Consumer complaint received 2026-04-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CHERRY TECHNOLOGIES INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX | Email : XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX | SSN ( Last XXXX ) : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX VIA CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Attn : Legal / Compliance Department XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX AND SIMULTANEOUSLY TO : XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Re : FORMAL LEGAL DISPUTE -- DEMAND FOR DELETION OF INACCURATE AND LEGALLY DEFECTIVE CREDIT REPORTING -- CONTRACT ID : XXXX NOTICE OF FCRA VIOLATIONS -- THREAT OF LITIGATION Consumer : XXXX XXXX | Contract ID XXXX XXXX | Original Loan : {$3900.00} To the Legal and Compliance Departments of Cherry Technologies, Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , write as a federally protected consumer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ( the " FCRA '' ), to formally dispute the credit reporting associated with the above-referenced account and to challenge the legal conclusions set forth in Cherry Technologies XXXX CFPB response dated on or about XX/XX/XXXX. Cherry 's response misapplies the law, relies on conclusory assertions in place of substantive analysis, and disregards multiple independent grounds upon which the credit reporting of this account is inaccurate, incomplete, and legally defective. This letter constitutes a final demand prior to litigation. I. CHERRY TECHNOLOGIES IS A FURNISHER SUBJECT TO 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) AND CAN NOT HIDE BEHIND ITS " SERVICER '' DESIGNATION Cherry Technologies characterizes itself as merely a " servicer and program administrator '' for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This characterization does not insulate Cherry from direct FCRA liability as a furnisher of credit information. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), any entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency -- regardless of whether it is the originating creditor -- bears independent legal obligations to investigate disputes and ensure the accuracy of reported information. See : XXXX v. XXXX & XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( holding that servicers and entities that furnish information to CRAs are subject to 1681s-2 ( b ) regardless of their role as originator or servicer ) ; SimmsParris v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( loan servicer qualifies as a furnisher under the FCRA and bears full investigatory obligations upon receipt of consumer dispute ). Cherry can not deflect responsibility to XXXX XXXX Bank. Both entities are co-obligors under the FCRA with respect to the accuracy of the information being reported. II. CHERRY 'S RESPONSE CONFIRMS A CHARGE-OFF -- WHICH ITSELF CREATES REPORTING OBLIGATIONS CHERRY IS VIOLATING Cherry confirms that this account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX, with a net charge-off amount of {$2300.00}. Cherry then asserts that because no Form 1099-C was issued, the debt has not been cancelled and credit reporting may continue. This analysis is incomplete and legally flawed for the following reasons. A. The Charge-Off Must Be Reported Accurately and Completely A charge-off is not simply an " internal accounting classification, '' as Cherry characterizes it. Under the FCRA and Metro 2 credit reporting standards, when an account is charged off, specific data fields must be reported with precision : the charge-off date, the charge-off amount, the current balance ( if any ), and the account status code. Any inaccuracy in any one of these fields -- including misreporting the charge-off amount, the delinquency dates, or the account status -- constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). See : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( inaccurate reporting of charge-off status and account history gives rise to FCRA XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( furnisher liable where reported information, though technically accurate in isolation, creates a misleading impression of the consumer 's credit history ). B. A Charged-Off Account With a Zero Obligation Must Reflect That Status Cherry 's response acknowledges a net charge-off of {$2300.00} yet simultaneously states the debt remains outstanding. Cherry can not have it both ways. If the account has been charged off -- meaning Cherry and/or XXXX XXXX XXXX has recognized the debt as uncollectible for accounting purposes -- the reporting of a continuing balance owed, combined with ongoing derogatory payment history notations, creates a materially misleading picture of the account status. The FCRA requires that credit reporting be not only technically accurate but also not misleading in context. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( furnisher violated FCRA where reported information, while literally accurate, was incomplete and misleading ; accuracy requires both technical correctness and contextual completeness ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( a report is " inaccurate '' under the FCRA if it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions ). III. THE DELINQUENCY HISTORY CHERRY REPORTS IS DISPUTED AS INACCURATE Cherry 's response sets forth the following alleged delinquency timeline : 30 days late ( XX/XX/XXXX ), 60 days late ( XX/XX/XXXX ), 90 days late ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and charge-off ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I dispute this payment history in its entirety and demand that Cherry provide the following original account-level documentation to substantiate each data point : ( a ) Copies of monthly billing statements issued for each payment cycle from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; ( b ) Bank-level confirmation ( not servicer records ) of each payment received and each payment missed ; ( c ) Copies of any notices of delinquency or default sent to me at my address of record ; ( d ) Documentation confirming the date and amount of the XX/XX/XXXX payment Cherry acknowledges as the last successful payment. A furnisher 's own internal servicing records are not independently sufficient to verify disputed payment history. The FCRA requires that a furnisher review " all relevant information '' provided by the consumer and conduct a genuine investigation -- not merely confirm what its own system already shows. XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( " XXXX XXXX can not fulfill its 1681s-2 ( b ) obligations by simply reviewing the information it previously submitted to the CRA and confirming its accuracy. The investigation must go beyond the furnisher 's own records. " ) ; XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( furnisher that reviewed only its own computer records without examining original loan documents did not conduct a reasonable investigation ). IV. THE ABSENCE OF A FORM 1099-C DOES NOT RESOLVE THE DISPUTE Cherry 's central argument -- that because no Form 1099-C was issued, reporting may continue unchanged -- is a non sequitur. Whether a 1099-C has been issued speaks to the tax treatment of cancelled debt under 26 U.S.C. 6050P. It says nothing about whether the credit reporting of this account is accurate under the FCRA. These are two entirely separate legal frameworks. The FCRA does not condition a consumer 's dispute rights on whether a 1099-C has been issued. The question under the FCRA is whether the reported information is accurate, complete, and not misleading. A charge-off combined with continued adverse payment history reporting can be inaccurate under the FCRA regardless of the tax treatment of the underlying debt. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ' x XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( a furnisher 's conclusory statement that reported information is accurate, without supporting documentation, does not satisfy its FCRA investigatory obligations ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( furnisher must conduct a substantive, not perfunctory, investigation of disputed information ). V. CHERRY 'S SELF-SERVING " NO INACCURACIES IDENTIFIED '' CONCLUSION IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT Cherry concludes its response by stating : " Based on our review, the credit reporting associated with this account accurately reflects its status and history. No inaccuracies were identified. '' This is a bare conclusory assertion. Cherry does not identify what documents it reviewed, what Metro 2 data fields it verified, or how it determined each individual data point -- including each specific late payment notation -- was accurate. Such a perfunctory response does not satisfy a furnisher 's obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( " The pertinent question is... whether [ the furnisher ] conducted a reasonable investigation. XXXX 's review of its own computerized information ... without verifying the underlying loan documents, did not satisfy this standard. " ) ; XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) ( furnisher that relied solely on its account system to " verify '' disputed information without reviewing original documents failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as a matter of law ). VI. FORMAL DEMANDS I hereby demand that Cherry Technologies , Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX take the following actions within fifteen ( 15 ) days of receipt of this letter : 1. Immediately delete all late payment notations ( XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ) and the charge-off entry from all credit bureau reports to which this account has been furnished, unless Cherry and XXXX XXXX XXXX can substantiate each individual data point with original account-level documentation as described in Section III above. 2. Provide complete copies of all original billing statements, payment records, delinquency notices, and account-level documentation for XXXX ID XXXX from origination through charge-off. XXXX. Provide a written explanation -- with supporting documentation -- of precisely what data fields are being reported to each credit bureau, including the account status code, payment history codes, charge-off date, charge-off amount, current balance, and scheduled payment amount, and confirm that each field complies with Metro 2 reporting standards . 4. Provide the name, title, and contact information of the individual at Cherry Technologies who conducted the FCRA investigation in response to my CFPB complaint, and identify what specific documents or data that individual reviewed. XXXX. Provide written confirmation of whether XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the originating lender, has directed Cherry Technologies to report this account, and provide a copy of any furnisher agreement or reporting protocol between XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. VII. NOTICE OF INTENT TO LITIGATE Should Cherry Technologies and/or XXXX XXXX XXXXk fail to fully comply with the demands herein within fifteen ( 15 ) days, I will file suit in United States XXXX XXXX XXXX claims under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681e ( b ), 1681n, and 1681o. I will seek statutory damages of {$100.00} to {$1000.00} per violation, actual damages for injury to my creditworthiness and financial standing, punitive damages for willful noncompliance, and attorney 's fees and costs. I will simultaneously file updated complaints with the CFPB, the FTC, the XXXX XXXX State Attorney General, and the XXXX Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ( " XXXX '' ), which regulates Cherry Technologies in XXXX. This letter is transmitted without prejudice to any and all rights and remedies available to me under federal and state law, none of which are waived. Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX | SSN ( Last XXXX ) : XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation