The California Identity Theft Act Identity theft is the unauthorized use of another person’s personal identifying information to obtain credit, goods, services, money, or property from that person.  If that has happened to a consumer, where someone has used the consumer’s identifying information without the consumer’s authorization in order to obtain credit, goods, services, money, or property and the consumer did not use or possess the credit, goods, services, money, or property obtained by identity theft, and the consumer filed a police report in this regard, then the consumer is considered a victim of identity theft pursuant to California state law. California has an identity theft law, commonly referred to as the California Identity Theft Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1798.92 et seq. (“CITA”).  It provides individual consumers with an opportunity to sue companies that wrongly pursue them for debts that are not theirs because the consumer was a victim of identity theft.  California’s Identity Theft Act allows people to sue those companies who make a mistaken claim against them; where the person is the victim of identity theft.  If a company wrongfully makes a claim against a victim of identity theft, the victim can sue the business in order to receive a declaration that the victim is not obligated on the claim; an injunction to stop attempts to collect by the business; actual damages; attorney fees and costs; and a possible civil penalty of up to $30,000.00 in statutory damages to be paid to the victim. In California, if a consumer is the victim of identity theft, the consumer can pursue getting a court order to have the consumer’s name entered into the California Identity Theft Registry.  The California Identity Theft Registry is a database of identity theft victims that was established by the California Department of Justice.  It helps victims of identity theft to clear their names.  Once the consumer is entered in that registry, the consumer will get notification of the consumer’s status in the Registry.  The consumer can present that notice if the consumer is ever questioned in the future about the debt that the consumer knows is not theirs. Additionally, the consumer can request that this notification of the consumer’s status in the Registry be provided to prospective employers or others.  It can help the consumer to resolve and clear up mistaken and damaging information.  In California, any act of identity theft is a criminal act.  However, as mentioned, in California, a person who is a victim of identity theft can also have a private right of action against a person or a business that wrongfully pursues them to collect on a debt. As mentioned, in California, pursuant to the CITA, a person can sue a business or an individual person (also referred to in the CITA as a “claimant”) that claims that the person owes the business or other person monetary funds or an interest in property in connection with a transaction procured through identity theft.  A person who is a victim of identity theft can do this in order to establish that they are a victim of identity theft in connection with, for example, a business’s claim against that person. If the claimant has already sued the person to try to recover on its claim against the person, then the person who is a victim of identity theft can file a cross-complaint in court, to establish that they are in fact a victim of identity theft in connection with the claimant’s claim.  The statute of limitations (the amount of time that the consumer has to file a lawsuit) is four years from the date that the victim of identity theft knew, or in the exercise of reasonable due diligence, should have known of the existence of facts that would have let them know that they had the opportunity to sue the business for illegal conduct. In order to attain the aforementioned $30,000.00 in statutory damages, a victim of identity theft would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that:  

1. 30 days before a lawsuit or cross complaint in an existing lawsuit was filed by the victim of identity theft, they provided written notice to the claimant at the address that was designated by the claimant for complaints related to credit reporting issues that a situation of identity theft might exist.  The victim of identity theft would also have to explain in that notice the basis for that belief that a situation of identity theft might exist.
2. The claimant failed to diligently investigate the victim’s notification of a possible identity theft having occurred.
3. The claimant continued to pursue its claim against the victim of identity theft after the claimant was presented with facts that were later held to entitle the victim to a judgment pursuant to the CITA.

  Credit card companies, other creditors, or other businesses that can be deemed a claimant often fail to investigate when a victim of identity theft files a claim with them regarding identity theft.  The businesses will continue asking the victim to pay up or will just refer the debt to a debt collector, who will telephone and often harass the victim, demanding payment from the victim. Creditors often do not respond to a victim of identity theft’s claims, because they sometimes believe that many consumers just claim that identity theft occurred so that they can try to avoid legitimate debts.  So, they may be skeptical in regard to a consumer’s claims.  This is why the CITA is important.  It forces creditors and debt collectors to investigate claims of fraudulent accounts.  If someone who has committed identity theft against a consumer is convicted criminally for identity theft, a creditor such as credit card company, for example, should write off the debt. Providing a copy of the criminal case’s docket report to the creditor, showing the thief’s conviction, can help convince a creditor to write off the debt.  Some creditors and debt collectors state that they require an FTC Identity Theft Affidavit in order for them to substantiate identity theft claims.  These can be found on www.idenittytheft.gov, the United States federal government’s website in regard to the subject of identity theft. Creditors and debt collectors often want to examine a consumer’s signature, a consumer’s driver’s license, and a consumer’s social security card in order to make their own determination on whether identity theft occurred or not.  Providing five or six authentic signatures to the creditor or debt collector from various documents that a consumer has signed can help these companies compare a consumer’s signature with any other signatures that the consumer claims have been forged. In the end, if a creditor, debt collector, person, or other business does not want to stop asserting that a consumer owes it funds, and actively tries to sue the consumer or to take other means to collect from the consumer, and the consumer knows that the consumer is a victim of identity theft and has taken the required aforementioned steps required by the CITA, then pursuant to the CITA if the consumer is successful in court the consumer is then entitled to recover attorney’s fees, costs, an order that the debt be forgiven, actual damages, and also a recovery of up to $30,000.00 in statutory damages. A consumer can give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, their respective state’s Attorney General’s Office, and/or a law firm a call if the consumer needs assistance.  No one should have their notifications and claims to creditors and debt collectors in regard to being victims of identity theft wrongfully ignored or dismissed.