Brown v. OneMain Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-01572

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF) — Brown v. OneMain Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-01572

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following facts are taken directly from the complaint filed by Detron Antonio Brown against OneMain Financial Group, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. in the Court of Common Pleas, Florence County, South Carolina on March 11, 2026. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.

Parties and Jurisdiction

1. Plaintiff Detron Antonio Brown is an adult individual and consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c). He resides at 1498 Summergate Drive, Florence, South Carolina 29501, within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Defendant OneMain Financial Group, LLC (“OneMain”) is a foreign limited liability company engaged in consumer lending, with its principal place of business in Evansville, Indiana. OneMain is a “furnisher of information” under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 and regularly furnishes consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies throughout the United States, including in South Carolina.
3. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) is a national banking association engaged in consumer banking and credit, with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America is a “furnisher of information” under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 and regularly furnishes consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies throughout the United States, including in South Carolina.
4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which provides for jurisdiction in any court of competent jurisdiction, and pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170, which provides a private right of action in state court.
5. Venue is proper because Plaintiff resides in Florence County, and the harm occurred in this judicial district.

Facts — The Identity Theft

6. On or around November 21, 2024, Plaintiff became the victim of identity theft when, upon information and belief, his child’s mother, Tynetra Latavia Greene, fraudulently used his personal information to open financial accounts without his knowledge or consent.
7. Ms. Greene had previously lived with Plaintiff. During that time, she obtained access to his personal identity documents—including his Social Security number, driver’s license, and other identifying information.
8. Without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization, Ms. Greene used his identity to open a personal loan with OneMain Financial in the amount of $15,950.79. The account number ends in *1185 and was opened November 21, 2024.
9. Without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization, Ms. Greene also used his identity in connection with a Bank of America credit card account. The account number ends in *0317 and was opened July 5, 2019.
10. On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff discovered the fraudulent accounts on his credit report. He immediately reported the identity theft to the Florence County Sheriff’s Office and filed a police report documenting the fraud. The report was assigned Case Number 2024-12-0362.
11. On May 23, 2025, Ms. Greene was arrested for fraud related to this and other identity theft schemes. During questioning, she admitted to having access to Plaintiff’s identity documents and acknowledged her role in the fraudulent transactions, including opening accounts in Plaintiff’s name without his authorization.

The Disputes

12. On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff sent written disputes to Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax. He provided copies of the police report, an identity theft affidavit, and proof of identity. He requested that the fraudulent OneMain and Bank of America accounts be blocked from his credit reports pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2.
13. Upon receiving Plaintiff’s disputes, each consumer reporting agency notified the relevant furnisher pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2), triggering each furnisher’s obligations under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
14. Experian initially blocked the disputed accounts from Plaintiff’s credit report, recognizing the dispute satisfied the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2.
15. TransUnion’s credit report dated August 13, 2025, contains no trace of the fraudulent OneMain or Bank of America accounts, reflecting that TransUnion properly handled the dispute.
16. Innovis similarly blocked both accounts from Plaintiff’s report. On August 13, 2025, Innovis confirmed in writing: “Blocked – The item(s) listed below have been blocked from your Innovis Credit Report: ONEMAIN 4…1185” and “BANK OF AMERICA 4…0317.”

OneMain’s Unreasonable Investigation

17. OneMain received notice of Plaintiff’s identity theft dispute from Equifax via Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”). The dispute was expressly coded as: “CLAIMS TRUE IDENTITY FRAUD – ACCOUNT FRAUDULENTLY OPENED INITIATE INVESTIGATION.”
18. Despite this express notice of identity fraud, OneMain responded to the ACDV on August 4, 2025, with the code: “Verified as Reported.” OneMain took no steps to delete or modify the account.
19. OneMain’s investigation was unreasonable. It consisted of nothing more than a review of the very documents the identity thief used to open the fraudulent account—documents that would be available to any identity thief who successfully opened an account in the victim’s name. A forged or fraudulently obtained application does not disprove identity theft; it is precisely what an identity theft victim would expect a thief to submit.
20. In connection with Experian’s handling of the dispute, OneMain submitted a block rescission request on July 28, 2025. OneMain cited as supporting evidence: (1) an original or copy of a signed contract, and (2) a copy of consumer identification submitted by the consumer at the time of application. These are documents the identity thief herself obtained and submitted. They constitute no meaningful proof that Plaintiff authorized or was aware of the account.
21. OneMain’s response verified a fraudulent address—230 N. Ebenezer Road, Florence, SC 29501-7505. This was the identity thief’s address and had been used by Ms. Greene to open accounts in Plaintiff’s name. OneMain verified it as part of Plaintiff’s identifying information, demonstrating that OneMain failed to conduct any meaningful comparison of the dispute information against its records.
22. OneMain’s investigation failed to consider the police report, the criminal charges and arrest warrants against Ms. Greene, her confession, the pattern of the account going 180 days past due within months of opening (consistent with identity theft), or Plaintiff’s consistent position that he was a victim.
23. As a result of OneMain’s verification, the fraudulent account was reinserted onto Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report with a balance of $19,562 and $3,152 past due, continuing to damage Plaintiff’s credit.

Bank of America’s Unreasonable Investigation

24. Bank of America received notice of Plaintiff’s identity theft disputes from the consumer reporting agencies, triggering its duties under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
25. Rather than conducting a reasonable investigation, Bank of America submitted a block rescission request to Experian on September 16, 2025. Bank of America cited as sole supporting evidence: “Account payment documentation (e.g.: Signed, canceled check, signed ACH authorization and debt from Consumer’s bank account).”
26. The use of “payment documentation” as proof that Plaintiff authorized the Bank of America account is unreasonable as a basis for concluding that a disputed account is not the product of identity theft. Payment documentation reflects only that payments were made on the account—it does not establish that Plaintiff was the person who made or authorized those payments, particularly where the identity thief had access to Plaintiff’s personal and financial information.
27. Bank of America’s block rescission caused Experian to re-add the fraudulent Bank of America account to Plaintiff’s credit report, notwithstanding the clear identity theft documentation Plaintiff had provided.
28. Bank of America’s investigation failed to consider the police report, the criminal arrest and confession, the fact that TransUnion and Innovis had blocked these same accounts based on identical documentation, or Plaintiff’s clear assertion that he never opened, used, or authorized the account.

Harm to Plaintiff

29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered damage to his credit score and creditworthiness, denial of credit or credit on unfavorable terms, emotional distress, time and expense correcting the fraudulent reporting, and ongoing harm from the continued presence of these fraudulent accounts on his credit file.

Claims for Relief

First Cause of Action — Negligent Violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), Against All Defendants

30. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
31. The FCRA, at 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), imposes specific duties on furnishers upon receipt of notice of a consumer dispute from a consumer reporting agency. A furnisher must investigate, review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency, report the results, and modify, delete, or permanently block the reporting of information found to be incomplete or inaccurate.
32. OneMain received notice from Equifax of Plaintiff’s identity theft dispute expressly coded as “CLAIMS TRUE IDENTITY FRAUD – ACCOUNT FRAUDULENTLY OPENED INITIATE INVESTIGATION,” triggering its duties under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
33. OneMain negligently failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. OneMain relied solely on documents used to open the account—documents the identity thief herself submitted—as proof the account was legitimate. OneMain failed to review the police report and identity theft documentation. OneMain verified a fraudulent address associated with the identity thief as Plaintiff’s address without meaningful scrutiny. And OneMain returned a “Verified As Reported” response on an account that was the product of identity fraud.
34. Bank of America received notice of Plaintiff’s identity theft disputes from one or more consumer reporting agencies, triggering its duties under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
35. Bank of America negligently failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Bank of America relied on “payment documentation” as proof the account was legitimate without determining who made the payments or whether Plaintiff authorized them. Bank of America failed to review the police report and identity theft documentation. And Bank of America submitted a block rescission that caused the fraudulent account to be re-reported to Plaintiff’s detriment.
36. Each Defendant’s investigation was objectively unreasonable given the police report, the arrest and confession of the identity thief, the pattern of delinquency consistent with fraud, and the fact that TransUnion and Innovis properly handled identical disputes based on the same documentation.
37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as described herein, and is entitled to recovery under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

Second Cause of Action — Willful Violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), Against All Defendants

38. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
39. Defendants’ violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) were willful within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, in that Defendants acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the statute. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007).
40. OneMain’s conduct was willful. OneMain received express notice that the dispute involved “TRUE IDENTITY FRAUD” and that an investigation was required, yet it merely verified the existence of documents the identity thief herself submitted. OneMain knew or should have known that a signed application or identification documents do not disprove identity theft—identity thieves routinely submit fraudulent or forged documents to open accounts. OneMain disregarded the police report, the arrest and confession, and the pattern of delinquency consistent with fraud. OneMain’s conduct was objectively unreasonable given the well-established legal standard that a furnisher’s investigation must be adequate under the totality of the circumstances.
41. Bank of America’s conduct was willful. Bank of America relied exclusively on “payment documentation” to rescind the block when it knew or should have known that such documentation does not establish that Plaintiff authorized the account or the payments. Bank of America disregarded the police report, arrest, and confession that established identity theft as objective fact. Bank of America submitted a block rescission even though TransUnion and Innovis had properly blocked the same account based on the same documentation. Bank of America’s investigation was objectively unreasonable and demonstrated reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s statutory rights.
42. Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable given the express identity fraud coding on the dispute, the police report and arrest and confession of Ms. Greene, the comparator evidence showing TransUnion and Innovis properly blocked these same accounts using identical documentation, and the well-established principle that the mere existence of an application or payment record does not disprove identity theft.
43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 per violation, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.

Third Cause of Action — Violations of the South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170, Against All Defendants

44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
45. The South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170, provides that a person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a violation of the Act may bring an action for recovery of actual damages or two hundred dollars, whichever is greater, plus an amount equal to three times the actual damages sustained, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees.
46. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined under South Carolina law and a resident of this State.
47. Plaintiff is a victim of identity theft as that term is understood under South Carolina law, having had his personal identifying information misappropriated by Ms. Greene to fraudulently open accounts in his name.
48. Defendants, as furnishers of consumer credit information, were on actual notice of Plaintiff’s identity theft through the disputes, police report, identity theft affidavit, and the express identity fraud coding on the ACDV disputes transmitted to them.
49. Defendants violated the South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act by continuing to furnish and report information they knew or should have known was the product of identity theft, thereby perpetuating the harm caused to Plaintiff by the identity theft, damaging his credit, and preventing him from obtaining relief to which he was entitled.
50. Defendants’ continued reporting of fraudulent account information—after receiving notice of the identity theft and the specific documentation supporting it—constitutes an unfair and deceptive act or practice causing Plaintiff ascertainable loss.
51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170, Plaintiff has suffered ascertainable losses including damage to his credit, emotional distress, time and expense spent correcting the fraud, and inability to obtain credit on favorable terms.
52. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages or two hundred dollars, whichever is greater, treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

Remedies Sought

• Actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o and S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170
• Statutory damages of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 per willful violation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n
• Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial for willful violations of the FCRA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n
• Treble damages pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o and S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170
• An order directing Defendants to correct their reporting to all consumer reporting agencies by permanently deleting all references to the fraudulent OneMain account ending in *1185 and the fraudulent Bank of America account ending in *0317 from Plaintiff’s consumer credit file
• An order directing Defendants to cease and desist from reporting the fraudulent accounts as belonging to Plaintiff
• Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a “block rescission” under the FCRA?

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2, when a consumer provides an identity theft report to a credit bureau, the bureau must block the fraudulent information from appearing on the consumer’s credit report. However, a furnisher (the company that reported the information) can request that the block be rescinded if it believes the account is legitimate. If the bureau accepts the rescission request, the fraudulent account reappears on the consumer’s credit report. This case alleges that OneMain and Bank of America submitted rescission requests based on inadequate evidence.

What obligations does a furnisher have when notified of identity theft?

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), when a furnisher receives notice of a consumer dispute from a credit bureau, it must investigate, review all relevant information provided, report the results, and modify or delete inaccurate information. Courts have held that a furnisher’s investigation must be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Simply reviewing the original application documents — which were submitted by the identity thief — without considering police reports, arrest records, or other evidence of fraud may not constitute a reasonable investigation.

What is the South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act?

The South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170, provides a private right of action for identity theft victims. A consumer who suffers ascertainable loss from a violation of the Act can recover actual damages or $200 (whichever is greater), plus treble damages (three times the actual damages), plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. This state law provides an additional avenue of recovery beyond the federal FCRA.

Source: CourtListener — Brown v. OneMain Financial Group, LLC, Docket 73199629. Information on this page is taken from the court complaint. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.

See Also: 13 State AGs Sue OneMain Financial for Secretly Packing Loans With $826 in Junk Fees