Consumer complaint received 2026-01-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: International Computer Systems, Inc.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
This is now my fourth CFPB complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX and at this point their conduct reflects not only disregard for me as a consumer, but disregard for the CFPB and for federal consumer protection law itself. After more than XXXX months of disputes, this company has continued to furnish damaging credit information without ever producing lawful validation, while repeatedly dismissing my complaints as duplicate and relying on an internal XXXX billing activity statement as supposed proof. That document does not establish a contract, liability, authorization, or collection authority, yet XXXX XXXX XXXX continues to treat it as verification. In 2026, with widespread consumer access to legal knowledge, online resources, and tools such as XXXX and AI, consumers now understand what lawful validation actually requires and this company continues to operate as though consumers remain uninformed. Their conduct reflects an outdated, abusive business model that depends on intimidation, assumption, and procedural avoidance rather than proof. I have now consulted with an attorney and will not pursue further internal resolution with this company. This complaint is being submitted for public record, enforcement awareness, and consumer protection transparency. 



XXXX XXXX XXXX practices are damaging consumers nationwide by reporting unverified debts without proper documentation, and this pattern must be documented so other consumers can see exactly how this company operates. The alleged debt was approximately {$1000.00}, yet the legal exposure created by the companys violations far exceeds that amount. I have been advised that their continued noncompliance exposes them to multiple statutory damages. At this point, the company does not need to respond. This complaint exists so their conduct is publicly recorded, preserved, and reviewed. 


The company placed this account on my credit report without ever providing the required written validation notice under FDCPA 1692g ( a ), which is a direct statutory violation. After I disputed the account and requested validation, the company continued furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies without providing meaningful validation, in violation of FDCPA 1692g ( b ). The only document the company has ever provided as validation is an XXXX Account Activity Statement reflecting internal billing history and a charge-off balance. This document does not contain a signed or accepted contract, does not show proof of account opening authorization, does not establish legal liability, does not show proof of service acceptance, does not show assignment or authority to collect, and does not prove that I am the correct consumer. Internal billing summaries are not competent validation under federal law, now I've consulted with an attorney-SO I WILL BE PURSING FOR DAMGES. Despite this, the company continues to treat this document as verification and continues to report the tradeline as accurate. This conduct violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy. It also violates XXXX XXXX reporting standards, which require furnishers to report only data that is complete, accurate, and verifiable. The company further assumes delivery of notices without proof, improperly shifts the burden of proof to the consumer, and repeatedly labels lawful disputes as duplicate in order to avoid correcting or deleting unverifiable information. This pattern demonstrates willful noncompliance with the FDCPA, FCRA, and XXXX XXXX reporting requirements.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation