested a supervisor. He gave verbal authorization for his finance to speak to the American Express representative on his behalf because he was in distress and could no longer speak. His finance talked to the representative, explained the issue, and requested to speak to the representative 's supervisor. The representative told his fiance to hold while she located a supervisor, but the American Express representative blindly transferred the call to an automated system. His fiance held for another representative and spoke to American Express representative XXXX XXXX. His fiance described the events and requested a supervisor. The American Express representative reached her supervisor. The customer service supervisor stated he would log the complaint as he has seen this issue happen numerous times when applicants using American Expresss website to apply for an American Express XXXX XXXX card trying to use their business EIN. The customer service supervisor then transferred his finance to the new accounts department to discuss the denial of the second application. His fiance explained to the customer service supervisor that the practices American Express used to lure the applicant into obtaining a credit card were deceptive and misleading to the least sophisticated consumer. She explained she believed their actions were to deter minority small business owners from obtaining business credit. As a minority small business owner herself and customer of American Express since XXXX, she is considering canceling all her accounts with their company due to the unfair treatment the applicant received from them. The customer service supervisor apologized and transferred his fiance to XXXX in the new accounts department. \n\nXXXX asked that his fiance hold while she researched the account, came back to the line, and advised her that American Express canceled the initial card and the applicant could apply a third time. His fiance explained that the applicant already applied twice at their direction and doesn't want to do business with this company and wants all credit inquiries removed from his credit due to American Express providing false information to the applicant. XXXX stated she was unable to have inquires removed. His fiance requested to speak to her supervisor. XXXX asked the fiance to hold while she attempted to locate a supervisor. XXXX then returned to the line and advised the fiance that her supervisor was available because he was on another call servicing another customer and would have a supervisor call back in 24 hours. His fiance stated she would hold until the supervisor finished the call he was servicing. XXXX then transferred the call to a supervisor named XXXX XXXX. Mr. XXXX said he saw in the records where Mr. XXXX applied for the first card on XX/XX/XXXX and saw where he had to spoke to a representative on XX/XX/XXXX. Mr. XXXX stated he would investigate and have the call from XX/XX/XXXX and all subsequent calls reviewed and would call back in 24 hours, but could not guarantee any results.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-22T05:19:53.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"14211","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4742509","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2021-09-22T00:26:16.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["His fiance explained to the customer service supervisor that the practices American Express used to lure the applicant into obtaining a credit card were <em>deceptive</em> and <em>misleading</em> to the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em>. She explained she believed their actions were to deter minority small business owners from obtaining business credit."]},"sort":[9.897971,"4742509"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17585886","_score":9.237212,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX I received the following letter from Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC threatening me with legal action, a CLEAR violation of the FCDPA, Dodd-Frank and a host of other state and local cosumer laws. attached to this complaint will be the document as well as a debt validation letter that was sent to them via certified mail with return receipt. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX ( VIA CERTIFIED MAIL XXXX XXXXXXXX W/ RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ) Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC XXXX : Compliance / Disputes Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Re : FORMAL DISPUTE, DEMAND FOR DEBT VALIDATION, AND DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE CREDIT REPORT DELETION PRA Account No. : XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( Acct ending XXXX ) Alleged Balance : {$2500.00} ________________________________________ I. Purpose of this correspondence I am writing regarding your correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, captioned Account Transferred to Litigation Department, in which you state that the above-referenced account has been transferred to your litigation department and you offer several payment options while stating that, upon final payment, you will request deletion of your tradeline from the XXXX major credit reporting agencies. \nI hereby dispute this alleged debt in its entiretyincluding the existence, amount, legal enforceability, ownership, and your right to collect or report itand I expressly invoke all rights afforded to me under : The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ; The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., including 1681e ( b ), 1681i, and 1681s-2 ; The Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX ( CFPA / Dodd-Frank ) , 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq. ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  under XXXX. XXXX, where applicable. \nThis is a timely written dispute, a demand for full validation, and a demand for immediate deletion of all related credit reporting. \n________________________________________ II. Cease-collect requirement FDCPA 809 ( b ) / 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), once a consumer disputes a debt in writing, a debt collector must cease all collection of the debt ( or any disputed portion ) until it has obtained verification of the debt and mailed it to the consumer. \nAccordingly, effective upon your receipt of this letter : 1. All collection activity must cease, including, without limitation, phone calls, letters, texts, emails, collection lawsuits or threats thereof, and any transfer or sale of the account to other collectors ; and 2. You may not resume any collection efforts until you have provided complete, documentary validation as set forth below. \nAny failure to fully honor this cease-collect requirement will constitute a violation of the FDCPA. \n________________________________________ III. Required scope of validation To satisfy your validation obligations and to permit any meaningful review, you must provide legible copies of each of the following categories of documents and information : 1. Underlying contract and account records o The original signed credit agreement, application, cardmember agreement, or other contract allegedly binding me ; o All amendments, change-in-terms notices, and governing terms in effect at the time of any alleged default.\n\n2. Itemized accounting of the alleged balance o A full and itemized breakdown of the {$2500.00} you claim is owed, including original principal, interest, late fees, penalties, and any other charges ; o The contractual or statutory basis for each category of fee, charge, or interest assessed.\n\n3. Complete transactional history o A chronological account statement from account opening through charge-off, and from charge-off through the present, showing all debits, credits, payments, adjustments, and transfers ; o Identification of the date of first delinquency that led to charge-off and the date and amount of the last payment or charge on the account.\n\n4. Chain of title / assignment documentation o All bills of sale, assignment agreements, and transfer schedules evidencing each transfer of the specific XXXX XXXX XXXX. account ending XXXX to Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC ; o Documentation clearly identifying my account, either individually or as part of a specific pool, and demonstrating that Portfolio Recovery is the current legal owner with authority both to collect and to furnish credit information.\n\n5. Litigation and judgment information ( if any ) o If you allege any judgment exists, a certified copy of the judgment, including court, docket number, date of entry, current balance, and all post-judgment interest/fee calculations.\n\n6. Statute of limitations analysis o Your written analysis of the applicable XXXX XXXX  statute of limitations for this alleged debt ( including citations to XXXX. XXXX and any other statutory authority you rely upon ) ; o The date you contend the limitations period began, and your basis for asserting that any threatened litigation is lawful and not time-barred. \nXXXX. Licensing / authority in XXXX XXXX o Proof that Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC is duly authorized, registered, and, where required, bonded to engage in consumer debt collection in XXXX XXXX \nUnless and until you provide all of the foregoing, the alleged debt remains unsubstantiated, and you may not lawfully continue collection efforts. \n________________________________________ IV. Misleading Litigation Department language and settlement offers Your XX/XX/XXXX letter states that the account has been Transferred to Litigation Department, while simultaneously stating that no attorney within the Litigation Department has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account. In contextwith a bold heading, a payment deadline, and we are not obligated to renew this offer languagethis is reasonably understood by the least-sophisticated consumer as implying that litigation is imminent or already in motion, even though no attorney has reviewed the file and no lawsuit has been filed. \nThat representation implicates : FDCPA 807 / 15 U.S.C. 1692e, prohibiting false, deceptive, or misleading representations ; and FDCPA 807 ( 5 ) and ( 10 ), prohibiting false threats of legal action or use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. \nIn addition, your statement that the account will be considered paid-in-full for less than the full balance and that upon final payment you will request deletion of your tradeline conditions credit-report relief on payment of a disputed, unvalidated account. Conditioning removal of potentially inaccurate or unverified negative information on payment of a debt that has not been adequately validated may be considered unfair or deceptive under the FDCPA, FCRA, CFPA, and XXXX when the underlying information is inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified. \n________________________________________ V. FCRA duties as a furnisher demand for deletion If you have reported, are reporting, or intend to report this account to any consumer reporting agency, this letter constitutes a direct dispute of the completeness and accuracy of that reporting under the FCRA.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), furnishers may not report information they know or reasonably should know is inaccurate and must correct or delete information they later learn is inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified. Upon notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency under 15 U.S.C. 1681i, you must conduct a reasonable investigation, review all relevant information, and promptly modify, delete, or block any information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable.\n\nGiven : 1. The absence, to date, of any competent validation ; 2. The inherently incomplete and one-sided nature of typical debt-buyer data files ; and 3. Your own representation that you will request deletion of the tradeline upon receipt of final payment, there is no legitimate justification for continued reporting of this tradeline while the debt is disputed and unvalidated. The only FCRA-compliant course is immediate deletion of Portfolio Recoverys tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies. \nAccordingly, I demand that you : Immediately instruct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( and any other consumer reporting agency to which you have furnished data ) to delete the Portfolio Recovery tradeline associated with XXXX Account No. XXXX ; and Provide written confirmation of such deletion, including copies of your deletion requests or automated universal dataform ( AUD ) submissions. \n________________________________________ VI. Dodd-Frank / CFPA Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices As a covered person and furnisher of consumer credit information, Portfolio Recovery is subject to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which makes it unlawful to engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) in connection with any consumer financial product or service. 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. \nContinuing to : Threaten litigation based on stale, incomplete, or unsubstantiated data ; Condition tradeline deletion on payment of a disputed and unvalidated debt ; and Furnish or maintain negative credit information that is incomplete, inaccurate, or incapable of verification, would expose Portfolio Recovery to potential regulatory and civil liability under the CFPA in addition to FDCPA and FCRA exposure.\n\n________________________________________ VII. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and state-law rights XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, declares unlawful : any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission Any misstatement or omission regarding : The existence, amount, or enforceability of the alleged debt ; The age or time-barred status of the account under XXXX. XXXX ; Your ownership or chain of title ; or The conditions under which credit reporting may be corrected or deleted, may constitute an unconscionable commercial practice or deception under the XXXX, exposing you to statutory treble damages, attorneys fees, and costs. \nTo the extent this account is at or beyond XXXX years from the date of default or last payment, any suggestion that litigation is a realistic option would be materially misleading and actionable under both the FDCPA and XXXX. \n________________________________________ VIII. Required actions and deadlines Within 30 ( thirty ) days of your receipt of this letter, please : 1. Provide full validation.\n\no Mail complete documentation responsive to Section III above ; and 2. Delete all credit reporting.\n\no Submit deletion requests to all consumer reporting agencies concerning Portfolio Recoverys tradeline for this account ; and o Provide written confirmation to me. \nPending your full compliance : All collection activity must remain ceased ; Any credit reporting must, at a minimum, be clearly and conspicuously coded as disputed by consumer ; and You must not initiate or threaten any lawsuit relating to this account, particularly if it is time-barred under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nFailure to comply will result in my exploring all available remedies, which may include : Filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ; and Consulting with consumer-rights counsel and pursuing civil claims seeking statutory, actual, and punitive damages, plus attorneys fees and costs, under the FDCPA, FCRA, CFPA, XXXX, and any other applicable authority. \n________________________________________ IX. No waiver ; reservation of rights Nothing in this correspondence shall be construed as : An admission that any debt is owed to Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC or to any other entity ; or A waiver of any rights, defenses, claims, or remedies ( legal or equitable ) available to me. \nAll such rights are expressly reserved. \n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-28T23:48:50.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"080XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17585886","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-28T23:33:12.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In contextwith a bold heading, a payment deadline, and we are not obligated to renew this offer languagethis is reasonably understood by the <em>least</em>-<em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> as implying that litigation is imminent or already in motion, even though no attorney has reviewed the file and no lawsuit has been filed."]},"sort":[9.237212,"17585886"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8083314","_score":9.10926,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint against Aldridge XXXX XXXX XXXX doe criminal conduct regarding barred lawsuits by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX REFERENCE XXXX etal presented now in multiple CFPB filings PARTS 1 thru 4 due to page limitations of CFPB portal . \n\nSUPPLEMENT XXXX XXXX  Demand for Arbitration - Consumer Arbitration Rules IN-PERSON hearings requested requiring all parties to appear Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX Claimant ) Business : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acct # XXXX Lawsuit # XXXXXXXX XXXX attached Arbitration Agreement and Arbitration Provisions, written by XXXX, are contained in XXXX Cardmember Agreement. ( SEE EXHIBIT, attached hereto ). Consumer-Claimant-XXXX  files for Arbitration with the XXXX pursuant to this Arbitration Agreement seeking IN-PERSON Hearings in XXXX, Florida. XXXX has been unable to obtain this Agreement directly from XXXX despite multiple demands in writing directly to XXXX via the Consumer Financial Protection Board ( CFPB ) Complaint portal despite the CFPB websites statement : Under federal law, your credit card issuer is required to provide a copy of your agreement upon request. Despite XXXX refusal of its obligation to provide XXXX with its credit card and arbitration agreements, XXXX filed its exact credit card and Arbitration provisions in the CFPB data base regarding agreements with XXXX as required by law. The source of XXXX attached arbitration agreement is therefore from the CFPB data base in its online portal. It must be noted that XXXX was required to file all its arbitration agreements with the XXXX by certifying them as registered arbitration agreements and included in XXXX website ( XXXX  ). However, such agreement may not be the enforceable valid agreement filed with the CFPB but may be a fraudulent and poorly written and MATERIALLY inaccurate attempt to rewrite the true provisions to confuse and provide the consumers less than the true agreement by paraphrasing the valid agreement in question and answer form, MATERIALLY inconsistent with the one and only true agreement attached hereto. XXXX recommends that the XXXX promptly delete all of XXXX MATERIALLY inaccurate, conflicting and inconsistent registered arbitration agreements, if any, and replace it with the valid standard one presented by XXXX herein and included in the CFPB website, of course, charging XXXX with the appropriate fees to delete and amend the registered agreement. The only value of any XXXX purported arbitration agreement filed with XXXX is that it acknowledges that an arbitration agreement exists to allow this arbitration filing to proceed. XXXX simply, the XXXX and Arbitrator should not consider the XXXX arbitration agreement on file with the XXXX, if any, and it should be stricken from XXXX website as fraudulent, if inaccurate and intentionally frivolous, if conflicts exist. In the landmark XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX case of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX decided XXXX XXXX XXXX  CONCLUSION. We hold that, because XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX incorporated by reference the XXXX Rules that expressly delegate arbitrability determinations to an arbitrator, the agreement clearly and unmistakably evidences the parties intent to empower an arbitrator, rather than a court, to resolve questions of arbitrability. Since XXXX arbitration agreement, under identical sets of facts and law, empowers XXXX Arbitrator, not a court, judge or anyone else to rule on arbitrability on his or her own jurisdiction, the XXXX should promptly allow the parties to advance and select a mutually acceptable arbitrator in the XXXX Florida area to proceed with Arbitration. XXXX can not dispute the authenticity of the attached arbitration provisions as it has been incorporated in the public records of existing Florida state court lawsuits. More importantly, for this XXXX account, it has acknowledged the provision and accepted exclusive jurisdiction with the XXXX by filing in other XXXX cases Answers and Affirmative Defenses reserving the right to file counterclaims. Thus, there can be no objection to the jurisdiction of XXXX based on the attached arbitration provisions agreed to as binding by XXXX. Furthermore, in responses to CFPB complaints included herein under Claim # XXXX, XXXX wrote that XXXX should file XXXX demands for arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provisions which it acknowledged are valid and enforceable. \n\nClaimant, Consumer, XXXX, elects, selects, chooses and seeks IN-PERSON HEARINGS in XXXX Florida in this Individual Single Consumer Case providing a Filing Fee of {$220.00} which must be paid by XXXX as the Arbitration Agreement states : RESOLVING A DISPUTE WITH ARBITRATION DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND US WILL BE SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION. THIS MEANS THAT : ( XXXX ) NEITHER A COURT NOR A JURY WILL RESOLVE ANY SUCH DISPUTE If either you or we make a demand for arbitration, you and we must arbitrate any dispute or claim between you and us This Arbitration section broadly covers claims, including counterclaims Arbitration may be requested at any time, even where there is a pending lawsuit, unless a trial has begun, or a final judgment entered. any dispute that concerns the validity or enforceability of the Agreement as a whole is for the arbitrator to decide.The party who wants to arbitrate must notify the other party in writingThe party seeking arbitration must select either XXXX or XXXX administer the arbitrationThe arbitrator must apply the same law, consistent with the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), that would apply to an individual action in courtThe arbitrator will apply the same statutes of limitations and privileges that a court would apply if the matter were pending in court. The arbitrator may award any damages or other relief or remedies that would apply under applicable law to an individual action brought in court, including, without limitation, punitive damages and injunctive, equitable and declaratory relief The parties will bear the fees and costs of their attorneys, witnesses and experts. The arbitration will take place by phone or at a location reasonably convenient to you. If you ask, we will pay all the fees the administrator or arbitrator charges if you can not obtain a waiver of fees from the administrator and are acting in good faith. We will pay arbitration costs required by the administrators rules or that are necessary for this Arbitration section to be enforced This Arbitration section is governed by the FAA. \n\nXXXX selects, elects, demands and chooses XXXX for arbitration for the dispute with XXXX. XXXX agreed to pay 100 % of all arbitration and filing fees so all fees are required to be paid by XXXX and all billing should be sent to and paid by XXXX without payment of any kind from XXXX who is unable to pay anything anyway and will be filing a FEE WAIVER by mail to XXXX XXXX, XXXX mailing address within 2 days of filing a Demand for Arbitration under Consumer Arbitration Rules. \n\nXXXX Consumer Arbitration Rules - Costs of Arbitration - Amended and Effective XX/XX/XXXX ( Costs ) states : Single Consumer Case Filing : In cases before a single arbitrator where the individual is the Claimant, a non-refundable** filing fee, capped in the amount of {$220.00}, is payable in full by the individual when a case is filed unless the parties agreement provides that the individual pays less. A non-refundable filing fee in the amount of {$370.00} is payable by the business once the individual claimant meets the filing requirements, unless the parties agreement provides that the business pay more. \n\nXXXX must pay any arbitration fees since XXXX agreed that If you ask, we will pay all the fees the administrator or arbitrator charges if you can not obtain a waiver of fees from the administrator and are acting in good faith. We will pay arbitration costs required by the administrators rules or that are necessary for this Arbitration section to be enforced, XXXX asks that XXXX pay all fees if XXXX can not obtain a waiver of fees. XXXX has demanded that XXXX file for arbitration but it has refused. If XXXX had filed for arbitration as demanded, it would have been required by XXXX rules to pay 100 % of all fees with the consumer to pay {$0.00}. XXXX failure to file can not force and shift liability to XXXX to pay fees that were required by XXXX to pay to XXXX. XXXX agreed to pay more than the {$370.00} filing fee for the business by also paying the {$220.00} filing fee of consumer XXXX as XXXX is further unable to pay anything and requires XXXX to pay all fees. Thus, pursuant to XXXX Rules on Costs, requiring XXXX to pay less or {$0.00}, XXXX must pay and be billed for the {$370.00} business filing fee plus the {$220.00} Consumer filing fee or {$600.00} with XXXX required to pay {$0.00}. Thus, an XXXX Case Number for this filing should be assigned upon receipt of this filing as the full {$600.00} filing fees will be required to be paid by XXXX pursuant to its agreement to pay all fees including XXXX fees. The XXXX and the parties will not be prejudiced as a Case Number will be necessary anyway to credit payment from XXXX. Since the XXXX will not move forward until it receives the full {$600.00} and other fee payments required from XXXX, delaying ministerial assignment of an XXXX Case Number will not prejudice the XXXX as a Case Number will be necessary anyway to bill and credit payment from XXXX. Thus, it is in the best interest of the XXXX to promptly assign a Case Number for payment, billing and communication purposes. XXXX also submits details of his claims against XXXX so that the XXXX can calculate an initial estimate of the arbitrators costs regarding this dispute which will require XXXX full days of an IN-PERSON hearings in XXXX. Most of XXXX XXXX Requests will involve computerized credit card data in the possession of XXXX which it reported to credit reporting agencies about XXXX XXXX account so Discovery should be simple unless XXXX refuses to report damaging needed data. XXXX expects extensive discovery issues caused by XXXX so the XXXX should take this into consideration when requesting payment from XXXX. XXXX expects a need for Discovery from credit reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX about XXXX XXXX account so the XXXX should keep this in mind when estimating fees to be ultimately paid by XXXX. A great amount of effort has been expended in the preparation of this multi-page filing to assist the reader and arbitrator in ascertaining a clear picture of the entire dispute and the type of simple Discovery required to prepare statements of undisputed material facts for IN-PERSON hearings. \n\nBriefly explain the dispute ( attachment & supplement to item # XXXX of Demand ) : This Demand For Arbitration under the Consumer Arbitration Rules arises under, inter alia, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 ; the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x ; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), Florida Statutes ( FS ) Sections 559.55-559.785, and Floridas Extortion Statute Section 836.05 to obtain monetary civil and criminal related liabilities and penalties, statutory damages, punitive damages, extinguishment and forfeiture of disputed and UNLAWFUL debts, actual damages and attorneys fees and costs, permanent injunctive relief, and other equitable relief for XXXX  violations of RICO ( which imposes severe penalties for intentional criminal conduct constituting a pattern of Racketeering activity dealing with unlawful activities ), the FCRA, ( which imposes duties upon consumer reporting agencies and those who furnish information to a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) or use information obtained from a CRA ), the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, ( which imposes duties upon debt collectors ), the FCCPA ( which prohibits 19 practices set forth in FS 559.72 ), Floridas Extortion Statute Section 836.05 ( which imposes {$10000.00} fines and imprisonment ) and other repetitive extreme, outrageous, severe, reckless, illegal, unconscionable conduct and abuse of power, frauds on the Courts beyond bounds of decency intended, by licensed attorneys of the Florida Bar XXXX to XXXX damage XXXX, a vulnerable XXXX XXXX XXXX Elder by the obvious resulting damage caused by the Tortuous Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ( IIED ) lasting over 12 months. \n\nFurther detailed explanation of the dispute with XXXX Claims including Statement of the Facts and Case with incorported Memorandum of Law : XXXX has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1681o which states : Civil liability for negligent noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subsection with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of -- ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court XXXX has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1681n which states : Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In General Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subsection with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of -- ( 1 ) ( A ) any actual damage sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00} which ever is greater ; ( 2 ) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow ; and ( 3 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court. ( b ) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR KNOWING NONCOMPLIANCE Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or {$1000.00} whichever is greater. \nXXXX has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1681q which states : Obtaining information under false pretenses Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title18, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both. \nXXXX has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1692k - Civil liability further states in relevant part : ( a ) AMOUNT OF DAMAGES Except as otherwise provided by the section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of -- ( 1 ) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure ; ( 2 ) ( A ) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding {$1000.00} ; ( XXXX ) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorneys fee as determined by the court XXXX willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information by ( XXXX ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors to XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite the prohibition and ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors..that specific information is inaccurate ; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. \nXXXX also willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ) Duty to Correct and Update Information of Furnishers of Information as it ( B ) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate and did not promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. \nXXXX has liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, which imposes severe penalties for its deliberate known criminal conduct constituting a pattern of Racketeering activity dealing with unlawful activities. \nXXXX has liability under Floridas Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ) for violations of many of the XXXX prohibited practices subsections of FS XXXX. \nXXXX has liability under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for {$10000.00} per violation. \nXXXX has liability for Tortuous and outrageous Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ( IIED ) Known With Substantial Certainty to cause severe harm to XXXX by licensed attorneys who knew better. \n\nADDITIONAL OVERVIEW OF THIS XXXX CASE For almost a year, XXXX has been disputing, via CFPB complaints, XXXX XXXX credit card accounts with XXXX directly and separately with the major credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) who forwarded disputes to XXXX for investigation and response. However, despite such multiple and repeated disputes filed with the CFPB, XXXX and every CRA has willfully and maliciously failed to permanently mark the accounts as disputed on credit reports and failed to meet its obligations under federal and state law. On XXXX XXXX filed a CEASE and DESIST notice with the CFPB whereby XXXX was served via the portal on XX/XX/XXXX and required to immediately STOP all communications of any kind, both direct and indirect. XXXX wrote the CFPB in early XXXX acknowledging the CEASE and DESIST notice and obligations recommending that XXXX file arbitration cases with the XXXX pursuant to the arbitration provisions with XXXX to adjudicate existing disputes in the XXXX forum pursuant to the arbitration provisions. However, despite the CEASE and DESIST notices, XXXX more than 30 days thereafter, maliciously and illegally referred its files to XXXX law firms ( on XX/XX/XXXX ) sending prohibited and aggressive Debt Validation Notices to XXXX received in early XX/XX/XXXX. In early, XX/XX/XXXX, at the recommendation of XXXX XXXX filed XXXX detailed XXXX page Arbitration cases with XXXX XXXXhich XXXX accepted jurisdiction, filed Notices of Appearances by counsel, Answered the cases, paid filing fees and filed Answers and Affirmative Defenses subjecting the disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the XXXX  pursuant to the arbitration provisions. XXXX counsel became frustrated and rather than file a XXXX sentence counterclaim in each of the XXXX XXXX cases, she orchestrated a criminal plan by deliberately arranging the filing of XXXX identical barred state court lawsuits, XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and a third on XX/XX/XXXX for identical cases pending for 3 months in XXXX arbitration cases with XXXX separate law firms being assigned to XXXX separate state court judges. This new XXXX arbitration demand and claims deal with extensive and ongoing repeated illegal retaliatory fraudulent and criminal actions by XXXX and its lawyers for illegal actions AFTER the filing of the XX/XX/XXXX CEASE and DESIST notices and AFTER the early filing of XXXX XXXX cases in early XX/XX/XXXX. Much of the illegal conduct is evidenced by CFPB Complaints served upon XXXX and its counsel some of which are included in part hereinafter. There is so much illegal conduct by XXXX for the last 12 months that is difficult to present the facts chronologically so many of the CFPB communications will be presented in Claim # XXXX to give the reader a prospective for understanding all past claims including subsequent claims. While this NEW XXXX case is totally different from the pending XXXX XXXX cases against XXXX, XXXX re-alleges the previously filed XXXX cases as if specifically set forth at length herein so that a reader may fully understand the entire complex dispute with XXXX which XXXX has escalated with repeated criminal extortionate RICO activity known to be outrageous, especially by licensed attorneys. In a nutshell, while it may appear that XXXX left hand does not know what its right hand is doing, in reality, XXXX knew exactly what it had planned and executed with its conduct which, at a minimum, was fraudulent and extortionate. XXXX knows its actions are illegal but it refuses to comply with its statutory obligations. Any XXXX of XXXX allegations is sufficient to justify a huge award against XXXX in favor of XXXX. In combination, the repeated malicious and retaliatory actions of XXXX mandates such a sizeable award to punish XXXX to prevent further illegal actions. To prevent a vexatious multiplicity of proceedings by XXXX in multiple state and federal courts, XXXX has written to XXXX Executive-Vice Present, General Counsel and Secretary, XXXX XXXX XXXX but no response has been received except an attempt to conceal the unethical conduct. \n\nCLAIM # XXXX - Statement of the Facts and Law and Relief Requested Claimant, XXXX, is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Florida residing at all relevant times in XXXX XXXX, Florida. XXXX is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ). On information and belief, XXXX debt collector and law firm, Aldridge Pite Haan , LLP ( Aldridge ), is a Florida Limited Liability Company and Law Firm with a principal place of business in XXXX XXXX, Florida with offices at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX. Aldridge is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers to creditors, such as XXXX. Aldridge is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 6 ). XXXX continues to falsely allege that XXXX owes a debt ( the XXXX ) to XXXX which XXXX has disputed. XXXX filed multiple CEASE and DESIST demands to XXXX on and after XX/XX/XXXX pursuant to multiple written Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Board ( CFPB ), acknowledged by XXXX  and XXXX attorneys and debt collectors in CFPB responses. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a debt as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 5 ). Sometime after the purported incurrence of the entirely disputed Debt, XXXX disputed the Debt due to willful and intentional violations of the FCRA, FDCPA and other statutes which are documented herein and in detail in pending XXXX cases and numerous CFPB Complaints. XXXX took absolutely no action to correct the deliberate violations of law despite repeated notices from CFPB, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to XXXX and AldridgXXXX, the Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred by XXXX to Aldridge for collection which Aldridge claimed was on XX/XX/XXXX in responses to CFPB complaints. In its efforts to unlawfully collect the disputed debt containing a known and acknowledged CEASE and DESIST notice for ALL COMMUNICATIONS, Aldridge, at the direction of XXXX, contacted XXXX by letter ( the Letter ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. The Letter was in an envelope postmarked XX/XX/XXXX in an unsealed envelope sent by unauthorized third party mailing service XXXX unauthorized to receive sensitive confidential personal data about XXXX in further violation of the FDCPA and state related statutes designed to protect sensitive data from being released to unauthorized parties. The Letter, barred by the CEASE and DESIST notice of XX/XX/XXXX, was the initial communication XXXX received from XXXX debt collector Aldridge as stated in the Letter. The Letter is a communication as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 2 ). 15 U.S.C. 1692e prohibits a debt collector form using any false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of any debt. The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer. 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 3 ) prohibits a debt collector from using the false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. The Letter is on the letterhead of XXXX debt collector, Aldridge, a law firm. The Letter states, XXXX XXXX XXXXAlridge Pite Haan, LLP is a debt collector. We are trying to collect a debt that you owe to XXXX XXXX Call or write to us by XX/XX/XXXX, to dispute all or part of the debt If you write to us by XX/XX/XXXX, we must stop collection on any amount you dispute until we send you information that shows you owe the debt Go to www. cfpb to learn more about your rights under federal law. For instance, you have the right to stop or limit how we contact you The Letters non-existent signature block implies it was sent by Aldridge Pite Haa, LLP but is unsigned as it was obviously sent by an unauthorized mailing service where XXXX sensitive personal data was released. The Letter identifies Aldridge as a debt collector. Aldridge was acting as a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA, concerning XXXX alleged yet disputed debt despite known red flags in the file containing XXXX CEASE and DESIST notices barring any further communication of any kind. The FDCPA and related statutes prohibit a debt collector from sending a letter, such as the subject Letter herein, if such letter misleads the consumer regarding meaningful attorney involvement in the debt collection process. A letter, such as the subject Letter herein, does not mislead a consumer regarding meaningful attorney involvement in the debt collection process so long as that letter includes a disclaimer, such as the following : At this time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account. The Letter contains no such disclaimer. Because the Letter states that it is from a law firm, and because the Letter contains no disclaimer as to meaningful attorney involvement, the least sophisticated consumer would likely believe that one or more attorneys have been personally involved in the day-to-day collection of XXXX debt. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by Aldridgess conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices red flagged by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX as acknowledged by XXXX in responses it sent to the CFPB documented herein. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a material way by Aldridgess conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices specifically acknowledged by XXXX. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived into believing that an attorney had meaningful involvement in the collection of the alleged debt especially since CEASE and DESIST notices had been red flagged on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX system available to even ROBO FILERS such as Aldridge after the required investigation from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX, by its actions referring the matter to a debt collector and the actions of its debt collector agent XXXX, has violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e by using a false, deceptive, and misleading representation in its attempt to collect the disputed debt containing known CEASE and DESIST notices. XXXX  knew that the CEASE and DESIST notices and other CFPB complaints barred XXXX from forwarding the red flagged file to ROBO FILERS Aldridge but it did so ON PURPOSE TO RETALIATE for the CFPB Complaints in violation of the FDCPA and related state statutes to obtain an extortionate illegal collection of debt. XXXX files this XXXX arbitration claim individually against XXXX for purposely involving Aldridge in harassing debt collection known to be illegal by acting as debt collectors and attempting to collect a consumer debt using the letterhead of Aldridge, where such letter fails to include any disclaimer concerning meaningful attorney involvement. This XXXX  case seeks a finding that XXXX conduct utilizing the deliberate wrongdoing by ROBO FILERS Aldridge violates the FDCPA and other mentioned statutes and asks the XXXX Arbitrator to award damages and punitive damages as authorized and inherent powers and by statutes including 15 U.S.C. 1692k. \nIn support of Claim # XXXX and subsequent Claims, XXXX files documentation regarding a few of the many CFPB claims including some recent emails to XXXX XXXX XXXX, General Counsel & Secretary which will be self explanatory to any reader, including an assigned XXXX Arbitrator. \n\nCEASE AND DESIST NOTICE OF XX/XX/XXXX SERVED ON XXXX XXXX  VIA CFPB CASE # XXXX YOUR COMPLAINT Further, I demand that you STOP, CEASE and DESIST from any further direct and indirect communication with me of any kind imaginable, including, but not limited to, by phone, text, email, social media, XXXX XXXX, courier, USPS mail or otherwise. The record is clear that I have disputed any and all claims due to your willful FCRA violations requiring statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation plus punitive damages of {$5000.00} per violation. To the extent that the credit card agreement has an Arbitration clause, I hereby elect, chose and demand resolution of any and claims and counterclaims with forced binding private arbitration with the XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX for which you must pay 100 % of the arbitration fees including a {$500.00} an hour fee of a retired judge as Arbitrator. The winner shall not be entitled to recoup arbitration fees or attorney fees which would be expected to exceed {$50000.00}. Accordingly, litigation in any court is prohibited due to my election and demand to XXXX. Any improper communication will incur liability pursuant to the FDCPA. You must consider this letter as unconditional without inquiry or investigation of the facts. \nXX/XX/XXXX RESPONSE OF XXXX  TO XX/XX/XXXX CFPB COMPLAINT XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, FL XXXX Subject : CFPB Case XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX : On behalf of XXXX XXXX, I am responding to your concerns raised through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) . I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention. We would like to stress compliance is very important to XXXXXXXX XXXX, and we follow all applicable laws. Your inquiry is also important to us, and it is our goal to serve our customers in a timely and satisfactory manner. We regret any dissatisfaction you may have experienced ; however, we must respectfully decline your request for any type of compensation. Since we received a cease and desist request from you, we will adjust your account to stop all future collection calls. However, you will continue to receive legally required statements and we will continue to report the status of your account to the credit bureaus. Pursuant to the XXXX XXXX Credit Card Agreement, which governs our relations","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-30T09:20:02.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8083314","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Aldridge PIte Haan, LLP","date_received":"2023-12-30T08:59:13.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> would likely be deceived by Aldridgess conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices red flagged by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX as acknowledged by XXXX in responses it sent to the CFPB documented herein. The <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> would likely be deceived in a material way by Aldridgess conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices specifically acknowledged by XXXX."]},"sort":[9.10926,"8083314"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8078765","_score":9.052264,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint against Rausch Sturm LLP for criminal conduct regarding barred lawsuit XXXX XXXX  reference XXXX presented now in multiple filings PART 1 of 5 SUPPLEMENT - XXXX  Demand for Arbitration - Consumer Arbitration Rules IN-PERSON hearings requested requiring all parties to appear Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( Claimant ) Business : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acct # XXXX Lawsuit # XXXX INITIAL STATEMENT - XXXX CRIMINAL CONDUCT XXXX  has acknowledge that it received a CEASE and DESIST Notice on XX/XX/XXXX via XXXX CFPB Complaints and marked all XXXX accounts as Red Flagged to prohibit ALL Communication. At the request of XXXX, XXXX typed starting in XX/XX/XXXX and filed XXXX XXXX Consumer demands in early XX/XX/XXXX including XXXX case # XXXX for the XXXX  credit card account # XXXX listed above subjecting the entire dispute to the exclusive jurisdiction of XXXX pursuant to the attached arbitration agreement. Subsequent to the filing of the XXXX case, XXXX, by its lawfirm RAUSCH STURM LLP ( Rausch ), sent an invalid Debt Validation Notice for account # XXXX which XXXX complained in multiple CFPB complaints to XXXX and Rausch that the Notice violated the Cease and Desist Notices of XX/XX/XXXX and all disputes were pending in previously filed XXXX  binding arbitration cases. After XXXX filed extensive Discovery related pleadings for the XXXX active XXXX  cases on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX counsel became frustrated and Rausch was retained and filed a prohibited lawsuit for solely account # XXXX against XXXX in Orlando Florida state court on XX/XX/XXXX knowing that XXXX had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute for over XXXX months as XXXX counsel XXXX XXXX had filed Appearances, Answers, Affirmative Defenses and submitted relief regarding all account including # XXXX. This new XXXX case includes the egregious retaliatory conspiratory criminal conduct of XXXX, Rausch, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and others as set forth in the next XXXX pages. After XXXX complained to his XXXX Manager that XXXX  had filed XXXX other lawsuits on XX/XX/XXXX, rather than withdraw the XXXX lawsuits before the XX/XX/XXXX deadline required by the XXXX Manager, XXXX  escalated its RICO conduct by filing a XXXX  retaliatory state court lawsuit on XX/XX/XXXX by Rausch for account # XXXX. As written by the quotes of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake and the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. XXXX  retaliatory and criminal MISTAKES are FATAL and can not be overcome. SURRENDER by settlement is XXXX only realistic option to avoid never ending costly matters, including Florida Bar disciplinary matters. This matter has been escalated to XXXX Executive Vice-President, General Counsel and Secretary who is expected to deal with all matters to do what is right. \n\nXXXX  BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT XXXX  attached Arbitration Agreement and Arbitration Provisions, written by XXXX, are contained in XXXX Cardmember Agreement. ( SEE EXHIBIT, attached hereto ). Consumer-Claimant-XXXX  files for Arbitration with the XXXX  pursuant to this Arbitration Agreement seeking IN-PERSON Hearings in XXXX, Florida. XXXX has been unable to obtain this Agreement directly from XXXX  despite multiple demands in writing directly to XXXX  via the Consumer Financial Protection Board ( CFPB ) Complaint portal despite the CFPB websites statement : Under federal law, your credit card issuer is required to provide a copy of your agreement upon request. Despite XXXX refusal of its obligation to provide XXXX with its credit card and arbitration agreements, XXXX filed its exact credit card and Arbitration provisions in the CFPB data base regarding agreements with XXXX as required by law. The source of XXXX  attached arbitration agreement is therefore from the CFPB data base in its online portal. It must be noted that XXXX was required to file all its arbitration agreements with the XXXX by certifying them as registered arbitration agreements and included in XXXX website ( XXXX  ). However, such agreement may not be the enforceable valid agreement filed with the CFPB but may be a fraudulent and poorly written and MATERIALLY inaccurate attempt to rewrite the true provisions to confuse and provide the consumers less than the true agreement by paraphrasing the valid agreement in question and answer form, MATERIALLY inconsistent with the one and only true agreement attached hereto. XXXX recommends that the XXXX promptly delete all of XXXX  MATERIALLY inaccurate, conflicting and inconsistent registered arbitration agreements, if any, and replace it with the valid standard one presented by XXXX herein and included in the CFPB website, of course, charging XXXX  with the appropriate fees to delete and amend the registered agreement. The only value of any XXXX purported arbitration agreement filed with XXXX is that it acknowledges that an arbitration agreement exists to allow this arbitration filing to proceed. XXXX simply, the XXXX and Arbitrator should not consider the XXXX arbitration agreement on file with the XXXX, if any, and it should be stricken from XXXX website as fraudulent, if inaccurate and intentionally frivolous, if conflicts exist. In the landmark Florida Supreme Court of Florida case of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  decided XX/XX/XXXX CONCLUSION. We hold that, because XXXX Terms of Service incorporated by reference the XXXX Rules that expressly delegate arbitrability determinations to an arbitrator, the agreement clearly and unmistakably evidences the parties intent to empower an arbitrator, rather than a court, to resolve questions of arbitrability. Since XXXX  arbitration agreement, under identical sets of facts and law, empowers XXXX Arbitrator, not a court, judge or anyone else to rule on arbitrability on his or her own jurisdiction, the XXXX should promptly allow the parties to advance and select a mutually acceptable arbitrator in the XXXX Florida area to proceed with Arbitration. XXXX can not dispute the authenticity of the attached arbitration provisions as it has been incorporated in the public records of existing Florida state court lawsuits. More importantly, for this XXXX account, it has acknowledged the provision and accepted exclusive jurisdiction with the XXXX by filing in other XXXX cases Answers and Affirmative Defenses reserving the right to file counterclaims. Thus, there can be no objection to the jurisdiction of XXXX based on the attached arbitration provisions agreed to as binding by XXXX. Furthermore, in responses to CFPB complaints included herein under Claim # XXXX, XXXX wrote that XXXX should file XXXX demands for arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provisions which it acknowledged are valid and enforceable. \n\nClaimant, Consumer, XXXX, elects, selects, chooses and seeks IN-PERSON HEARINGS in XXXX Florida in this Individual Single Consumer Case providing a Filing Fee of {$220.00} which must be paid by XXXX  as the Arbitration Agreement states : RESOLVING A DISPUTE WITH ARBITRATION DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND US WILL BE SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION. THIS MEANS THAT : ( 1 ) NEITHER A COURT NOR A JURY WILL RESOLVE ANY SUCH DISPUTE If either you or we make a demand for arbitration, you and we must arbitrate any dispute or claim between you and us This Arbitration section broadly covers claims, including counterclaims Arbitration may be requested at any time, even where there is a pending lawsuit, unless a trial has begun, or a final judgment entered. any dispute that concerns the validity or enforceability of the Agreement as a whole is for the arbitrator to decide.The party who wants to arbitrate must notify the other party in writingThe party seeking arbitration must select either XXXX or XXXXto administer the arbitrationThe arbitrator must apply the same law, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ), that would apply to an individual action in courtThe arbitrator will apply the same statutes of limitations and privileges that a court would apply if the matter were pending in court. The arbitrator may award any damages or other relief or remedies that would apply under applicable law to an individual action brought in court, including, without limitation, punitive damages and injunctive, equitable and declaratory relief The parties will bear the fees and costs of their attorneys, witnesses and experts. The arbitration will take place by phone or at a location reasonably convenient to you. If you ask, we will pay all the fees the administrator or arbitrator charges if you can not obtain a waiver of fees from the administrator and are acting in good faith. We will pay arbitration costs required by the administrators rules or that are necessary for this Arbitration section to be enforced This Arbitration section is governed by the FAA. \n\nXXXX selects, elects, demands and chooses XXXX for arbitration for the dispute with XXXX. XXXX agreed to pay 100 % of all arbitration and filing fees so all fees are required to be paid by XXXX and all billing should be sent to and paid by XXXX  without payment of any kind from XXXX who is unable to pay anything anyway and will be filing a FEE WAIVER by mail to XXXX XXXX, RI mailing address within XXXX  days of filing a Demand for Arbitration under Consumer Arbitration Rules. \n\nXXXX Consumer Arbitration Rules - Costs of Arbitration - Amended and Effective XX/XX/XXXX ( Costs ) states : Single Consumer Case Filing : In cases before a single arbitrator where the individual is the Claimant, a non-refundable** filing fee, capped in the amount of {$220.00}, is payable in full by the individual when a case is filed unless the parties agreement provides that the individual pays less. A non-refundable filing fee in the amount of {$370.00} is payable by the business once the individual claimant meets the filing requirements, unless the parties agreement provides that the business pay more. \n\nXXXX must pay any arbitration fees since XXXX agreed that If you ask, we will pay all the fees the administrator or arbitrator charges if you can not obtain a waiver of fees from the administrator and are acting in good faith. We will pay arbitration costs required by the administrators rules or that are necessary for this Arbitration section to be enforced, XXXX asks that XXXX pay all fees if XXXX can not obtain a waiver of fees. XXXX has demanded that XXXX file for arbitration but it has refused. If XXXX had filed for arbitration as demanded, it would have been required by XXXX rules to pay 100 % of all fees with the consumer to pay {$0.00}. XXXX failure to file can not force and shift liability to XXXX to pay fees that were required by XXXX to pay to XXXX. XXXX agreed to pay more than the {$370.00} filing fee for the business by also paying the {$220.00} filing fee of consumer XXXX as XXXX is further unable to pay anything and requires XXXX to pay all fees. Thus, pursuant to XXXX Rules on Costs, requiring XXXX to pay less or {$0.00}, XXXX  must pay and be billed for the {$370.00} business filing fee plus the {$220.00} Consumer filing fee or {$600.00} with XXXX required to pay {$0.00}. Thus, an XXXX Case Number for this filing should be assigned upon receipt of this filing as the full {$600.00} filing fees will be required to be paid by XXXX pursuant to its agreement to pay all fees including XXXX fees. The XXXX and the parties will not be prejudiced as a Case Number will be necessary anyway to credit payment from XXXX. Since the XXXX will not move forward until it receives the full {$600.00} and other fee payments required from XXXX, delaying ministerial assignment of an XXXX Case Number will not prejudice the XXXX as a Case Number will be necessary anyway to bill and credit payment from XXXX. Thus, it is in the best interest of the XXXX to promptly assign a Case Number for payment, billing and communication purposes. XXXX also submits details of his claims against XXXX so that the XXXX can calculate an initial estimate of the arbitrators costs regarding this dispute which will require XXXX full days of an IN-PERSON hearings in XXXX. Most of XXXX Discovery Requests will involve computerized credit card data in the possession of XXXX which it reported to credit reporting agencies about XXXX XXXX account so XXXX should be simple unless XXXX  refuses to report damaging needed data. XXXX expects extensive discovery issues caused by XXXX so the XXXX should take this into consideration when requesting payment from XXXX. XXXX expects a need for Discovery from credit reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX about XXXX XXXX  account so the XXXX should keep this in mind when estimating fees to be ultimately paid by XXXX. A great amount of effort has been expended in the preparation of this multi-page filing to assist the reader and arbitrator in ascertaining a clear picture of the entire dispute and the type of simple Discovery required to prepare statements of undisputed material facts for IN-PERSON hearings.\n\nBriefly explain the dispute ( attachment & supplement to item # 2 of Demand ) : This Demand For Arbitration under the Consumer Arbitration Rules arises under, inter alia, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 ; the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x ; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ), Florida Statutes ( FS ) Sections 559.55-559.785, and Floridas Extortion Statute Section 836.05 to obtain monetary civil and criminal related liabilities and penalties, statutory damages, punitive damages, extinguishment and forfeiture of disputed and UNLAWFUL debts, actual damages and attorneys fees and costs, permanent injunctive relief, and other equitable relief for XXXX  violations of RICO ( which imposes severe penalties for intentional criminal conduct constituting a pattern of Racketeering activity dealing with unlawful activities ), the FCRA, ( which imposes duties upon consumer reporting agencies and those who furnish information to a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) or use information obtained from a CRA ), the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p, ( which imposes duties upon debt collectors ), the FCCPA ( which prohibits 19 practices set forth in FS 559.72 ), Floridas Extortion Statute Section 836.05 ( which imposes {$10000.00} fines and imprisonment ) and other repetitive extreme, outrageous, severe, reckless, illegal, unconscionable conduct and abuse of power, frauds on the Courts beyond bounds of decency intended, by licensed attorneys of the Florida Bar , to severely damage XXXX, a vulnerable XXXX XXXX XXXX Elder by the obvious resulting damage caused by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lasting over XXXX  months. \n\nFurther detailed explanation of the dispute with XXXX Claims including Statement of the Facts and Case with incorported Memorandum of Law : XXXX  has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1681o which states : Civil liability for negligent noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subsection with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of -- ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court XXXX has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1681n which states : Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In General Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subsection with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of -- ( 1 ) ( A ) any actual damage sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00} which ever is greater ; ( 2 ) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow ; and ( 3 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court. ( b ) CIVIL LIABILITY FOR KNOWING NONCOMPLIANCE Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or {$1000.00} whichever is greater. \nXXXX has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1681q which states : Obtaining information under false pretenses Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title18, imprisoned for not more than XXXX years, or both. \nXXXX has liability to XXXX under 15 U.S.C. 1692k - Civil liability further states in relevant part : ( a ) AMOUNT OF DAMAGES Except as otherwise provided by the section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of -- ( 1 ) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure ; ( 2 ) ( A ) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding {$1000.00} ; ( 3 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorneys fee as determined by the court XXXX  willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information by ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors to XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX despite the prohibition and ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors..that specific information is inaccurate ; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. \nXXXX also willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ) Duty to Correct and Update Information of Furnishers of Information as it ( B ) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate and did not promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. \nXXXX has liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, which imposes severe penalties for its deliberate known criminal conduct constituting a pattern of Racketeering activity dealing with unlawful activities. \nXXXX  has liability under Floridas Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ) for violations of many of the 19 prohibited practices subsections of FS 599.72. \nXXXX has liability under Floridas Extortion Statute Section 836.05 for {$10000.00} per violation. \nXXXX  has liability for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Known With Substantial Certainty to cause severe harm to XXXX by licensed attorneys who knew better. \n\nADDITIONAL OVERVIEW OF THIS XXXX  CASE For almost a year, XXXX has been disputing, via CFPB complaints, XXXX XXXX  credit card accounts with XXXX directly and separately with the major credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) who forwarded disputes to XXXX  for investigation and response. However, despite such multiple and repeated disputes filed with the CFPB, XXXX and every CRA has willfully and maliciously failed to permanently mark the accounts as disputed on credit reports and failed to meet its obligations under federal and state law. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX filed a CEASE and DESIST notice with the CFPB whereby XXXX  was served via the portal on XX/XX/XXXX and required to immediately STOP all communications of any kind, both direct and indirect. XXXX  wrote the CFPB in early XXXX acknowledging the CEASE and DESIST notice and obligations recommending that XXXX file arbitration cases with the XXXX pursuant to the arbitration provisions with XXXX  to adjudicate existing disputes in the XXXX forum pursuant to the arbitration provisions. However, despite the CEASE and DESIST notices, XXXX, more than XXXX  days thereafter, maliciously and illegally referred its files to XXXX law firms ( on XX/XX/XXXX ) sending prohibited and aggressive Debt Validation Notices to XXXX received in XX/XX/XXXX and in the instant case for account XXXX, AFTER XXXX filed XXXX Arbitration cases including account # XXXX under XXXX case XXXX. In early XX/XX/XXXX, at the recommendation of XXXX, XXXX filed XXXX detailed XXXX page Arbitration cases with XXXX  which XXXX  accepted jurisdiction, filed Notices of Appearances by counsel, Answered the cases, paid filing fees and filed Answers and Affirmative Defenses subjecting the disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the XXXX  pursuant to the arbitration provisions. XXXX counsel became frustrated and rather than file a one sentence counterclaim in each of the XXXX XXXX cases, she orchestrated a criminal plan by deliberately arranging the filing of XXXX identical barred state court lawsuits, XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and a XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX for identical cases pending for XXXX months in XXXX arbitration cases with XXXX separate law firms being assigned to XXXX separate state court judges. This new XXXX arbitration demand and claims deal with extensive and ongoing repeated illegal retaliatory fraudulent and criminal actions by XXXX  and its lawyers for illegal actions AFTER the filing of the XX/XX/XXXX CEASE and DESIST notices and AFTER the early filing of XXXX XXXX cases in early XX/XX/XXXX before sending Rauschs Debt Validation Notice. Much of the illegal conduct is evidenced by CFPB Complaints served upon XXXX and its counsel, including Rausch, some of which are included in part hereinafter. There is so much illegal conduct by XXXX for the last XXXX  months that is difficult to present the facts chronologically so many of the CFPB communications will be presented in Claim # XXXX to give the reader a prospective for understanding all past claims including subsequent claims. While this NEW XXXX case is totally different from the pending XXXX XXXX cases against XXXX, XXXX re-alleges the previously filed XXXX cases as if specifically set forth at length herein so that a reader may fully understand the entire complex dispute with XXXX  which XXXX  has escalated with repeated criminal extortionate RICO activity known to be outrageous, especially by licensed attorneys. In a nutshell, while it may appear that XXXX left hand does not know what its right hand is doing, in reality, XXXX knew exactly what it had planned and executed with its conduct which, at a minimum, was fraudulent and extortionate. After XXXX complained on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX counsel XXXX XXXX and his XXXX  Manager about the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX state court lawsuits, XXXX  in spite of XXXX exclusive jurisdiction escalated matters by retaliating in a conspiracy and filing a third state court lawsuit on XX/XX/XXXX by Rausch knowing it was prohibited. XXXX knows its actions are illegal but it refuses to comply with its statutory obligations. Any one of XXXX allegations is sufficient to justify a huge award against XXXX in favor of XXXX. In combination, the repeated malicious and retaliatory actions of XXXX mandates such a sizeable award to punish XXXX to prevent further illegal actions. To prevent a vexatious multiplicity of proceedings by XXXX  in multiple state and federal courts, XXXX has written to XXXX  Executive-Vice Present, General Counsel and Secretary, XXXX XXXX , but no response has been received except an attempt to conceal the unethical conduct.\n\nCLAIM # 1 - Statement of the Facts and Law and Relief Requested Claimant, XXXX, is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Florida residing at all relevant times in XXXX XXXX, Florida. XXXX is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ). On information and belief, XXXX  debt collector and law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), is a Florida Limited Liability Company and Law Firm with a principal place of business in XXXX XXXX, Florida with offices at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX. On information and belief, XXXX  additional debt collector and law firm, Rausch Sturm LLP ( Rausch ) is a Nationwide Limited Liability Company and citizen of every state in which it operates with a principal place of business at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WI XXXX and a Florida address at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX. Rausch and XXXX are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers to creditors, such as XXXX. Rausch and XXXX are each a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 6 ). XXXX continues to falsely allege that XXXX owes a debt ( the Debt ) to XXXX which XXXX has disputed. XXXX filed multiple CEASE and DESIST demands to XXXX  on and after XX/XX/XXXX pursuant to multiple repeated written Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Board ( CFPB ), acknowledged by XXXX  and XXXX  attorneys and debt collectors, Rausch and XXXX, in CFPB responses. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a debt as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 5 ). Sometime after the purported incurrence of the entirely disputed Debt, XXXX disputed the Debt due to willful and intentional violations of the FCRA, FDCPA and other statutes which are documented herein and in detail in pending XXXX  cases and numerous CFPB Complaints. XXXX took absolutely no action to correct the deliberate violations of law despite repeated notices from CFPB, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Thereafter, at an exact time known only to XXXX, Rausch and XXXX, the Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred by XXXX  to Rausch and/or XXXX for collection which XXXX claimed was on XX/XX/XXXX in responses to CFPB complaints. In its efforts to unlawfully collect the disputed debt containing a known and acknowledged CEASE and DESIST notice for ALL COMMUNICATIONS, Rausch, at the direction of XXXX, contacted XXXX by letter ( the Letter ) dated XX/XX/XXXX. The Letter was in an envelope postmarked and received after XX/XX/XXXX ( WEEKS AFTER XXXX FILED HIS XXXX CASE for account XXXX ) in an unsealed envelope believed sent by an unauthorized third party mailing service unauthorized to receive sensitive confidential personal data about XXXX in further violation of the FDCPA and state related statutes designed to protect sensitive data from being released to unauthorized parties. The Letter, barred by the CEASE and DESIST notice of XX/XX/XXXX, was the initial communication XXXX received from XXXX  debt collector Rausch as stated in the Letter regarding account # XXXX. The Letter is a communication as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 2 ). 15 U.S.C. 1692e prohibits a debt collector form using any false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of any debt. The question of whether a collection letter is deceptive is determined from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer. 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 3 ) prohibits a debt collector from using the false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. The Letter is on the letterhead of XXXX debt collector, Rausch, a law firm. The Letter states, www. rauschsturm. comRausch Sturm LLP is a debt collector. We are trying to collect a debt that you owe to XXXX XXXX Call or write to us by XX/XX/XXXX, to dispute all or part of the debt If you write to us by XX/XX/XXXX, we must stop collection on any amount you dispute until we send you information that shows you owe the debt Go to www. cfpb to learn more about your rights under federal law. For instance, you have the right to stop or limit how we contact you The Letters non-existent signature block implies it was sent by Rausch Sturm LLP but is unsigned as it was obviously or possibly sent by an unauthorized mailing service or ROBO FILER where XXXX sensitive personal data was released. The Letter identifies Rausch as a debt collector. Rausch was acting as a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA, concerning XXXX  alleged yet disputed debt despite known red flags in the file containing XXXX XX/XX/XXXX CEASE and DESIST notices barring any further communication of any kind including the XX/XX/XXXX notice of Rausch. The FDCPA and related statutes prohibit a debt collector from sending a letter, such as the subject Letter herein, if such letter misleads the consumer regarding meaningful attorney involvement in the debt collection process. A letter, such as the subject Letter herein, does not mislead a consumer regarding meaningful attorney involvement in the debt collection process so long as that letter includes a disclaimer, such as the following : At this time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account. The Letter contains no such disclaimer. Because the Letter states that it is from a law firm, and because the Letter contains no disclaimer as to meaningful attorney involvement, the least sophisticated consumer would likely believe that one or more attorneys have been personally involved in the day-to-day collection of XXXX debt. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by Rauschs conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices red flagged by XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX as acknowledged by XXXX  in responses it sent to the CFPB documented herein. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a material way by Rauschs conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices specifically acknowledged by XXXX. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived into believing that an attorney had meaningful involvement in the collection of the alleged debt especially since CEASE and DESIST notices had been red flagged on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX system available to even ROBO FILERS such as Rausch after the required investigation from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX, by its actions referring the matter to a debt collector and the actions of its debt collector agent Rausch, has violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e by using a false, deceptive, and misleading representation in its attempt to collect the disputed debt containing known CEASE and DESIST notices.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-29T11:16:14.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8078765","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rausch Sturm LLP","date_received":"2023-12-29T10:58:44.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> would likely be deceived by Rauschs conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices red flagged by XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX as acknowledged by XXXX  in responses it sent to the CFPB documented herein. The <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> would likely be deceived in a material way by Rauschs conduct especially in light of the CEASE and DESIST notices specifically acknowledged by XXXX."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[9.052264,"8078765"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3284007","_score":8.485089,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Please find this Complaint against Village Capital & Investment ( \" VCI '' ) scam with XXXX XXXX XXXX ; identity theft and other deceptive practices. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I signed a VA loan with XXXX XXXX , XXXX claimed to be a \" Lender '' and who was also an original Servicer. This loan was a deception from the beginning since XXXX failed to follow applicable laws and disclose me mandatory information about their Affiliated Businesses, as required by TILA, RESPA and SEC ; as well as the full compensation received for this loan. According to XXXX, the total amount of payments to the lender from my $ XXXX loan would be nearly $ XXXX after 30 years of payments, including principal and interest. In fact, the REAL amount received by the REAL party who was hiding behind this loan, likely XXXX XXXX investment bank, was about 20 times more, likely XXXX XXXX, which was coming from unauthorized and undisclosed trades on my name, signature and reputation on the open market, without my consent plus sales of my identity to predatory lenders like VCI who are also a part of this scam. VCI duty is to lure borrowers into predatory loans ; push them in default and fraudulently foreclose for the sole benefit of the Investment Bank ( XXXX XXXX, for example ), though a chain of sham conduits like XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ; VCI ; XXXX XXXX XXXX and many other corporations whose sole responsibility is to put borrowers under hardships to steal their properties - while investment bank makes millions from trades plus profits from stolen borrowers ' identities. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX XXXX transferred my loan to a new \" Servicer '' - XXXX XXXX XXXX, a part of XXXX XXXX who now operate at least three known to me enterprises - XXXX, XXXX   and XXXX. \n\nAs soon as XXXX became the Servicer my mailbox was full of junk unsolicited offers from various predatory lenders who offered me a refinancing without income verification and with substantial cashouts. The most annoying were VCI and XXXX XXXX. \n\nDuring XXXX XXXX I received solicitations for refinancing of my property located in the State of Michigan from Village Capital & Investment ( \" VCI '' ), a Nevada Corporation whose place of business is XXXX , NV XXXX. \n\nVCI sent me unsolicited offers to refinance my VA loan with your Company, under predatory terms, without minimum credit score ; without Appraisals, re-qualifications, no income verification, no costs, plus a substantial ( up to {$19000.00} ) cash out. A copy of the Offer is enclosed. \n\nThese offers came from Mr. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NJ XXXX, who failed to disclose that 5 years fixed loan with the attractive 3.25 % rate ( or 4.39APR ) will increase after loan consummation ; without disclosing that is included in the payment ; and without disclosing the name of the source where VCI got my information. \n\nMoreover, it appears that VCI used a fake business license under which they operated in Michigan when Mr. XXXX solicited me to refinance with his Company. \n\nAccording to the Offer, VCI was licensed in the State of Michigan under 1st Mortgagee Broker/Lender License # XXXX. \n\nAccording to MI DIFS, your Company 's license is XXXX and it was registered in Michigan on XX/XX/XXXX, or shortly after I filed my Complaint with CA Attorney General on XX/XX/XXXX against another predatory lender, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who sent me identical offers to refinance my loan. \n\nWorth to mention, XXXX XXXX was sued by the State of Washington on XX/XX/XXXX for defrauding customers, see the link to this case where XXXX XXXX was fined for distributing false, misleading and deceptive information, similar to yours. \n\nI have a reason to believe that I am a victim of massive fraud ; identity theft ; theft of the loan and other crimes conducted by certain corporations, like XXXX XXXX who now operates under names of XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( owned by predatory forecloser XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX ( owned by predatory forecloser XXXX XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX, their data management and supporting Company. \n\nI believe that my identity and my loan were stolen ; and VCI, along with XXXX XXXX are the part of a sophisticated scheme intended to lure borrowers into predatory loans ; without disclosures ; fraudulently push borrowers in defaults and steal their properties. \n\nI further believe that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX manipulated with XXXX XXXX ; defrauded XXXX to purchase performing loans as \" defaulted '' for pennies for a dollar, and defraud XXXX about the real status of these loans. \n\nMy loan is current and was never late, yet both XXXX and now XXXX intent that they are \" owners '' - which can only happen if my loan was stolen from XXXX XXXX under false pretenses. Worth to mention, neither XXXX of XXXX can not provide me a validation of this debt or verification of my loan 's valid standing with XXXX XXXX. \n\nI respectfully request VCI to provide me proof of its registration with the State of Michigan between XXXX when VCI solicited from me refinancing of my loan ; as well as full disclosures, addresses, names and contract information for sources where you obtained my personal data and information about my loan. \n\nAccording to the law, VCI must keep all books, records, dates, methods and all other materials related to distributions of the advertisement related to my loan and my personal information, as well as the amount you paid to the source to obtain my data. Please provide it to me as well, in writing ; and include Michigan DIFS in your communication. \n\nMoreover, as you know, after origination in XXXX my loan was purportedly placed into a certain MBS /REMIC/REIT or similar Trust. \n\nPlease provide me information about this Trust, the name of Trustee, Custodian, and all other Trust officials which you must know since you planned to refinance my loan under VA Guarantee. In the case against XXXX XXXX this information was specifically demanded by WA Department of Consumer Services. \n\nPlease contact me as soon as possible with the information requested above, no later than 15 calendar days. \n\nSincerely XXXX XXXX, property address is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MI XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2019-06-23T12:21:08.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"490XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3284007","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Village Capital & Investment LLC","date_received":"2019-06-23T12:16:45.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Worth to mention, XXXX XXXX was sued by the State of Washington on XX/XX/XXXX for defrauding customers, see the link to this case where XXXX XXXX was fined for distributing false, <em>misleading</em> and <em>deceptive</em> information, similar to yours."]},"sort":[8.485089,"3284007"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2875066","_score":8.471089,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Brumbaugh & Quandahl Thank you for your response. There are 6 intentional point Brumbaugh & Quandahl has not responded to which I am clearly bringing to light. After reviewing their letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Here are the areas they have failed to respond. \n1. No letter was presented dated XX/XX/XXXX as alleged by them on their XX/XX/XXXX letter. ( Letter in which they alleged XX/XX/XXXX is attached ). Instead of them to apologize and admit error they have instead become silent on it, but presented another implicatory letter they received on a date they claimed XXXX XXXX called to make payment arrangement but payment arrangement was not made, yet after that letter requesting for validation they kept pursuing the alleged debt as evidence from the dated letter. \n\n2. Brumbaugh & Quandahl creates debt as evidence from the proof they have sent about the alleged {$12000.00}, none of the letter or evidence shows how they arrived at that amount. In their failure they have presented a non existing default judgement which they have sent twice, that does not speak to the current amount or mentioned XXXX XXXX name in which they were demanding. \n\n3. In Brumbaugh & Quandahl desperation they have presented as Exhibit 2, what can not be currently verified by the Court clerk. But instead a dated information not relevant to the case of how they created the debts. \n\n4. Brumbaugh & Quandahl demands {$12.00}, XXXX for an alleged debt for which no proof of said debt, nor proof of ownership of said debt, has been verified and exhibited. \n\n5. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Actstates that the debt collector can not collect any amount of money that is not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Because there is no agreement between the Brumbaugh & Quandahl and the alleged debtor, no collection can be sustained. \n\n\n6. XXXX XXXX is without knowledge as to the accuracy of any company named XXXX XXXX XXXX which Brumbaugh & Quandahl mentioned and as such denies the allegation that Brumbaugh & Quandahl claimed that XXXX XXXX XXXX awarded a judgement to XXXX XXXX. Please provide such company and evidence that I have ever had anything to do with XXXX XXXX XXXX as you alleged ( Letter of the named company you mentioned is attached ). \n\n\n\nThe evidence you provided shows how you have violated Section 809. Validation of debts, read below : If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection ( a ) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. \n\nIn your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, to the CFPB, you claimed XXXX XXXX sent you a letter onXX/XX/XXXX, to which XXXX XXXX, in part, alleged identity fraud. XXXX clearly denies such letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and requested for evidence since it is claimed all the mail sent to you is certified. In your response you became silent to the dispute and never mentioned what you alleged. Instead you presented Exhibit 1 as evidence to that letter and it was not dated XX/XX/XXXX which you claimed. The letter on further review never claimed in part, that XXXX XXXX was alleging being a victim of identity fraud, it was a validation letter requesting for proof of the alleged debt as required by Federal law. Please refer to the letter and read it carefully to understand the content. \n\nWithout dismissing the registration request which Brumbaugh & Quandahl has provided about their ability to operate business in Missouri. Although Brumbaugh & Quandahl have previously violated Missouri Tax laws in violation of Section 3251.481, however, they are currently in good standing, but the unanswered question is whether they are licensed to operate in the capacity in which they are operating as a debt-collector agent by consistently violating federal laws which I have consistently pointed out in my complaint. \n\n\nAgain, the letter ( Exhibit1 ) Brumbaugh & Quandahl presented destroyed their claim in their letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, in which they state that XXXX XXXX called XX/XX/XXXX to make a payment arrangement, you never responded to it either because evidence was requested from you which you have failed to provide. \n\nBased on the evidence Brumbaugh & Quandahl have provided, it is apparent they are in clear violation of Section 809, because when a debt is disputed and validation requested, all collections cease, but they received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX which they have provided and never validated the debt, but instead went about collection activities. Trying to effect a collection on a disputed debt is a clear violation of Federal Law. \n\nAgain, XXXX XXXX have questioned your attention to details and your lack of trustworthiness in being able to identify the original creditor. Your letters identified two original creditors as evidence from your letters in which none have XXXX XXXX name on either, or both of them. \n\nFurthermore, you presented Exhibit 2. The affidavit does not provide the foundation to testify that this file was accurate, or complete, or reliable for later use by Brumbaugh & Quandahl The reorganization of the ordinary data into a culled data file to be transferred to another file created non-ordinary business data that falls outside of the rules of I.R.E 902 ( 11 ) and I.R.E. 803 ( 6 ), making Brumbaugh & Quandahl Affidavit inadmissible.It is clear on the website that This information is provided as service and is not considered an official court record. \n\n\nBrumbaugh & Quandahl fails to note it is not an official court record but informational, and as such can not be used as evidence. Until you present a valid signed copy from the court clerk before such admittance will be valid. As at the time you sent the letter to XXXX XXXX, he was not representing XXXX XXXX same with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was not being represented by you. Presenting outdated information irrelevant to the case is almost like presenting how Brumbaugh & Quandahl failed to filed taxes in in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX as they were prerestated after being in violation of Missouri State laws for failure to file taxes ( Evidence attached from State Website ( XXXX ). \n\nThe FDCPA is a strict liability statute intended to be liberally construed to protect consumers ( XXXX v. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir XXXX ). Scienter is not an element of proving an FDCPA violation. Misleading or deceptive representations made as a result of carelessness or negligence are actionable under the FDCPA. All a court needs to find for an FDCPA violation is that the communications from the debt buyer to the consumer would have been misleading to the least sophisticated consumer ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). \n\nIn summary, Exhibit 1, Never showed XXXX XXXX alleged fraud and it was not written or sent XX/XX/XXXX which you alleged. \nExhibit 2, is not admissible because it can not be validated by the clerk and Brumbaugh & Quandahl was not named in it, it is irrelevant to the case and your company policy is not binding on XXXX XXXX because you are not related by any contract, neither is XXXX XXXX obligated to abide by your unilateral usage of some self-serving terms. \n\nExhibit 3 never showed a default judgement by a company named XXXX XXXX XXXX which you alleged obtain a default judgement of {$12000.00} in violation of federal laws which you are trying to claim. \nIn Brumbaugh & Quandahl submitted documents and brief there are two contradictory Balances which Brumbaugh & Quandahl claims XXXX XXXX owes, in Exhibit 1 for {$7400.00} and in Exhibit 2 for {$12.00}, XXXX, demonstrating thereby a lack of sufficient indicia of trustworthiness for accounting in this instance to be considered reliable ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ).","date_sent_to_company":"2018-04-14T04:34:41.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"630XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2875066","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BQ & Associates, P.C., L.L.O.","date_received":"2018-04-14T00:27:24.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All a court needs to find for an FDCPA violation is that the communications from the debt buyer to the <em>consumer</em> would have been <em>misleading</em> to the <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). \n\nIn summary, Exhibit 1, Never showed XXXX XXXX alleged fraud and it was not written or sent XX/XX/XXXX which you alleged."]},"sort":[8.471089,"2875066"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21414310","_score":7.155188,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am a Tennessee consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, Tennessee. I am filing this complaint against DRB-40 , LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that also transacts business under the name DRB , LLC and is listed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX under the alternate name Diversified Recovery Bureau LLC . DRB has a principal office at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, New York XXXX. DRB is attempting to collect an alleged debt of {$4100.00} identified as DRB File XXXX, which DRB claims arises from XXXX XXXX, XXXX Account XXXX. DRB has held itself out in its communications as a debt collector subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., and Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. Part 1006. \nSummary of violations. DRBs conduct in connection with this account violates multiple provisions of the FDCPA and Regulation F, each of which is actionable by private right of action under 15 U.S.C. 1692k : ( 1 ) failure to provide the written validation notice required by 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) and 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) ; ( 2 ) continued collection after written dispute in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ; ( 3 ) false and misleading representation of creditor identity and authority to collect in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) and ( 10 ), and 12 C.F.R. 1006.18 ( a ) and ( d ) ; ( 4 ) use of a name other than the true name of the debt collector, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 14 ) ; ( 5 ) unfair means of collection through repeated plaintext transmission of my full date of birth in unencrypted emails, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692f and 12 C.F.R. 1006.22 ( a ), under circumstances that forfeit the email safe harbor in 1006.22 ( g ) ; ( 6 ) continued collection communications after my XX/XX/XXXX consent revocation ; and ( 7 ) to the extent any email was received, accessed, or forwarded by any person other than me, violation of 12 C.F.R. 1006.6 ( d ) ( 1 ). \nEach of the violations below is evaluated under the XXXXXXXX XXXX least sophisticated consumer standard, which asks whether a consumer of low sophistication would be confused or misled by the debt collectors communications. XXXX XXXX XXXX , 539 F.3d 327, 333 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nChronology of DRBs communications. On XX/XX/XXXX, DRB sent an SMS to my cellular telephone number from short code XXXX. The SMS contained branding DRB , LLC Excellence in Execution and a shortened URL redirecting to the third-party domain s-url.pro. The SMS did not identify itself as a debt-collection communication, did not disclose the debt collectors identity as required by 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 11 ), and did not include any of the validation elements under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) that would be required if this were the initial written communication. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, DRB sent a second SMS from short code XXXX. I replied Stop. DRBs automated reply confirmed : Youve successfully unsubscribed and will no longer receive text messages. That response established an affirmative act of consent revocation under 47 U.S.C. 227 and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200 ( a ) ( 10 ), and put DRB on actual notice that I had withdrawn any consent DRB claimed to possess for further contact. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, DRB sent the first email regarding the alleged debt, from sender address DRB , LLC XXXX. The email included the mini-XXXX disclosure under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 11 ). The email offered a settlement of {$2000.00} by XX/XX/XXXX. The email named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as Current CreditoXXXX. The email disclosed my full date of birth ( XX/XX/XXXX ) in plaintext in the message body. The email listed contact number XXXX, which differs from the primary contact number XXXX publicly associated with DRB-40 , LLC through its XXXX XXXX XXXX profile . \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, DRB sent a second email revising the settlement offer to {$2000.00} by XX/XX/XXXX. My full date of birth was again disclosed in plaintext. This email was sent after my XX/XX/XXXX SMS opt-out. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, DRB sent a third email demanding payment within seven ( 7 ) days. My full date of birth was again disclosed in plaintext. This email was also sent after my XX/XX/XXXX SMS opt-out. On that same date I mailed DRB a formal written dispute and demand for validation by USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested. \nTimeline-based liability chain. These five communications, taken together, establish an unbroken chain of collection activity conducted without the statutory validation required by 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ). The XX/XX/XXXX SMS, if deemed the initial communication, triggered DRBs five-day validation duty never cured. The XX/XX/XXXX email, as the first written communication, independently triggered the five-day duty also never cured. Each subsequent email repeated the creditor-identification contradiction, repeated the plaintext DOB exposure, and occurred without validation. Upon DRBs receipt of my XX/XX/XXXX written dispute, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) imposes an affirmative duty to cease collection until verification is obtained and mailed each subsequent collection communication DRB sends without verification is an independent violation. \nViolation 1 Failure to provide validation notice. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) requires that within five days after the initial communication, a debt collector must send the consumer written notice containing : ( 1 ) the amount of the debt ; ( 2 ) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed ; ( 3 ) a statement that unless the consumer disputes the validity of the debt within thirty days the debt will be assumed valid ; ( 4 ) a statement that if the consumer disputes the debt in writing within thirty days, the collector will obtain verification and mail a copy; and ( 5 ) a statement that the collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor upon request. Regulation F at 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) imposes equivalent and more detailed validation-information requirements. As of the date of this complaint, DRB has not provided any validation notice meeting these requirements whether measured from the XX/XX/XXXX email or from any earlier communication DRB may characterize as the initial communication. The three DRB emails that do exist are settlement demands, not validation notices. They do not itemize the debt under 1006.34 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( viii ), do not state the current amount of the debt as of the date validation is provided under 1006.34 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( ix ), do not provide consumer-protection information under 1006.34 ( c ) ( 3 ), and do not provide consumer-response information under 1006.34 ( c ) ( 4 ). \nViolation 2 Continued collection after written dispute. Independent of the validation-notice failure, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) imposes an ongoing duty : once a consumer disputes the debt in writing, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt until verification is obtained and mailed to the consumer. My XX/XX/XXXX certified-mail demand letter is a written dispute under 1692g ( b ), and DRBs receipt of that letter triggers the cease-collection duty. Each collection communication DRB sends after receipt of the demand letter, without having first provided proper verification, constitutes an independent violation of 1692g ( b ) subject to separate statutory damages under 1692k. \nViolation 3 False or misleading representation of creditor identity, and failure to establish authority to collect. DRBs three emails identify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the Current Creditor. However, the XXXX XXXX, XXXX customer portal for my account number XXXX identifies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) not XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the entity to which my account was sold by XXXX. These two identifications are facially inconsistent and can not both be accurate without documentary proof of a subsequent transfer from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or documentary proof of a servicing or agency relationship between them. DRB has produced no such documentation. Under the Sixth Circuits least sophisticated consumer standard ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX ), the contradictory identification of the current creditor in a collection communication satisfies the materially-misleading element of 1692e : a consumer of low sophistication can not determine to whom payment would be legally owed, to whom dispute rights run, or whether DRB possesses any authority to collect at all. The contradiction violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ( false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of the debt ), 1692e ( 10 ) ( use of false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means to collect any debt ), and 12 C.F.R. 1006.18 ( a ) and ( d ) ( Regulation F codification ).\n\nSeparately and independently : absent documentary proof of a clean chain of assignment from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to the party DRB represents to be the current creditor, DRBs demand for payment constitutes an attempt to collect a debt not shown to be owed to the party named in DRBs communications. This is an independent violation of 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ). A debt collector without documented authority to collect has no lawful basis for any collection activity at all, and my dispute of the debt includes a dispute of DRBs standing to demand payment.\n\nViolation 4 Use of a name other than true name. 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 14 ) prohibits the use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collectors business, company, or organization. Publicly available records I have reviewed show that the registered legal name of this entity is DRB-40 , LLC reflected in the Florida Department of State Sunbiz database under Document Number XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX ), and in the Delaware Division of Corporations records reflecting an XXXX NAME CHANGE event filed XX/XX/XXXX. The only alternate name I could locate is Diversified Recovery Bureau LLC, listed on the XXXX XXXX XXXX profile. DRB , LLC does not appear in any public record I have reviewed as the entitys registered legal or assumed name, yet DRB presents itself publicly as DRB , LLC in SMS branding, email sender headers, and at thedrbllc.com. Unless DRB can produce a certified state filing establishing DRB , LLC as a lawfully registered assumed name, fictitious name, trade name, or d/b/a of DRB-40 , LLC in any state of formation or operation, this use constitutes a 1692e ( 14 ) violation. \nViolation 5 Unfair means through plaintext date-of-birth transmission. 15 U.S.C. 1692f prohibits debt collectors from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 12 C.F.R. 1006.22 ( a ) codifies that prohibition. Across three separate emails ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ), DRB transmitted my full date of birth in plaintext in the body of unencrypted email. Date of birth is sensitive identifying data commonly used as an authentication element for financial accounts. There is no operational justification for plaintext DOB transmission in collection emails debt validation does not require the collector to echo back the consumers DOB, and any legitimate authentication function can be performed through methods that do not expose DOB in cleartext email bodies. The risk of third-party disclosure is not speculative : unencrypted email traffic traverses multiple intermediate mail relays, is accessible to any person with lawful or unlawful access to either endpoint, and can be forwarded, breached, or intercepted in transit. Repeated plaintext DOB transmission, performed despite the absence of operational justification and despite the availability of basic encryption, is an unfair means of collection. \nViolation 5 ( a ) Forfeiture of the email safe harbor. 12 C.F.R. 1006.22 ( g ) provides a narrow safe harbor from 1006.22 ( a ) liability only for revealing, in an email or text message, the debt collectors name or other information indicating that the communication relates to the collection of a debt and only if the debt collector follows the procedures prescribed at 1006.6 ( d ) ( 3 ) for sending email or text communications. DRB has not produced any evidence that it followed the 1006.6 ( d ) ( 3 ) procedures for authenticating my email address as the address I actually use. The safe harbor is therefore unavailable. Even if it were available, the safe harbor does not protect plaintext DOB transmission the safe harbor is limited in scope to revealing the debt-collection nature of the communication, not to all unfair-means liability. \nViolation 6 Post-revocation continuation. After my XX/XX/XXXX Stop reply, and after DRBs own automated confirmation that I had successfully unsubscribed, DRB sent two additional collection emails ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ). While Stop in the SMS context primarily revokes TCPA consent for SMS/autodialed calls under 47 U.S.C. 227 and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200 ( a ) ( 10 ), the revocation reasonably extended to all automated collection contact from DRB. Continuing to send automated collection emails after such revocation, absent any renewed consent from me, compounds the other FDCPA violations and evidences a pattern of disregarding consumer opt-out requests. \nViolation 7 Third-party communication exposure. 12 C.F.R. 1006.6 ( d ) ( 1 ), like its FDCPA counterpart at 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( b ), prohibits a debt collector from communicating, in connection with the collection of any debt, with persons other than the consumer ( subject to specific exceptions ) without the consumers prior consent. To the extent any of the three DRB emails was received, accessed, or forwarded by any person other than me including through a shared email account, workplace email access, or forwarded messages such third-party exposure raises potential 1006.6 ( d ) ( 1 ) issues. The email safe harbor at 1006.6 ( d ) ( 3 ) is available only to debt collectors who follow specific authentication procedures for the consumers email address, which DRB has not demonstrated. I reserve the right to develop this claim through discovery. \nPrior attempt to resolve. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent DRB a formal written dispute, demand for validation, cease-and-desist notice ( with specific carve-outs permitting validation response ), statutory violations notice, and reservation of rights, by USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to DRBs principal office at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX. That letter disputes the alleged debt in its entirety under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), demands the validation information required by 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 ( c ), and gives DRB thirty calendar days from receipt to respond. Under 1692g ( b ), DRB must cease collection of the debt until it has obtained verification and mailed a copy to me. If DRB fails to provide complete validation within thirty days, I will initiate consumer arbitration under either the XXXX  Consumer Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness or the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, at which DRBs minimum cost exposure to defend a single consumer arbitration substantially exceeds the {$4100.00} alleged debt. I am filing this CFPB complaint in parallel because DRBs conduct to date already constitutes multiple documented violations, because CFPB oversight is appropriate given the breadth of the violations and the sensitivity of the date-of-birth exposure, and because the public-record nature of a CFPB complaint is itself a legitimate consumer remedy independent of any arbitration or civil action. \nHarm and exposure. DRBs conduct has caused me the following categories of harm. First, confusion regarding creditor identity and authority to collect : DRBs facially contradictory identification of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX while the XXXX customer portal identifies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has prevented me from determining which entity, if any, has authority to collect the alleged debt, which entity would be the proper recipient of any payment, and which entity is the proper counterparty for any dispute or release. Second, risk of payment to the incorrect party : absent verified chain of title, any payment I might make to DRB or to any entity DRB identifies as creditor would carry substantial risk of non-release the possibility that the true holder of the account could subsequently assert the debt remains owed which is a concrete injury independent of whether any payment is actually made. Third, time and expense investigating the dispute : I have expended time and effort investigating DRBs corporate identity across multiple state databases, reviewing the XXXX customer portal, researching the chain of title, verifying DRBs Tennessee Collection Service Board licensing status, reviewing the applicable FDCPA and Regulation F requirements, and preparing the XX/XX/XXXX demand letter and this CFPB complaint. I have incurred postage, certified mail, and related costs. Fourth, invasion of privacy through plaintext date-of-birth transmission : DRBs three plaintext transmissions of my full date of birth in unencrypted email have exposed authentication-grade personal data to interception and third-party access risks over the public internet, and this exposure constitutes an identifiable injury independent of whether any interception is later proved. Fifth, impairment of informed decision-making : DRBs failure to validate the debt prevents me from evaluating its accuracy, disputing specific charges, evaluating settlement options, or exercising informed decision-making about payment, arbitration, or litigation. These harms are actual and ongoing. \nDispute and evidentiary record. I dispute the alleged debt in its entirety including its existence, amount, character, legal status, and ownership and I have received no verification from DRB meeting the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) or 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 ( a ) ( 1 ). DRB has failed to establish its authority to collect from me. DRBs response to this CFPB complaint will be part of the public record. To the extent DRB fails to produce, in response to this complaint, documentation sufficient to establish ( a ) ownership of the account, ( b ) its authority to collect, ( c ) an unbroken chain of title from XXXX XXXX, XXXX to the named current creditor, or ( d ) compliance with the Tennessee Collection Service Boards licensing requirements, I will rely on that non-production as evidence of DRBs lack of standing in any subsequent arbitration or civil proceeding. I request CFPBs assistance in obtaining a response from DRB and in documenting DRBs conduct for the CFPBs supervisory and enforcement oversight of the debt-collection market.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-20T20:59:22.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"37303","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21414310","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DRB-40, LLC","date_received":"2026-04-20T20:49:35.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under the Sixth Circuits <em>least</em> <em>sophisticated</em> <em>consumer</em> standard ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX ), the contradictory identification of the current creditor in a collection communication satisfies the materially-<em>misleading</em> element of 1692e : a <em>consumer</em> of low sophistication can not determine to whom payment would be legally owed, to whom dispute rights run, or whether DRB possesses any authority to collect at all."]},"sort":[7.155188,"21414310"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":28,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":28}]}},"product":{"doc_count":28,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":7},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Medical debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit repair services","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":28,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Old information reappears or never goes away","doc_count":4},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged","doc_count":1},{"key":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Communication tactics","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Used obscene, profane, or other abusive language","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive terms that were advertised","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Taking/threatening an illegal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized/Attempted to seize property","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":28,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":28}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":28,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":22},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":5},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":28,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":28}]}},"company":{"doc_count":28,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CURO Intermediate Holdings","doc_count":2},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aldridge PIte Haan, LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"BQ & Associates, P.C., L.L.O.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Corp Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DRB-40, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK","doc_count":1},{"key":"I.C. System, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Law Office of Michael J. Scott, PC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Machol & Johannes, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rausch Sturm LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgence Legal Group, PC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Spring Oaks Capital, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trust Financial LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Village Capital & Investment LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":28,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"UT","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"SC","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":28,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":6},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3},{"key":"Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":28,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[7.155822,"21414310"]}}}