Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Struggling to repay your loan — Problem with forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
My loans was with Nelnet on XXXX the loan was paid off but and without my knowledge was transferred to https : //studentaid.gov/, the loan was less than it is now with studentaid.gov and while my loan was with Nelnet there was a data breach, below is a timeline. Nelnet is one of the largest student loan servicers in the United States. In addition to servicing student loans, Nelnet provides online technology services such as web portal and payment processing services to other student loan servicers, including XXXX and XXXX. The Action arises out of a data security incident that Nelnet made public on XX/XX/XXXX, in which an unauthorized third party accessed Personal Information in XXXX systems. Plaintiffs and other individuals sued Nelnet, XXXX, and XXXX in various courts alleging that the Data Security Incident caused student loan account registration information, including names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security Numbers, to be improperly exposed. The lawsuits claim that the Settling Entities were responsible for the Data Security Incident, and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, and violations of state consumer protection statutes relating to the Data Security Incident. The lawsuits seek compensation for people whose information was exposed in the Data Security Incident. On XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet began publicly notifying state Attorneys General and approximately XXXX impacted current and former XXXX and XXXX account holders that Personal Information, including, without limitation, their names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security Numbers, had been accessed by an unauthorized third party. Beginning on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX putative class action complaints were filed against Nelnet, with two actions naming both Nelnet and XXXX. All but three actions were filed in or removed to the District of Nebraska. Plaintiffs complaints involved a total of 23 plaintiffs from 16 states ( Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin ). Plaintiffs initiated proceedings before the XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) to centralize the various cases before the Court. The XXXX denied the motion to centralize the litigation on XX/XX/XXXX. Plaintiffs immediately filed a motion to consolidate the then-filed actions in the XXXX, and to appoint XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. While the consolidation motion was pending, a separate action was initiated against XXXX and Nelnet in Oklahoma XXXX XXXX arising out of the same Data Security Incident, which was later removed to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Oklahoma on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX, No. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( W.D. XXXX ) ). After additional briefing, on XX/XX/XXXX, the Court consolidated the cases filed in Nebraska under In re Data Security Cases Against Nelnet Servicing , LLC, No. XXXX and appointed XXXX and XXXX as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ( the Amended Complaint ) against Nelnet and XXXX on behalf of 26 plaintiffs from 17 states, asserting, inter alia, claims arising out of the Data Security Incident for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, violations of state consumer protection and notification statutes, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX moved to stay the claims against it until resolution of the claims against Nelnet. On XX/XX/XXXX, Nelnet moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX and Nelnet moved the XXXX XXXX to transfer the case to the XXXX of Nebraska on XX/XX/XXXX. After briefing, the XXXX XXXX denied OSLAs and Nelnets transfer motion. On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX entered an XXXX staying the claims against XXXX pending resolution of XXXX motion to dismiss. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiffs filed a Notice XXXX XXXX XXXX to apprise the Court of recent developments in XXXX. Specifically, Plaintiffs brought the Courts attention to recent opinions by the XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX XXXX Oklahoma in XXXX sustaining various claims against both Nelnet and XXXX. Plaintiffs urged the XXXX to sustain claims against Nelnet as well as remove the stay against XXXX and order it to submit a responsive pleading. In XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiffs and Nelnet decided they would attempt to mediate their dispute and agreed on the selection of the Honorable XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. ), as a mediator. Because Nelnet believed XXXX and XXXX were necessary parties to the mediation, the parties agreed that XXXX and XXXX could participate in the mediation session. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Parties engaged in a full day of mediation with XXXX XXXX. The parties made significant progress in their first mediation session with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. However, as several issues remained outstanding, the Parties agreed to reconvene later to continue negotiations. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Parties engaged in a second full day of mediation with XXXX XXXX. Again, the parties made significant progress, but no settlement was reached in the mediation session. Following the second, XX/XX/XXXX, mediation session, the Parties continued their negotiations. On XX/XX/XXXX, counsel for the Parties jointly emailed the chambers of Magistrate Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX and alerted the Court that a potential settlement was likely contingent on the resolution of some outstanding issues. Thereafter, the Parties continued their discussions, which included multiple meetings and email exchanges. On XX/XX/XXXX, counsel for the plaintiffs in XXXX moved to intervene in the instant case. Plaintiffs and Nelnet each filed briefs opposing the proposed intervenors motion, and the proposed intervenors filed a reply brief. On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX of Nebraska entered an XXXX terminating Nelnets motion to dismiss, subject to reopening after resolution of the proposed intervenors motion to intervene. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement to apprise the XXXX XXXX Nebraska that they had reached a settlement in principle with Nelnet, XXXX, and XXXX, and that the Parties were in the process of preparing a written settlement agreement and anticipated filing a motion for preliminary approval within 45 days. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Notice of Settlement and Intervention in the Oklahoma Action to apprise the District of Nebraska that : ( 1 ) the Parties had executed a binding term sheet outlining the terms of the Settlement and that ( 2 ) Plaintiffs had filed a Motion to Intervene and Stay Pending Final Approval of the Settlement in Related Class Action and Memorandum of Law in Support in Carr. Thereafter, Plaintiffs, Nelnet, and XXXX jointly sought, and the District of Nebraska granted, an extension of the deadline for filing a motion for preliminary approval. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX issued a report and recommendation concluding that the proposed intervenors motion should be denied in part and granted in part and, specifically, that the proposed intervenors should be joined as parties to the action solely for the limited purpose of objecting to the preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. On XX/XX/XXXX, the District of Nebraska entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge XXXX report and recommendation. On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiffs filed a Notice XXXX XXXX XXXX to apprise the XXXX XXXX Nebraska of an Order issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Oklahoma in XXXX granting motions to stay proceedings, filed by Nelnet and XXXX, pending resolution of the settlement proceedings in the instant case. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Court in the District of Nebraska granted Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Parties executed the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement. The Court issued an Amended Preliminary Approval Order regarding the Settlement on XX/XX/XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation