Consumer complaint received 2025-05-19 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: January Technologies, Inc
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
Re : January Technologies, Inc. for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX This correspondence constitutes a formal legal notice and complaint asserting that January Technologies , Inc. has willfully and negligently failed to fulfill its statutory obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681s-2, notwithstanding having received adequate and timely notice of a dispute concerning fraudulent accounts opened in the complainants name. 

January Technologies, Inc. was duly placed on notice of the dispute through both its internal dispute portal and the consumer reporting agency, XXXX  In support thereof, the complainant submitted all documentation required under federal law to substantiate a claim of identity theft, in a timely and proper manner, including but not limited to the following : 1 ) A signed Identity Theft Affidavit ; 2 ) A detailed FTC Report affirming the systemic nature of the identity theft, including criminal misuse and trafficking of sensitive personal information ( SSN, DOB, full legal name, etc. ) ; 4 ) Proof of an extended fraud alert and active security freeze placed on my credit profile by XXXX ; 5 ) All identifying information needed to confirm the disputed entries in your system. 
6 ) Additional supporting documents as required under the FCRA, which are consequent and aligned with the period of general fraudulent activity, the period of opening of the fraudulent account ( s ).

7 ) NEWLY issued documentation includes a report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). 

Notwithstanding its receipt of federally recognized and sufficient documentation, January Technologies , Inc. has failed to discharge its statutory obligation under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to conduct a lawful and reasonable reinvestigation within thirty ( 30 ) days of receiving notice of the dispute. Moreover, the company has willfully neglected its duties under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which unequivocally requires that furnishers of information refrain from continuing to report data that they know, or have reasonable cause to believe, is inaccurate or can not be verifiedparticularly when placed on notice of identity theft. 

The Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Identity Theft Report on record clearly identifies and enumerates the alleged charge ( XXXX ) in question, providing direct support for the complainants claim. 

... The individual is a confirmed victim of identity theft, systemic abuse of data, and exploitation. A significant portion of credit inquiries and financial accounts were opened or charged without his knowledge or authorization. These fraudulent activities have been substantiated by multiple financial institutions ... During this breach, his sensitive information was unlawfully obtained and trafficked on XXXX market platforms, directly resulting in substantial credit harm... ( FTC Report, XX/XX/year> ). 

Notwithstanding these facts, January Technologies , Inc., along with any affiliated original XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXhave failed to : 1 ) Furnish any documentation evidencing a valid contract, application, or agreement bearing my signature ; 2 ) Verify the accuracy or legitimacy of the account using any form of notarized affidavit, authentication logs, or identity verification protocol ; 3 ) Acknowledge or respond to the identity theft affidavit or FTC Report, both of which establish the fraudulent nature of the account ; 4 ) Provide proof of address, phone number, employment, or other valid identity linkage at the time the account was allegedly opened ; 5 ) Refrain from continued reporting and collection activity on clearly fraudulent data, in direct violation of 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). 

For the original creditor XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX in association with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX, we have identified a pattern of institutional weaknesses and negligent practices that render it disproportionately susceptible to fraudulent use. These systemic deficiencies have enabled unauthorized accounts to be opened with ease, often without the knowledge or consent of the affected consumer. Specific failures included : The bank in question operates with a limited physical presence, maintaining infrastructure solely within the state of South Dakota. There are no physical branches located in XXXX, Virginia, or in any neighboring states, and only a single operational location exists. This lack of local, in-person access materially hinders the implementation of effective fraud prevention measures. A complete list of XXXX XXXX locations is provided below, demonstrating the impossibility of conducting in-person identity verification : a ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SD XXXX b ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  SD XXXX c ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SD XXXX d ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SD XXXX No biometric verification, two-factor authentication, or knowledge-based authentication ( KBA ) questions are required at account origination, despite industry recommendations from XXXX and FTC guidelines. 

The bank does not maintain a clearly accessible, consumer-facing portal to submit identity theft disputes, upload supporting documentation, or monitor investigation progress. This obstructs accountability and transparency, and frequently leads to redundant correspondence, lost documentation, and unresolved claims. 

Unlike many financial institutions that utilize enhanced identity verification toolssuch as in-person authentication, video KYC ( Know Your Customer ), or real-time signature comparisonXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX processes do not require these protective measures. This lax framework allows fraudulent accounts to be opened using easily compromised information with little risk of detection at the application stage. 

The account initiation process is largely automated and relies on pre-approved credit offers tied to a mailing addressregardless of whether the address is accurate or associated with the intended consumer. 

At absolutely NO stage does the bank require : 1. A wet-ink signature or signature verification ; 2. A notarized affidavit of identity ; 3. A government-issued photo ID with real-time authentication ; 4. Multi-factor identity validation or fraud detection beyond rudimentary checks. 

The application process requires only a Social Security number and basic personally identifiable information ( PII ) data that is easily obtainable through online breaches or illicit black-market platforms, often for as little as {$2.00} USD, as seen in personal investigations. Victims have reported that fraudulent accounts were opened using only basic information ( name, XXXX, XXXX ) all of which can be obtained through data breaches or the dark web. 

Victims frequently report that XXXX XXXX XXXX  fails to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s- 2 and 1681i ) to conduct timely and reasonable investigations into disputed accounts. In many cases, the bank continues to furnish derogatory information to credit bureaus even after receiving formal fraud affidavits and police reports. 

Despite being notified of identity theft, XXXX XXXX XXXX has been known to refer fraudulent accounts to collection agencies and continue to furnish negative tradelines to consumer reporting agenciesexacerbating the victims credit harm and violating their rights under federal law. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXntegration with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX allows users to access and charge credit using compromised XXXX XXXX XXXX credentials. Once a fraudster gains access to a bank account, they can utilize XXXX XXXX XXXX without additional verification, allowing instant charges and withdrawals before the consumer is even aware. Additionally, the disjointed nature of these two systems often causes claims to be delayed, lost, or improperly closed due to poor data sharing and a lack of centralized fraud case management. 

Fraudulent transactions, such as high-value purchases or logins from new devices/IPs, do not consistently trigger fraud detection systems within any online portal, app, or website ( e.g, login point-of-access ). Many victims report that they received no real-time fraud alert via SMS/email, only learning of the fraud after the credit report reflected delinquency. 

Even after receiving documentation confirming identity theft, XXXX XXXX XXXX often continues to furnish negative account data to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
This practice violates 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires that inaccurate or unverifiable information be removed or corrected following a reasonable reinvestigation. 

Victims commonly report receiving generic form responses that state the account has been verified without providing a signed contract or application, disclosing the method of verification, or offering a point of contact for escalation. This constitutes a violation of FCRAs procedural safeguards designed to protect consumers from unverified data. 

Unlike financial institutions that undergo annual SSAE-18 audits or provide public details about their fraud detection mechanisms, XXXX XXXX XXXX provides minimal transparency about its fraud controls, data governance practices, or breach response processes. 

Your ongoing failure to comply with federal law constitutes willful noncompliance and triggers liability under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o, entitling me to pursue : a ) Statutory damages of up to $ 1,000-5,000 per violation ; b ) Actual damages for continued harm to my credit, privacy, and reputation ; c ) Punitive damages for willful misconduct ; d ) Attorneys fees and costs associated with enforcement of my rights under the FCRA. 

You are hereby formally placed on notice that if this matter is not fully resolved within ten ( 10 ) calendar days from the date of this noticevia XXXX  active and pending dispute processthe following corrective actions must be taken without exception : 1. Immediate, expedited, and permanent removal of all records for the above-referenced fraudulent account ( s ) from all consumer credit reports to which you have furnished data ( including but not limited to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX which are a result of verified identity theft and fraud ; 2. Cessation of any and all future reporting or re-reporting of the disputed account ( s ) to any consumer reporting agency ; 3. Issuance of a written confirmation to me, the consumer, verifying that the fraudulent account ( s ) have been deleted and will not be reinserted, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ; 4. Full disclosure of all investigative documentation in your possession, custody, or control pertaining to this dispute, including internal correspondence, third-party verification records, and any materials used to verify the accountpursuant to my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681g and 1681i.

5. Official resolution of the active dispute through XXXX with the account ( s ) conclusively and clearly marked as Removed or Deleted due to Fraud/Identity Theft, and confirmation of this status reflected in my XXXX credit file by showing no traces of the above matters. 

6. In addition to the above, you are legally obligated under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) to notify the original creditor or data furnisher of this identity theft dispute upon receipt of notice from a credit reporting agency. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of your statutory duties as a data furnisher. The original credit file and creditor ( if listed ) must be removed in its entirety as well on all three credit reporting agencies. 

Failure to comply with these demands will constitute continued willful noncompliance with federal law. As such, I will proceed with initiating formal legal action without further notice, including the pursuit of remedies available under : a ) 15 U.S.C. 1681n for willful violations of the FCRA, including statutory and punitive damages ; sdsads b ) 15 U.S.C. 1681o for negligent violations, including actual damages and attorneys fees ; c ) Any applicable provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and relevant state consumer protection statutes. 

This communication constitutes your final opportunity to remediate the identified violations prior to the initiation of litigation and the filing of formal complaints with the State Attorney Generals Office. It is noted that a complaint has already been submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ).

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation