Cliff's notes version: I'm in the 9th Circuit. Sued a collection agency over an identity theft created debt. Collection agency took it to trial. One of the bigger claims I made was that they continued collection activities by verifying the debt with credit bureaus after being notified the debt was fraudulent and receiving a written validation demand, which they did not respond to. One of the things I cited in my case was the infamous FTC "Cass" letter, which somehow became the thing the judge is most interested in. He didn't issue a ruling that day, but rather sent a mailing stating that I should provide a memorandum to the court listing 3 cases showing that verifying the disputed information with the credit bureaus without providing validation to the consumer was an affirmative collection activity on the part of the Defendant. The wording of his letter is not ambiguous in the slightest: I find and provide these 3 cases, and I win. This ends up going on record in the 9th Circuit as yet another piece of case history. Actual damages will be significant. I lost my job because of these people. If I don't provide...well, I don't know how it'll turn out at that point seeing as how the collection agency's staff lied under oath about how they sent a dunning letter to a proper address (they didn't) and how they claimed they didn't have affidavits of fraud for a consumer to fill out and return to correct issues like this amiably (which is something they said they had originally). I was looking at Nelson v. Chase since it's here in the 9th, but I would prefer something that outright says that verifying the information to try and keep it on a consumer's credit report is a collection activity.
