Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Rausch Sturm LLP
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, Rausch Sturm LLP mailed a collection notice attempting to collect an alleged credit card debt identified as being owed to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, successor by merger to XXXXXXXX XXXX in the amount of {$6000.00}. On XX/XX/year>, I mailed Rausch Sturm LLP a formal written debt validation demand and legal dispute via certified mail pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and Texas Finance Code Chapter 392. My dispute specifically demanded strict proof of ownership, chain of title, merger documentation tying the specific account to any alleged XXXX XXXXXXXX transfer, complete balance accounting, original contractual documentation, proof of authority to collect in Texas, proof of the required Texas surety bond under Texas Finance Code 392.101, complete transactional history, date of first delinquency information, and competent business records sufficient to establish the alleged debt. USPS tracking confirms my dispute package was delivered to and picked up by Rausch Sturm LLP on XX/XX/year>, at XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Wisconsin. On XX/XX/year>, Rausch Sturm LLP responded and represented that it had investigated my dispute and determined the debt was accurate pursuant to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, the company failed to provide the documentation requested. The response did not contain account-level merger documentation, did not establish chain of title, did not provide a complete itemized accounting, did not provide proof of Texas surety bond compliance, did not provide competent business records establishing ownership or standing, and did not provide the complete records necessary to validate the alleged balance. Instead, the company primarily sent generic cover letters and credit card statements, which do not constitute competent validation of ownership, balance accuracy, legal standing, or authority to collect. On XX/XX/year>, I mailed a formal rejection of deficient validation and notice of continued noncompliance to Rausch Sturm LLP by certified mail. XXXX tracking confirms delivery on XX/XX/year>, at XXXXXXXX XXXX Despite receiving my dispute and rejection notice, Rausch Sturm LLP mailed another letter dated XX/XX/year> again claiming that the debt had been investigated and determined to be accurate. However, the company still failed to provide the core documentation requested in my dispute. Then, only three days later, Rausch Sturm LLP mailed another letter dated XX/XX/year>, stating that it has not had sufficient time to complete an investigation. These statements are directly contradictory. The company can not legally represent on XX/XX/year>, that the account was investigated and verified as accurate while simultaneously admitting on XX/XX/year>, that it had not had sufficient time to complete an investigation. This demonstrates that the prior verification responses were unreliable, conclusory, deceptive, or generated without a meaningful investigation. This conduct constitutes a serious violation of : FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false, deceptive, or misleading representations ) FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( unfair collection practices ) FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ( continued collection activity without proper validation ) Texas Finance Code 392.202 ( failure to properly investigate disputed debt ) Texas Finance Code 392.304 ( misrepresenting the character, amount, or status of a debt ) The company also failed to comply with the statutory investigation requirements under Texas Finance Code 392.202. My dispute was delivered XX/XX/year>, yet the company failed to provide competent validation or a legally reliable investigation within the required statutory timeframe. Instead, it issued conflicting and contradictory responses while continuing collection activity. The account also continues to be associated with XXXX XXXX reporting while Rausch Sturm LLP attempts to collect under a XXXX XXXXXXXX successor by merger theory. I specifically requested account-level documentation establishing that the specific account was lawfully transferred or included in any merger relationship. That documentation was never provided. Rausch Sturm LLP has therefore failed to establish : lawful ownership of the account lawful standing to collect balance accuracy complete chain of title authority to collect in Texas or the reliability of the alleged balance being collected The contradictory investigation responses and failure to provide competent documentation demonstrate that the alleged debt remains disputed, unreliable, and insufficiently validated. I believe Rausch Sturm LLP is engaging in deceptive collection practices and attempting to collect an amount that has not been competently validated while misrepresenting the status and accuracy of the alleged debt. I am requesting that the CFPB investigate Rausch Sturm LLPs debt validation practices, contradictory investigation conduct, continued collection activity after deficient validation, and potential violations of the FDCPA and Texas Finance Code.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation