Consumer complaint received 2026-01-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt
Company: Kikoff Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this response as part of a new CFPB case, as my prior case # XXXX was closed without resolving the underlying dispute or requiring Kikoff Lending , LLC to provide legally sufficient proof of account ownership. The closure of that prior case does not cure the continued reporting and defense of an account that I do not own and did not authorize. Accordingly, this submission represents a renewed and active dispute that requires further CFPB review. 

I respectfully but firmly disagree with XXXX XXXX response and conclusions. I do not own this account, I did not open it, I did not authorize it, and I did not knowingly benefit from it. This account is the result of identity theft, which is why I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report and identity theft affidavit in good faith and in compliance with federal law. My dispute is not based on dissatisfaction with account terms, payment schedules, or customer service ; it is based solely on fraud and identity theft. 

1. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX states that its internal investigation found insufficient evidence to support removal of the account and that its findings remain unchanged. However, an internal investigation that relies primarily on XXXX own systems, records, and processes does not meet the standard of a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) when identity theft has been asserted. 

A reasonable investigation requires more than confirming that an account exists in a database or that certain system checks were completed. It requires determining whether the account was lawfully opened and authorized by the consumer. Internal consistency is not proof of authorization. In identity theft cases, internal records are often the very records created as a result of the fraud. 

2. Multifactor Authentication Does Not Prove Account Ownership Kikoff places significant weight on the assertion that multifactor authentication ( XXXX ) was used during account creation and verification. XXXX, however, does not establish that I personally opened or authorized the account. 

Identity theft frequently involves : Compromised email accounts XXXX swapping or phone number takeovers Intercepted verification codes Unauthorized access to personal devices Successful XXXX only demonstrates that someone had access to a communication channel at a given moment. It does not prove that the lawful consumer knowingly entered into a binding credit agreement. Treating XXXX as conclusive proof of ownership is inconsistent with the realities of modern identity theft and improperly shifts the burden of proof onto the victim. 

3. Generic Electronic Agreement Is Not Proof of Consent Kikoff references an electronically completed credit agreement and attaches a standard Credit Account Agreement. However, the document provided is a boilerplate agreement template that applies to all accounts. It does not contain : My signature ( wet or authenticated electronic ) A timestamped signature record IP address or device identifiers tied to me Geolocation data Third-party identity verification results A generic agreement without proof of execution does not establish that I agreed to the terms or opened the account. Federal consumer protection laws do not permit a company to presume consent simply because a template agreement exists. 

4. Payment History Does Not Establish XXXX XXXX also relies on payment history and account activity as evidence that the account is valid. Payment activity, however, does not prove that I opened or authorized the account. Fraudulent accounts are often used, funded, and even partially paid by third parties for various reasons, including testing stolen credentials or maintaining the appearance of legitimacy. 

The presence of payments does not negate identity theft and does not establish consumer authorization. Treating payment history as proof of ownership is inconsistent with FCRA standards. 

5. FTC Identity Theft Report Was Improperly Discounted I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report affirming under penalty of perjury that I do not own this account. This report is a legally recognized document created specifically to protect consumers from being held responsible for fraudulent accounts. 

XXXX response effectively discounts the FTC Identity Theft Report by asserting that its internal findings override my sworn statement. This approach is inconsistent with the purpose and legal weight of an FTC Identity Theft Report and undermines the protections XXXX intended for identity theft victims. 

Once identity theft is asserted and supported by an FTC report, the burden shifts to the furnisher to demonstrate ownership with competent evidence. XXXX has not met this burden. 

6. Failure to Produce Documentary Proof of Ownership At no point has XXXX produced documentary proof that I personally opened or authorized this account. Specifically, XXXX has not provided : A signed application or contract Authenticated electronic signature records IP address logs associated with account creation Device fingerprinting or geolocation data tied to me Third-party identity verification documentation Without this evidence, the account can not be reasonably verified as belonging to me. XXXX requires proof, not assumptions based on system checks. 

7. Continued Reporting Causes Ongoing Harm The continued reporting of this account as charged off or delinquent causes ongoing harm to my credit profile, financial reputation, and access to credit. Identity theft victims should not be required to endure prolonged damage while furnishers rely on internal conclusions rather than producing proof. 

The FCRA exists to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reporting. Allowing unverifiable accounts to remain reported defeats this purpose. 

8. Closure of Prior CFPB Case Does Not Resolve the Dispute My prior CFPB case # XXXX was closed, but that closure did not resolve the underlying issue. XXXX did not provide the requested proof, did not address the substance of my identity theft claim, and did not correct the reporting. 

This new case exists because the dispute remains unresolved. The closure of a prior case does not validate inaccurate reporting or relieve XXXX of its ongoing obligations under federal law. 

9. What a Reasonable Investigation Should Have Included A reasonable investigation in this matter should have included : A review of whether a signed or authenticated agreement exists Examination of account-opening IP addresses and devices Assessment of whether identity verification exceeded self-reported data Consideration of the FTC Identity Theft Report as substantive evidence Evaluation of whether ownership can be proven, not merely asserted Absent these steps, the investigation is incomplete. 

10. Required Corrective Actions To resolve this matter fairly and in compliance with the FCRA, XXXX must take XXXX of the following actions : Provide competent documentary proof that I personally opened and authorized the account, including signed or authenticated consent and identity verification evidence, or Delete the Kikoff tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies due to inability to verify ownership following an identity theft claim. 

Anything short of these actions leaves inaccurate and unverifiable information on my credit file. 

11. Request for Written Confirmation As part of a fair resolution, I also request written confirmation that : I am not responsible for the disputed account No further reporting or verification will occur The account will not be sold, assigned, or transferred The tradeline will not reappear in the future This confirmation is necessary to prevent continued or future harm. 

12. Why This Resolution Is Fair The resolution requested is fair because : I acted promptly and in good faith I followed all required procedures to report identity theft I provided sworn documentation XXXX failed to meet its burden of proof I am not requesting monetary compensation or special treatment. I am requesting accuracy, verification, and compliance with federal consumer protection laws. 

13. Closing XXXX XXXX conclusion, I am creating this new CFPB case because my prior case # XXXX was closed without resolving the dispute. I do not agree with XXXX XXXX conclusions. I do not own this account. I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report because the account is fraudulent. 

A fair resolution requires Kikoff Lending , LLC to either produce competent proof of account ownership or delete the account from my credit reports. Continued reporting without proof violates the spirit and letter of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and perpetuates harm to an identity theft victim. 

I respectfully request continued CFPB oversight to ensure this matter is resolved lawfully and fairly. 

Thank you for your time and attention.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation