Consumer complaint received 2024-05-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: CASHCALL, INC.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX  is continuously negatively reporting on my credit report. I need this item removed from my credit report but it keeps coming back. When I call the phone number provided it is not in service. The phone rings and then makes a constant busy signal. Unable to get through. 

This company continues to attempt to collect under the name of XXXX XXXX and have again started reporting to the credit reporting agencies charge off and late payments on my credit report particulary with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX and more importantly after being sued by the attorney general of XXXX. 

Read Article below XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX, XXXX Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) took its first action against an online loan servicer, CashCall Inc., its owner, its subsidiary, and its affiliate, for collecting money consumers did not owe. The CFPB alleges that the defendants engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including illegally debiting consumer checking accounts for loans that were void. 

Today we are taking action against XXXX for collecting money it had no right to take from consumers, said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. Online lending is rapidly growing and deserves ample regulatory attention. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will take action against online lenders and servicers that engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. 

XXXX XXXX its subsidiary, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its affiliate, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a XXXX  collection agency , are all under the common ownership of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The Bureaus investigation discovered that beginning in late XXXX, XXXX  and XXXX XXXX  entered into an arrangement with XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX-based online lender. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserted state laws did not apply to its business because it was based on an XXXX XXXX  and owned by a member of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. But this relationship with a tribe does not exempt XXXX XXXX from having to comply with state laws when it makes loans over the Internet to consumers in various states. 

The loans ranged from {$XXXX} to {$XXXX, and typically had upfront fees, lengthy repayment terms, and annual interest rates from nearly XXXX XXXXercent to XXXX percent. Many consumers signed loan agreements permitting loan payments to be debited directly from their bank accounts, similar to a payday lender. The loans were then acquired by XXXX XXXX and serviced by XXXX 

In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX stopped making loans and began to shut down its business after several states began investigations and court actions. But XXXX  and its collection agency, XXXX, have continued to take monthly installment payments from consumers bank accounts or have otherwise sought to collect money from borrowers. 

The CFPBs complaint alleges that defendants XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX have violated the Consumer Financial Protection Acts prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. The Bureaus investigation showed that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps or both in at least eight states : Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire , New York , and North Carolina. Under statutes in at least these eight states, any obligation to pay such loans was rendered void or otherwise nullified in whole or in part by law. Therefore, the defendants are collecting money that consumers do not owe. 

Under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. To that end, the Bureau seeks : Monetary relief, damages, and civil penalties : The CFPB wants CashCall to refund consumers the money that they took from them where the loans were void or the consumers obligation was otherwise nullified. The Bureaus complaint also seeks additional damages and civil penalties. 
No further violations of federal consumer laws : The Bureau wants the defendants to adhere to all federal consumer financial protection laws, including prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. 
This is the first CFPB online lending lawsuit. The Bureau has jurisdiction over a broad array of companies, including online lenders, loan servicers, and debt collectors. This lawsuit is a significant step in the Bureaus efforts to address regulatory-evasion schemes that are increasingly becoming a feature of the online small-dollar and payday lending industry. In filing this suit today, the Bureau has worked closely and collaboratively with state attorneys general and banking regulators. Some of these state officials are also filing their own lawsuits and announcing formal investigations today ; others are already in litigation. 

The full text of the Bureaus complaint is available at : https : XXXXf Updated on XX/XX/XXXX : An amended complaint can be found here : https : XXXX

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