> There's a very good argument to be made that Wells Fargo, who was actually one of the parties involved in the transaction is more appropriately liable... Spe

> There's a very good argument to be made that Wells Fargo, who was actually one of the parties involved in the transaction is more appropriately liable... Specifically, my argument would be that Wells Fargo was in a position to verify the criminal's claimed identity, but didn't. I don't think this is really about liability for the direct cost of the fraudulent transaction, though. It sounds like third parties (banks, credit providers, etc) have been libelling the reporter by claiming to other third parties (credit agencies, law enforcement, etc) that he did things that he didn't. They should be expected to verify identity more carefully before making such strong claims like that, and should be liable to the reporter for damages caused as a consequence of their negligence. Likewise, if law enforcement has been told about the fraud, then they should be held to account for harassing this unrelated party.