Consumer complaint received 2026-01-06 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:
This submission constitutes my formal rebuttal and feedback in response to Kikoff Lending, LLCs explanation provided to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). I categorically dispute Kikoffs conclusion that the reporting associated with Account XXXX. XXXX is accurate, lawful, or compliant with federal consumer protection statutes. 

At the outset, I expressly state that I am opening a NEW CFPB case because my previous CFPB case, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX, was closed without resolving the substance of my dispute or adequately addressing my documented identity theft claim. The closure of that prior case does not constitute agreement, validation, or acceptance of Kikoffs position, nor does it relieve Kikoff of its continuing statutory obligations. 

This new case is filed to ensure that the record accurately reflects my position, my evidence, and Kikoffs ongoing failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), and federal identity theft protections. 

XXXX. Clear Statement of Non-Ownership and Identity Theft I affirm, without qualification, that : I do not own this account I did not apply for, authorize, or open this account I did not consent to any credit relationship with Kikoff Lending , LLC Any purported agreement or obligation is the result of identity theft or fraud I have filed an FTC Identity Theft Report and identity theft affidavit, placing Kikoff on formal notice that this account is fraudulent. Once such notice is provided, federal law imposes heightened duties on furnishers of credit information. Kikoffs response fails to acknowledge or comply with those duties. 

XXXX. Kikoffs Improper Dismissal of FTC Identity Theft Reports Kikoff asserts that an FTC report alone does not constitute sufficient proof of fraud. This statement is misleading, incomplete, and legally deficient. 

An FTC Identity Theft Report is explicitly recognized under the FCRA as a valid identity theft report within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. XXXX ( q ). While furnishers may request additional information, they may not simply disregard or minimize the legal significance of an FTC report, especially when the consumer unequivocally denies ownership of the account. 

The law does not require a consumer to prove fraud beyond all doubt. Rather, it requires furnishers to conduct a reasonable investigation and to cease reporting information they can not verify as accurate, including verification of ownership and authorization, not merely internal consistency. 

Kikoffs response demonstrates that it relied primarily on its own internal records and signup data, rather than conducting an independent, objective investigation into whether I actually opened or authorized this account. 

XX/XX/XXXX Reliance on Matching Personal Information Is Legally Insufficient Kikoff repeatedly asserts that the account must belong to me because the personal information used at signup matched my identifiers. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. 

Identity theft routinely involves the use of accurate personal information, including names, dates of birth, email addresses, and Social Security numbers. The presence of matching identifiers does not establish consent, authorization, or contractual liability. 

Federal courts and regulators have consistently recognized that furnishers can not rely solely on matching data fields to conclude that a disputed account is valid when identity theft is alleged. 

Kikoff has failed to provide or even reference : Authenticated electronic signature records IP address logs tied to my physical location Device fingerprinting or persistent identifiers Multi-factor authentication records Evidence that I personally accessed or controlled the account Absent such evidence, Kikoff can not reasonably conclude that I am the true obligor. 

XXXX Internal Records and Agreements Do Not Prove Consumer Liability Kikoff relies heavily on internal account records, payment histories, and its standard Credit Account Agreement to justify continued reporting. This reliance is misplaced. 

A creditors own records do not establish liability when the consumer disputes ownership due to identity theft. The Kikoff Credit Account Agreement itself acknowledges unauthorized use and fraud scenarios and does not override federal consumer protection statutes XXXX. 

Moreover, the presence of payments on an account does not prove authorization. Fraudulent accounts are frequently paid initially to avoid detection or to build credibility. Payment activity can not be equated with consumer consent or ownership XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX Improper Reporting and the FCRA Duty of Accuracy Kikoff asserts that it is obligated to report late payments and charge-offs once they occur. This statement reflects a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the FCRA. 

The FCRA does not require furnishers to report all data regardless of dispute. It requires furnishers to report accurate information. Accuracy under the FCRA includes : Correct identity of the consumer Validity of the underlying obligation Lawful authorization of the account If Kikoff can not verify that the account is mine, continued reporting of delinquencies, charge-offs, or account status is inherently inaccurate. 

Once identity theft is alleged and documented, furnishers must either substantiate ownership or suppress/delete the tradeline. 

XXXX. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Kikoffs response does not describe any meaningful investigation beyond reviewing its own records. A reasonable investigation under the FCRA requires more than confirming that the disputed data matches what is already in the furnishers system. 

Kikoff has not explained : What investigative steps were taken after receiving my FTC report Whether third-party verification was attempted Whether forensic or technical data was reviewed Whether any fraud indicators were evaluated This failure strongly suggests noncompliance with 15 U.S.C. XXXX ( b ). 

XXXX. Continued Reporting After Notice of Fraud Is Harmful Despite notice of identity theft, Kikoff continues to report this account as charged-off, causing ongoing harm to my credit profile, financial standing, and consumer reputation. 

This continued reporting : Exposes me to credit denials and higher costs Constitutes ongoing publication of disputed information May amount to willful or negligent noncompliance Kikoffs assertion that paying the balance would not change the charge-off status further underscores the unfairness of its position, as it effectively pressures a consumer to pay a debt they do not owe in order to mitigate damage. 

XXXX. Dispute of the Alleged Charge-Off and Payment History I specifically dispute : The legitimacy of the alleged balance The validity of any missed payment history The propriety of any charge-off designation The furnishing of this account to any consumer reporting agency The payment history document Kikoff references does not establish ownership and can not cure the underlying fraud XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXXNew CFPB Case and Reservation of Rights As stated above, I am creating a new CFPB case because CFPB CaseXX/XX/XXXX XXXX was closed without resolving this dispute on the merits. This new case is necessary to ensure that my identity theft claim is fully and fairly evaluated. 

I expressly reserve all rights, including but not limited to : Filing additional regulatory complaints Disputing this account directly with consumer reporting agencies Pursuing private action under the FCRA for statutory, actual, and punitive damages Seeking attorneys fees and costs as permitted by law XXXX. Requested Resolution I formally request that Kikoff Lending , LLC take the following actions : Delete Account XX/XX/XXXXXXXX from all consumer reporting agencies Provide written confirmation that the account is not mine Cease all reporting, collection, or internal attribution of this account to me Correct any inaccurate information previously furnished If Kikoff can not produce competent, objective evidence that I personally opened and authorized this account, deletion is the only lawful outcome. 

XXXX. Conclusion Kikoffs response relies on internal assumptions, dismisses the legal weight of an FTC Identity Theft Report, and fails to meet the standards imposed by federal law. The continued reporting of this account is disputed, harmful, and unsupported by adequate verification. 

This rebuttal is submitted as part of a new CFPB case, following the closure of Case XXXX. XXXX, and is intended to preserve the record, assert my rights, and demand compliance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation