In XXXX XXXX I cancelled my broadband DSL internet services with XXXX when I moved from XXXX to XXXX. On the way out of town I returned the DSL modem to a XXXX kiosk at XXXX. I gave the modem directly to a XXXX employee who accepted the modem from me. The employee provided me a business card and wrote a confirmation number on the back as a receipt. I continued to receive electronic billing statements from XXXX and provided them with my new address when I cancelled service. I paid all invoices I received from XXXX. After several months I determined it was no longer necessary to retain the XXXX business card because there was no idication of a problem, so I disagreed it. In XXXX XXXX I received a collection notice from Afni , Inc dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX indicating an alleged debt with XXXX for XXXX. Discussions with Afni and XXXX personnel indicated that the alleged debt was due to an unreturned modem. Naturally, I disputed the alleged debt exercising my rights under FDCPA. I received a letter from Afni , Inc dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX indicating XXXX had provided debt validation. Attached was a " Revised Statement '' dated XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. The statement indicated a Previous Balance of {$0.00} and new charges of XXXX as of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX for the alleged unreturned modem. It appears XXXX just made up the alleged debt on the spot. It should be noted that this was the very first communication directly from XXXX indicating that the modem had allegedly not been returned, nearly 18 months after I returned the modem. Again, I called representatives from XXXX and Afni , Inc to explain the situation, and my stories fell on deaf ears. A XXXX representative told me I should return to the kiosk ( XXXX miles away ) and see if anyone ( of the high school kids working there ) remembered me returning a modem 18 months ago. An Afni , Inc representative indicated that XXXX typically does not accept modems returned at kiosks, ignoring the fact that in this case, a XXXX employee certainly did. 
The underlying unfair, deceptive, and potentially abusive practice here is that XXXX has no incentive to note document when DSL modems are received. Both XXXX and Afni , Inc indicated that since the modem was not recorded as received, that the alleged debt was owed, whether or not I actually returned the modem to XXXX. If XXXX could charge XXXX for not marking a modem received, why would they ever mark one as received? A simple XXXX search indicates this problem is not isolated to my case, and XXXX consistently claims DSL modems are not received, not holding their own receiving department accountable in any way, but consumers, like me, who in good faith returned equipment as required. It is deceptive for an employee to accept return of a modem if that is not the correct process. It is unfair and abusive to charge a consumer for " unreturned equipment '' when it has in fact been returned. 
Further, as noted above, Afni , Inc did not provide verification of any debt upon my request under FDCPA, they simply indicated a new alleged debt was incurred on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX even though I had long since closed my account with XXXX. 
Despite claims to the contrary, I have satisfied all requirements XXXX placed on me, and should have no dealings with Afni , Inc in any was as a result. My credit is spotless, and I will not allow unfair, deceptive, and abusive tactics by these companies to stain my records.