Consumer complaint received 2026-05-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: Johnson Mark LLC
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
b'I am filing this complaint against Johnson Mark LLC ("Johnson Mark"), a Utah debt-collection law firm operating from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Utah XXXX. Johnson Mark is a "debt collector" under 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6) and XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291 (1995). Johnson Mark is attempting to collect an alleged XXXX XXXX credit card debt of XXXX (Reference Number XXXX, account ending in XXXX). I dispute the alleged debt in its entirety and have not at any time acknowledged that I owe it.\n\nThis complaint documents seven distinct violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. The conduct is continuing and has remained uncured across more than 70 days of written notice and three certified-mail dispute escalations.\n\nTIMELINE\n\n XX/XX/XXXX: Johnson Mark mailed a demand letter (XXXX XXXX) claiming XXXX owed to XXXX XXXX. The back page of the letter is blank no Notice of Important Consumer Rights was included.\n\n XX/XX/XXXX: I mailed a written dispute and 10-demand validation request to Johnson Mark by U.S.P.S. Certified Mail (tracking XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX). I sent a copy to XXXX XXXX XXXX (tracking 9XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).\n\n XX/XX/XXXX: Johnson Mark mailed a "validation response." It consisted of a one-paragraph form letter, a one-page Account Detail printout, and a single XXXX XXXX billing statement. Zero of my ten validation demands were substantively answered.\n\n XX/XX/XXXX: XXXX XXXX mailed four letters bearing Case Number XXXX. One of those letters expressly confirmed that no paper original credit application exists for the alleged account the account was opened via internet or telephone in XXXX.\n\n XX/XX/XXXX: XXXX XXXX mailed a "Credit Bureau Resolution" letter purporting to confirm reinvestigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b). The letter contained literal unreplaced template placeholders: angle-bracket fields surrounding the charge-off date, the reporting date, the balance descriptor, and the balance amount.\n\n XX/XX/XXXX: I mailed an 11-demand insufficiency response to Johnson Mark by certified mail (tracking XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), with a copy to XXXX XXXX (tracking XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).\n\n XX/XX/XXXX: I am sending a 15-demand continuing dispute and renewed demand for validation to Johnson Mark today by U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail and concurrently by email to Johnson Mark\'s published consumer-correspondence email address. The full letter is attached.\n\nVIOLATION 1 Section 1692g(a)(2) failure to identify the current creditor\n\nJohnson Mark\'s XX/XX/XXXXdemand letter and its XX/XX/XXXX validation cover letter both reference "our client" without unambiguously identifying the creditor to whom the alleged debt is currently owed in the cover letter itself. 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(2) requires identification of "the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed." A reasonable consumer should not have to triangulate the identity of the principal creditor from an attached printout. This deficiency is material and has been outstanding for more than 70 days notwithstanding three written demands.\n\nVIOLATION 2 Section 1692e(2)(A) and Section 1692f(1) material contradiction on the XXXX credit\n\nJohnson Mark\'s XX/XX/XXXX demand letter states "XXXX" in "Paid/Credited" amounts, reducing the claimed balance from XXXX to XXXX Johnson Mark\'s own XX/XX/XXXXvalidation Account Detail printout states "XXXX" in payments and credits. Two Johnson Mark documents directly contradict each other on a material element of the alleged amount due. The firm has been demanded in writing to reconcile this contradiction on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX three times. It has not done so. A debt collector\'s communication of an amount that is internally contradicted by its own validation file is a false representation of the character or amount of a debt under 1692e(2)(A) and an attempt to collect an amount not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law under 1692f(1).\n\nVIOLATION 3 Section 1692e(5)/(7) and Section 1692e(10) "RESTRICT SUIT" misrepresentation\n\nJohnson Mark\'sXX/XX/XXXX validation Account Detail printout the document Johnson Mark itself produced as validation contains the notation: "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), N.A. (RESTRICT SUIT)." This is XXXX XXXX's own internal flag against initiating litigation on the account. Despite Johnson Mark\'s own document showing this restriction, Johnson Mark has not explained the notation, has not confirmed whether litigation on this account is or is not authorized by XXXX XXXX, and has not produced any written authorization from XXXX XXXX that would override the on-its-face litigation restriction. Threatening or initiating litigation that the principal has internally restricted, while concealing the restriction from the consumer, is a deceptive means to collect under 1692e(10) and a threat to take action that cannot legally be taken under 1692e(5).\n\nVIOLATION 4 Section 1692e(10) missing consumer rights notice / selective compliance\n\nJohnson Mark\'s XX/XX/XXXX demand letter (Ref XXXX) has a blank back page. No Notice of Important Consumer Rights or equivalent disclosure was included. A contemporaneous Johnson Mark demand letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, in a related Atteberry-family matter, did include a printed consumer rights notice on the back page. A second contemporaneous Johnson Mark demand letter dated XX/XX/XXXX to my husband in another matter also had a blank back page (matching mine). The same firm, in the same time frame, selectively includes or omits the consumer rights disclosure across letters issued to consumers. That is not a printing accident. It is a policy choice that materially affects consumer awareness of rights and constitutes a deceptive omission under 1692e(10) and a Regulation F validation-information defect under 12 C.F.R. 1006.34.\n\nVIOLATION 5 Section 1692g(a) and 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 itemization defect\n\nJohnson Mark\'s demand letter states XXXX in interest and XXXX in fees on the alleged account. The XXXX XXXX billing statement that Johnson Mark itself enclosed with theXX/XX/XXXXvalidation response reflects a 28.99% APR, XXXX in interest charges for a single billing cycle, and XXXX in year-to-date interest. Under 12 C.F.R. 1006.34(c)(2)(iv) through (viii), Johnson Mark was required to identify an itemization date and provide the amounts and dates of any interest, fees, payments, and credits applied since the itemization date. The figure XXXX cannot be reconciled with the firm\'s own enclosed statement showing active interest accrual at 28.99% APR. This is a Regulation F itemization defect and a 1692g(a) validation-information defect.\n\nVIOLATION 6 XXXX attorney-review failure / Section 1692e(3)\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692e(3) prohibits the false representation or implication that a communication is from an attorney. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), and the line of authority requiring meaningful attorney review when a debt collection law firm holds itself out as such, Johnson Mark\'s letterhead-signed demand letters, validation responses, and any subsequent court filings must be supported by independent attorney review of the specific account. I have demanded three times documentation that an attorney admitted to the Utah State Bar independently reviewed the alleged account, the alleged balance, the authority to collect, and the supporting records before issuing each communication on firm letterhead. Johnson Mark has produced no such documentation. The firm cannot lawfully hold itself out as attorney debt collector while routinely producing form letters lacking individualized attorney review.\n\nVIOLATION 7 Section 1692e(8) and Section 1681s-2(a)(3) disputed-status reporting\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692e(8) prohibits communicating credit information that is known or should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a debt is disputed. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(3) requires furnishers to report a debt as disputed once notified. I have demanded confirmation, with dates, that Johnson Mark has either reported the dispute to all consumer reporting agencies to which the alleged debt has been furnished or has caused XXXX XXXX to do so. No such confirmation has been provided. XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter containing literal unreplaced mail-merge placeholders surrounding the balance and reporting date is direct evidence that XXXX XXXX reinvestigation under 1681s-2(b) was an automated template process with no human review. Johnson Mark\'s role in that defective reinvestigation, and in any disputed-status communication to credit reporting agencies, has not been disclosed despite written demand.\n\nCONTINUING SECTION 1692g(b) VIOLATION\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692g(b) requires a debt collector who receives a written dispute within thirty days of the initial communication to cease collection of the debt until validation is obtained and mailed to the consumer. I disputed the alleged debt in writing on XX/XX/XXXX well within thirty days of theXX/XX/XXXX demand letter. Johnson Mark\'s XX/XX/XXXX form-letter response does not constitute validation under any reasonable construction of 1692g(b): it answers zero of ten specific demands and contains internal contradictions that themselves require explanation. Johnson Mark is therefore obligated to cease collection until adequate validation is provided. Any continued collection activity including without limitation any further demand or settlement letters, any reporting or continued reporting to consumer reporting agencies without a disputed notation, any further interest or fee accrual, any service of summons or complaint, or any other affirmative attempt to collect that occurs while the dispute remains open and unvalidated constitutes, on these facts, a separate 1692g(b) violation.\n\nFULL ENUMERATION OF OPEN DEMANDS\n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX letter (attached) sets forth fifteen specific demands. Each remains unanswered. The violation sections above address the most significant categories; the complete demand list is reproduced here for the Bureau\'s record so that any compelled response addresses each demand by number:\n\n1. Identification of the current creditor under 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(2).\n2. Itemization information required by 12 C.F.R. 1006.34(c)(2)(iv) through (viii).\n3. The original cardholder agreement bearing my signature (or a written confirmation that no signed agreement, paper or electronic, exists for the alleged account).\n4. The written authorization or engagement document by which XXXX XXXX has specifically authorized Johnson Mark to collect the alleged account ending in 1647.\n5. A complete itemized payment history from origination XX/XX/XXXX) through the present.\n6. Documentation reflecting the charge-off date, the charge-off balance (XXXX per XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter), and any post-charge-off transactions or assignments.\n7. Reconciliation of the XXXX contradiction between Johnson Mark\'s XX/XX/XXXX demand letter and Johnson Mark\'s XX/XX/XXXX Account Detail printout.\n8. Explanation of the "RESTRICT SUIT" notation and confirmation whether litigation on this account has been authorized or restricted by XXXX XXXX.\n9. The contractual provision and accounting authority under which interest has continued to accrue or may accrue after charge-off.\n10. Documentation that an attorney admitted to the Utah State Bar independently reviewed the specific account, the alleged balance, the authority to collect, and the supporting records before signing each communication issued under firm letterhead. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995).\n11. Written confirmation, with dates, that Johnson Mark has reported the dispute to all consumer reporting agencies to which the alleged debt has been furnished or has caused XXXX XXXX to do so.\n12. Reconciliation of XXXX XXXX\'s XX/XX/XXXX mail-merge failure letter and identification of Johnson Mark\'s role in any 1681s-2(b) reinvestigation of the alleged account.\n13. Production of any IRS Form 1099-C or related cancellation-of-debt documentation, or written confirmation that none has been issued.\n14. Explanation of the basis on which Johnson Mark selectively included a Notice of Important Consumer Rights on a contemporaneous XX/XX/XXXX letter to a related consumer in the XXXX family but omitted the same notice from the XX/XX/XXXX letter to me (Ref XXXX).\n15. A complete, legible copy of the cardholder agreement XXXX XXXX contends governs the alleged account, including all amendments, change-in-terms notices, and addenda issued from origination (XX/XX/XXXX) through charge-off (XX/XX/XXXX).\n\nPATTERN EVIDENCE CROSS-CASE\n\nJohnson Mark is simultaneously prosecuting collection conduct against my husband on a separate alleged XXXX XXXX account. He filed a CFPB complaint against Johnson Mark on XX/XX/XXXX (Complaint ID XXXX) documenting a parallel set of FDCPA violations on parallel facts. Same firm, same attorneys (XXXX XXXX, UT Bar XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX, UT Bar XXXX XXXX), same selective-compliance posture on consumer rights notices, same 1692g(a)(2) creditor-identification deficit, same form-letter "validation" that resolves nothing. The pattern is institutional, not isolated.'

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