Consumer complaint received 2025-12-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Glasser and Glasser, PLC
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
I am a consumer in XXXX  and the defendant in a debt-collection lawsuit filed in XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( as named in the lawsuit ), represented by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I dispute the alleged credit-card debt entirely. This matter reflects a documentation-deficient, template-driven litigation pipeline in which a supervised bank and its legal service provider ignored written disputes and validation/verification requests, escalated to court without providing foundational account-level proof, and then used robo-signed affidavit templates, selective excerpts, and discovery obstruction to avoid producing the documents necessary to verify the claim. 
This conduct has caused substantial harm, including the inability to meaningfully verify the alleged debt, increased litigation burden and costs, prolonged stress, reputational harm, and a privacy breach caused by sensitive documents being left at my door. 
Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I sent multiple written, itemized validation/verification requests to XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX These requests were specific and sought the foundational documents needed to verify ( a ) whether a valid contract exists, ( b ) how the balance was calculated, and ( c ) who has the legal right/capacity to collect and sue XXXX XXXX provided no substantive validation response. Instead, XXXX XXXX sent letters claiming the application was not available because it was taken over the phone or internet. This response mischaracterized my request : I did not merely request an application. I requested the operative agreement/terms and any evidence of assent they claim forms the contract. XXXX XXXX repeatedly reframed or re-labeled my contract requests as if I had asked only for an application, then denied availability on that narrower framingwhile still refusing to provide the actual agreement/terms and complete account-level proof. Based on other correspondence I possess, this appears to be a recurring pattern in which my specific itemized requests are ignored or re-cast as different ( and easier-to-deny ) requests, preventing meaningful verification. 
XXXX & XXXX repeatedly responded with only a brief internal transaction printout while ignoring the specific requests for the contract/terms, complete ledger/accounting, and ownership/capacity documentation. 
XXXX XXXX also stated that everything is available online, yet the materials I requestedsuch as the specific operative agreement version/terms relied upon, the complete ledger, and documents establishing capacity/ownership for this specific alleged receivableare not accessible to me online and were not provided in response to my written validation requests. I can provide additional correspondence demonstrating this repeated practice of reframing or ignoring itemized document requests. 
Despite my written disputes and repeated requests for validation/verification, XXXX XXXX ( through XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX suit in XX/XX/XXXX while still withholding the foundational proof needed to verify the claim. The lawsuit is styled as a breach of contract case, yet no contract tied to me has been producedno signed application, no signed agreement, and no document bearing my signature. 
Instead, the case proceeds with a package that creates the appearance of proof without the underlying foundation : Robo-signed / mass-produced affidavit : A standardized litigation support affidavit that is defective as served/produced, including missing counsel signature, and lacking transparent identification of what specific records were reviewed. 
Proof of robo-signing pattern : I possess multiple affidavits executed by the same named affiant in different matters using materially identical template language, including XXXX affidavits dated the same day with substantively identical content and an identical signature presentation. This pattern is inconsistent with individualized personal-knowledge review and is consistent with an assembly-line, robo-signed affidavit process used to support litigation filings while the underlying account-level documentation remains withheld. 
Witness mismatch : In at least XXXX court proceeding, XXXX presented a surprise witness who was not the affiant and attempted to offer personal knowledge testimony about records and matters the affidavit purports are within the affiants knowledgefurther calling into question whether the affidavit was based on genuine personal knowledge and real account-level review. 
Generic agreement : A generic, unsigned customer agreement not linked to a specific year/version and missing key pages ( including an XXXX page in the version provided ). 
Selective excerpts instead of full proof : Only selected statements and an internal printout, not a complete statement history or a full transaction/payment/interest/fee ledger showing how the balance was calculated. 
XXXX XXXX and its counsel have used shifting labels for XXXX Ones roleinvoking original creditor concepts in litigation while also invoking successor/merger concepts and denying any servicer role in discoveryyet they have not produced documents that establish who owns the alleged receivable and in what capacity XXXX XXXX is acting for this specific account. This ambiguity is material because it affects standing/right-to-sue and the consumers ability to verify the claim. Meanwhile, XXXX XXXX  public securitization disclosures describe a servicing framework for credit-card receivables ( including describing XXXX XXXX as servicer in that context ), reinforcing the need for clear, account-specific ownership/capacity documentation rather than shifting labels. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX use of XXXX debt-collector language confirms a debt-collection posture, but my written disputes were met with repetitive internal printouts rather than meaningful verification and clear capacity/ownership documentation. The collection posture and litigation proceeded while the ownership/capacity facts remained unverified and undocumented. I request that CFPB require XXXX XXXX to provide ( XXXX ) a clear statement of capacity for this specific alleged receivable ( owner vs. servicer vs. other ), and ( XXXX ) supporting documentation sufficient to substantiate that capacity and right to collect/sue. 
Relatedly, neither XXXX XXXX nor XXXX & XXXX clearly identified XXXX Ones legal capacity in plain terms a consumer would reasonably expect. They did not state that XXXX XXXX is the owner of the debt/receivable/obligation, the assignee, the holder, or creditor under TILA/Reg Z definitions. Instead, they relied on labels while withholding capacity/ownership documentation. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX uses XXXX debt-collector language in communications, confirming a debt-collection posture, while my written disputes were met with repetitive internal printouts and the matter escalated to litigation without the foundational account-level records being provided. 
Once in litigation, the pattern continued through systematic obstruction. The discoveries response which was late under any reasonable calculation relied heavily on boilerplate objections and withholding tactics rather than producing the core documents needed to verify a breach-of-contract claimnamely the operative agreement/terms, a complete ledger/accounting, and ownership/capacity documentation. 
They repeatedly labeled core requests as burdensome, irrelevant, and trade secret, using those labels as a blanket shield to avoid producing key documents. The trade secret label was applied even to foundational proof and to materials that can be addressed through reasonable confidentiality protections, rather than categorical non-production. They also produced stale, irrelevant documents and documents tied to incorrect account numbers, indicating serious control failures or intentional obfuscation. This delay-plus-boilerplate approach has the practical effect of increasing the consumers burden and expense while preventing meaningful verification and defense. 
Sensitive legal documents were left at my door, exposing this private financial dispute to my community and causing reputational harm and distress. This raises service-provider oversight concerns and the need for safeguards to prevent foreseeable third-party exposure of sensitive debt-collection litigation materials. 
The delays as in everything else, After I filed a counterclaim, Plaintiffs side was inactive/unresponsive for approximately XXXX XXXXays before moving to dismiss. This sequence reinforces the concern that this litigation pipeline pressures consumers through litigation burden while avoiding production of competent, account-level proof.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation