Consumer complaint received 2025-10-05 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Need information about your loan balance or loan terms
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Nelnets Failure to Validate Debt, Concealment of Ownership, and Violations of FDCPA, FCRA, and UCC Summary of Complaint This complaint is submitted against Nelnet for failure to validate the alleged debt, concealment of the lawful holder in due course, and refusal to provide securitization, payment, and ownership records in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), and California consumer protection laws. Nelnets conduct shows willful noncompliance and bad faith, warranting federal enforcement, discharge of the alleged obligation, and restitution. 

Background On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a certified debt validation request to Nelnet demanding lawful proof of ownership and standing as required under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) and UCC 3-301 and 9-203. 

Nelnet failed to provide lawful validation within the statutory 30-day period. Instead, on XX/XX/XXXX, they sent a non-responsive packet containing generic forms and unsigned reproductions that do not satisfy federal or commercial law requirements. 
Violations XXXX. Failure to Validate Debt FDCPA & XXXX Nelnet did not provide a signed, executed original promissory note or a custodian-certified copy proving they are the lawful holder in due course under UCC XXXX XXXX 

They did not provide the E-SIGN audit trail verifying authentication, timestamps, or attribution under the E-SIGN Act ( 15 U.S.C. 70017031 ).

They failed to produce chain-of-title, transfer, and assignment documents required by UCC 9-203, proving lawful attachment of rights.

Nelnet failed to provide CUSIP and securitization data, Pooling and Servicing Agreements ( PSA ), or trust identification as required for transparency under the Higher Education Act ( 20 U.S.C. 1091a ) and securities disclosure laws.

Nelnet did not disclose whether the loans were paid, offset, or satisfied in whole or in part through third-party payments, guarantees, or Treasury remittances or whether an IRS Form 1099-C ( Cancellation of Debt ) was ever issued.

2. Failure to Investigate and Report FCRA Violations Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ), once a consumer disputes an account, the furnisher must report the account as disputed. 

Despite my certified dispute, Nelnet failed to report the account as disputed and continues to furnish it as if undisputed, violating XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 4th Cir. 2008 ).

Nelnets letter falsely claimed that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, data providers are not required to investigate certain disputes, which is a material misrepresentation of the FCRA and constitutes deceptive conduc
t under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law ( Fin. Code 90000 et seq. ).

3. Deceptive and Unfair Practices Rosenthal Act & State Law Nelnets refusal to validate while continuing to collect, coupled with false statements regarding their obligations, violates : Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq. ), which mirrors the FDCPA, and California Consumer Financial Protection Law ( Fin. Code 90000 et seq. ), which prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts in connection with financial products.

Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Violations Both servicers have violated multiple provisions of the Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 16011667f ) and Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026 ) by failing to provide full and transparent disclosure of material loan information. Under 15 U.S.C. 1641 ( f ) ( 2 ), a loan servicer is required to disclose, upon written request, the name, address, and telephone number of the current owner or holder of the obligation. Neither Nelnet nor XXXX  has provided this information. Furthermore, pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1026.39, any sale, transfer, or assignment of ownership of the loan must be disclosed to the borrower in writing within 30 days of the transfer. No such disclosures were made. These omissions constitute clear violations of TILA and Regulation Z, and materially impact the legality, transparency, and enforceability of the alleged debt.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation