Consumer complaint received 2026-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: DRB-40, LLC
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
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. Summary 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 ). Each 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 ). Chronology 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. On 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. On 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 . On 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. On 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. Timeline-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. Violation 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 ). Violation 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. Violation 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 ). Separately 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. Violation 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. Violation 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. Violation 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. Violation 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. Violation 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. Prior 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. Harm 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. Dispute 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.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation