{"took":715,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":39,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16739990","_score":18.42869,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Product/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Company : Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Date of problem : XX/XX/year> ( original dispute ) Company response date : XX/XX/year> ( Closed with explanation ) Whos affected : Myself Account number : N/A ( ChexSystems consumer file ) Problem narrative ( what happened ) On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written dispute to ChexSystems regarding inaccurate and identity-theft-related information in my specialty consumer file. My dispute packet included an FTC Identity Theft Report and a Police Report. \n\nFTC Identity Theft Report : Ref # XXXX Police Report : Case # XXXX Despite receiving my identity-theft documentation, ChexSystems responded XXXX XX/XX/year> stating my complaint was closed with explanation and claiming the police report was not included. That is incorrect : both the FTC and police reports were provided with my dispute materials. ChexSystems did not apply an identity-theft block to the disputed items, did not conduct a proper reinvestigation, and referenced possible continued reporting/retention practices inconsistent with the FCRA. \n\nSpecific law/policy concerns FCRA 605B Identity-Theft Blocking With valid identity-theft documentation, ChexSystems must block the disputed information within 4 business days. This did not occur. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to Reinvestigate ChexSystems closed the dispute without a full, free reinvestigation within the required 30 days, and ignored evidence I supplied.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Improper Reinsertion Items previously deleted have re-appeared in downstream products without furnisher certification and 5-day written notice to me.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy ChexSystems relied on incomplete/unverified furnisher data and disregarded the FTC/Police reports I provided.\n\nFCRA 605A Security Freeze/Alerts I requested ( and again request ) a security freeze on my ChexSystems file . I have not received adequate confirmation that a freeze or appropriate alerts have been placed. \n\nChexSystems response states it will initiate a review and suggests contacting other agencies. However, ChexSystems independently maintains my specialty file and has its own statutory duties under the FCRA to block, delete, or verify data and to confirm freezes/opt-outs. \n\nThe continued presence or reappearance of inaccurate identity-theft entries in ChexSystems ( and any downstream products ) is harming my ability to open accounts and obtain business funding, as banks and fintechs routinely query ChexSystems during underwriting.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-04T15:01:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16739990","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","date_received":"2025-10-22T04:04:15.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Product/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys investigation Company : Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Date of <em>problem</em> : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> ( original <em>dispute</em> ) Company response date : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> ( Closed with explanation ) Whos affected : Myself Account number : N/A ( ChexSystems consumer <em>file</em> ) <em>Problem</em> <em>narrative</em> ( what happened ) On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I submitted a written <em>dispute</em> to ChexSystems"]},"sort":[18.42869,"16739990"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16770703","_score":17.279242,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint # XXXX Experian ( Consumer Credit Reporting ) Company : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nProduct/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Date problem began : XX/XX/year> Previously contacted the company? Yes dispute and Method of Verification ( MOV ) requests submitted ; inadequate response. \n\nWhat happened ( Problem narrative ) I am disputing an Experian-only tradeline reported as XXXX XXXX ( Acct : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This account appears only on Experian and is absent from TransUnion and Equifax, indicating misattribution, mixed-file contamination, or an unverifiable insertion. \n\nKey defects Experian-only discrepancy ( FCRA 607 ( b ), 611 ) : Experian reports the account as XXXX, 30 Days Late, opened XX/XX/year>, balance {$100000.00}, term 84 months, last reported XX/XX/year>. No corresponding tradeline exists at other CRAs. Experian has not produced a signed application/contract, payment ledger, or a furnisher-certified verification. \n\nLate-Marker violation Metro 2 Code 162 : Experian is displaying a 30-day late without a complete month-by-month payment history or ledger support. Metro 2 requires a chronological history and documentation for late coding. Reporting late status without that support is incomplete/misleading and violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and 611 ( a ). \n\nLate-Marker Evidence Table ( Experian ) : Furnisher : XXXX XXXX XXXX Acct : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | Month : XX/XX/year> | Experian shows : 30 Days Late | Proof : No ledger/DLP provided Code 162 defect Remedy : delete late ; if unverifiable, delete entire tradeline. \n\nNo permissible-purpose inquiry on file ( FCRA 604 ( a ) ) : Experians disclosure shows no hard or soft inquiry from XXXX XXXX XXXX or affiliates ) around XX/XX/year>. Reporting an installment loan without a corresponding permissible-purpose inquiry and without a signed application/E-SIGN audit trail violates 604 ( a ) and 607 ( b ).\n\nReinsertion concern 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) : Items previously corrected have reappeared without furnisher certification or 5-day written notice. I requested MOV ; Experian did not provide adequate documentation.\n\nIdentity-theft/mixed-file indicators 605B : Prior breach exposure and address/identifier anomalies exist. Any unverifiable identity-theft items must be blocked under 605B.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-24T05:21:39.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16770703","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-10-24T05:16:17.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["What happened ( <em>Problem</em> <em>narrative</em> ) I am <em>disputing</em> an Experian-only tradeline reported as <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( Acct : XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. This account appears only on Experian and is absent from TransUnion and Equifax, indicating misattribution, mixed-<em>file</em> contamination, or an unverifiable insertion."]},"sort":[17.279242,"16770703"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18027380","_score":16.406113,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Company to File Against : ShoulderTap Technologies , Inc. d/b/a Fizz ( Also consider filing an identical complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX. , the card issuer ).\n\nProduct : Credit Card ( or Prepaid Card, based on your specific Fizz account ) Issue : Problem with a purchase or transaction ( Sub-issues : Goods or services not received as agreed, and Incorrect or unnecessary fees ).\n\nNarrative : I am filing this formal complaint because my card issuer, Fizz ( operated by ShoulderTap Technologies , Inc. and issued through XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ), has failed to investigate and resolve a legitimate billing dispute involving the merchant XXXX XXXX. Fizz 's refusal to investigate constitutes a violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ).\n\n1. Disputed Charges and Total Remaining Amount : I am disputing charges totaling {$100.00} ( after a partial refund was provided ) : Charge 1 ( Undelivered Merchandise ) : {$47.00} ( Date of Transaction : [ Date of {$47.00} Charge ] ). This charge was for merchandise from XXXX XXXX that was never delivered. I have documentation confirming non-delivery. \n\nCharges 2 & 3 ( Unauthorized Recurring Fees ) : Two charges of {$29.00} each ( Dates of Transactions : [ Date of XXXX remaining {$29.00} Charge ] and [ Date of XXXX remaining {$29.00} Charge ] ). These charges are for an unauthorized recurring VIP subscription fee. A third, identical {$29.00} fee was refunded by Fizz on XX/XX/year>, but the XXXX charges noted above remain unresolved. \n\nXXXX. Fizz 's Failure to Investigate : I initiated a dispute with Fizz on XX/XX/year>, requesting an investigation into these billing errors. \n\nFizz explicitly denied the claim and refused to investigate, stating the issue \" isnt the type of error that were able to cover, '' and advising me to \" follow up with them [ the merchant ] for the other months that you were charged. '' They also stated : \" Sorry, we do not cover this kind of dispute claim. '' By denying this dispute and refusing to investigate the claims of non-delivery and unauthorized recurring fees, Fizz is violating its obligations as a card issuer under the FCBA to investigate billing errors. \n\nItem, Amount, Status Undelivered Merchandise, {$47.00}, Disputed ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) Unauthorized VIP Fee XXXX, {$29.00}, Disputed ( Fizz refused to refund ) Unauthorized VIP Fee XXXX, {$29.00}, Disputed ( Fizz refused to refund ) Unauthorized VIP Fee XXXX, {$29.00}, '' Refunded ( Fizz confirmed refund on XX/XX/year> ) '' Total Remaining Disputed, {$100.00}, ( XXXX + XXXX + XXXX )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-30T20:49:35.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"79924","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18027380","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ShoulderTap Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Fizz","date_received":"2025-11-30T20:34:12.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Company to <em>File</em> Against : ShoulderTap Technologies , Inc. d/b/a Fizz ( Also consider <em>filing</em> an identical <em>complaint</em> against <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. , the card issuer ).\n\nProduct : Credit Card ( or Prepaid Card, based on your specific Fizz account ) Issue : <em>Problem</em> with a purchase or transaction ( Sub-issues : Goods or services not received as agreed, and Incorrect or unnecessary fees )."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[16.406113,"18027380"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16977007","_score":16.010103,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Issue Category : Credit card or prepaid card Problems with a credit card Complaint Narrative : I am filing a complaint regarding my Comenity Bank credit card account. \n\nI had a 0 % XXXX promotional plan that ended on XX/XX/year>. Since then, XXXX has added finance charges of {$7900.00} to my account. \n\nI am disputing these charges because : I was making my monthly payments on time through autopay during the promotional period. \n\nI did not receive a clear written notice or reminder before the promotional plan ended advising me that a balance remained and that I would need to pay it off to avoid deferred interest. \n\nI have requested a written disclosure of how these finance charges were calculated ( including balances, interest rates, and time frames ), but XXXX has repeatedly directed me only to my monthly statements. These statements do not provide the total payments I made toward the promotional balance nor explain how finance charges were computed. \n\nThis lack of transparency and failure to provide advance notice appears to violate XXXX XXXX ( Truth in Lending Act ), which requires clear disclosures of finance charges and promotional plan terms. \n\nI am unable to pay the nearly {$8000.00} in finance charges, which I believe were unfairly applied. I request : A dispute review of these finance charges, A complete written accounting of my payments toward the promotional balance, And a detailed explanation of the finance charge calculation. \n\nBefore my promotional period expires they didn't send me any reminder email or call that its ending soon and I will be charge this much of finance charges on my account but they never failed to email me about my monthly autopay payment reminders. I'm not at all in a position to pay that huge XXXX charges in my current situation and its increasing every month to my account.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-02T05:14:42.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"60016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16977007","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-02T04:38:49.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Charged too much interest"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue Category : Credit card or prepaid card <em>Problems</em> with a credit card <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am <em>filing</em> a <em>complaint</em> regarding my Comenity Bank credit card account. \n\nI had a 0 % <em>XXXX</em> promotional plan that ended on XX/XX/<em>year</em>>. Since then, <em>XXXX</em> has added finance charges of {$7900.00} to my account. \n\nI am <em>disputing</em> these charges because : I was making my monthly payments on time through autopay during the promotional period."]},"sort":[16.010103,"16977007"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21090345","_score":15.672784,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT XXXX : AGAINST PAYPAL , INC . \nCategory : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service -> Mobile or digital wallet Issue : Problem with a purchase or transfer -> Transaction dispute Narrative : Bad-Faith Deadlock & Breach of Stated XXXX-Day Timeline \" I am filing this new, formal complaint to address a systemic administrative failure by PayPal, Inc. following their factually inaccurate response to CFPB Case XXXX XXXXXXXX on XX/XX/scrub> 2026. \n\nXXXX. The Mathematical Default : In a formal letter dated XX/XX/scrub> 2026, PayPal Executive Escalations ( XXXX XXXX ) stated that my account must remain locked for a XXXXday timeframe established by the card networks. ' PayPals own records confirm they indexed this chargeback on XX/XX/scrub> 2026. \n\nThe Math : XXXX  days from XX/XX/XXXX expired on XX/XX/scrub> 2026. \n\nThe Violation : As of today, XX/XX/scrub> 2026, the 'appeal window ' has closed. PayPal is now holding my account hostage without any remaining regulatory or network justification. \n\nXXXX. Documented Administrative Failure : My bank, XXXX ( Account : XXXX ), finalized the resolution on XX/XX/year>2026. PayPal 's system did not open the case until XX/XX/XXXX. PayPal is using this self-inflicted XXXXday 'blind spot ' as a pretext to claim they 'have not received notification, ' while simultaneously blocking my right to close my account. \n\nRelief Requested : Financial : Immediate fiduciary credit of {$20.00} to resolve the indexing error. \n\nAdministrative : Immediate closure of Case ID : XXXX ( XXXX-day window expired ). \n\nPrivacy : Immediate and permanent closure of my account ( XXXX ) and deletion of all XXXX banking data ( Routing : XXXX ). ''","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-09T14:41:32.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"17057","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21090345","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-04-09T14:39:03.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>XXXX</em> : AGAINST PAYPAL , INC . \nCategory : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service -> Mobile or digital wallet Issue : <em>Problem</em> with a purchase or transfer -> Transaction <em>dispute</em> <em>Narrative</em> : Bad-Faith Deadlock & Breach of Stated <em>XXXX</em>-Day Timeline \" I am <em>filing</em> this new, formal <em>complaint</em> to address a systemic administrative failure by PayPal, Inc. following their factually inaccurate response to CFPB Case <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX on XX/XX/scrub> 2026. \n\n<em>XXXX</em>."],"issue":["Unauthorized transactions or other transaction <em>problem</em>"]},"sort":[15.672784,"21090345"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14073446","_score":15.388454,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Experian Product : Credit reporting Issue : Improper use of my report / Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing problem Consumer Complaint Narrative : On or around XX/XX/year>, Experian unlawfully debited {$29.00} from my XXXX  debit-linked account after I had already canceled their services. My debit card was locked at the time of the transaction. This debit was not authorized and no confirmation or service access was provided in return. The charge was processed after several failed attempts, despite my cancellation and revocation of authorization. \n\nI have made multiple attempts to resolve this with Experian over the last month, yet the {$29.00} has not been refunded, and I have received no investigation results, no billing breakdown, and no formal acknowledgement of the error. \n\nTo make matters worse, I am now experiencing what appears to be SSN-based suppression from Experians support system. I am unable to access a live agent through any methodphone, web chat, or portal. Each attempt is blocked, redirected, or terminated. In contrast, when my wife called the same number and entered her personal information, she was connected to a live agent within minutes. \n\nThis appears to be a form of automated retaliation or redlining against me as a consumer who has submitted numerous disputes and regulatory complaints. This denial of service access violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including : My right to access my file ( 15 U.S.C. 1681g ) My right to dispute and reinvestigate errors ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) Additionally, the unauthorized debit is governed under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), and Experian failed to comply with : 15 U.S.C. 1693e ( a ) Prohibition against unauthorized electronic fund transfers 12 CFR 1005.10 and 1005.11 Proper authorization and dispute resolution procedures I am now in a financial position where this {$29.00} loss has directly impacted my ability to secure credit or cover essential bills. Despite having a favorable credit score, I have been locked out of services, and Experians failure to actor even provide supporthas materially harmed me.\n\nRequested resolution : Immediate refund of the {$29.00} unauthorized debit Written investigation findings and refund breakdown Restoration of full account and agent access Federal enforcement action for violations of the FCRA and EFTA This complaint is submitted in good faith and under lawful standing. I request immediate regulatory review and resolution.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-13T10:59:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14073446","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-13T10:45:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Company : Experian Product : Credit reporting Issue : Improper use of my report / <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing <em>problem</em> Consumer <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : On or around XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, Experian unlawfully debited {$29.00} from my <em>XXXX</em>  debit-linked account after I had already canceled their services. My debit card was locked at the time of the transaction. This debit was not authorized and no confirmation or service access was provided in return."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a lender or other company charging your account"]},"sort":[15.388454,"14073446"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16879506","_score":14.845142,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TransUnion and Experian are erroneously reporting information that should not be reported. I have sent several disputes that never get resolved due to the inaction of Transunion and Experian. XXXX has been the only entity that has completed all my disputes in the correct manner. I will include a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that shows that this account was satisfied and should not be reflected on my account as delinquent. \n\nCFPB Complaint : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion Company 2 : Experian 2. Product/Service Credit reporting , credit repair, or other services 3. Issue Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Sub-issue : Investigation didnt fix an error on your report 4. Complaint Narrative Account Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Account # XXXX Account Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Account Number : XXXX Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report. \n\nDetailed Narrative : This complaint is filed against TransUnion and Experian for their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into an inaccurate and unverified account, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i. The furnisher of this information is XXXXXXXX XXXX, with the underlying debt serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nHistory of Disputes and Lack of Verification : I have disputed this account with both TransUnion and Experian on multiple occasions ( over 3 times each ), beginning on or about XX/XX/year>. In my disputes, I specifically requested that the Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) provide the verification documents used by the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX to substantiate the accuracy of this debt. To date, neither TransUnion nor Experian has provided any verifiable documentation for my inspection. This failure to provide proof of verification constitutes a violation of my rights under the FCRA. \n\nEvidence of Inaccuracy and Discharge of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ) : The account is factually inaccurate and misleading, especially in light of recent actions by the servicer. I am attaching a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year>, titled Notification of Proposal to Accept Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ). \n\nThis letter explicitly states : We propose to accept your Membership in satisfaction of the balance, and the obligations due from you to us will be deemed discharged as a result.\n\nThis proposal, which I have not objected to, is a form of strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Once the collateral ( the Membership/Vacation Credits ) is accepted, the debt is legally discharged and satisfied.\n\nThe FCRA Violation : The continued reporting of this account as an active, outstanding, or delinquent debt by both TransUnion and Experian is a clear violation of the FCRA for the following reasons : 1. Failure to Verify ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : The CRAs have failed to provide any documentation proving the accuracy of the account, despite multiple requests. \n2. Reporting Inaccurate Information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : The account status is inaccurate because the debt has been satisfied and discharged ( or is in the process of being discharged ) via the UCC strict foreclosure process. The account should be immediately updated to reflect a XXXX balance and a status of Account Closed/Satisfied or Debt Discharged. \n3. Furnisher Violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : The furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to properly investigate my disputes and has continued to furnish information that is materially inaccurate and misleading to the CRAs, specifically failing to report the UCC strict foreclosure and subsequent discharge of the debt.\n\nRequest for Relief : I demand that TransUnion and Experian immediately delete this account entirely from my credit reports. Their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and their continued reporting of this inaccurate and unverified account, especially given the attached evidence of debt discharge, is causing me significant financial harm. \n\nI will be pursuing all available remedies, including litigation, if this account is not deleted immediately. \n\n\n5. Attachment ( Included Is the Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T16:53:45.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95829","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16879506","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-10-28T16:05:57.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys investigation Sub-issue : Investigation didnt fix an error on your report 4. <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Account Information : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, Account # <em>XXXX</em> Account Name : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em>  Account Number : <em>XXXX</em> Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report."]},"sort":[14.845142,"16879506"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16869742","_score":14.845142,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TransUnion and Experian are erroneously reporting information that should not be reported. I have sent several disputes that never get resolved due to the inaction of Transunion and Experian. XXXX has been the only entity that has completed all my disputes in the correct manner. I will include a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that shows that this account was satisfied and should not be reflected on my account as delinquent. \n\nCFPB Complaint : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Account XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion Company 2 : Experian 2. Product/Service Credit reporting , credit repair, or other services 3. Issue Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Sub-issue : Investigation didnt fix an error on your report 4. Complaint Narrative Account Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Account # XXXX Account Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Account Number : XXXX Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report. \n\nDetailed Narrative : This complaint is filed against TransUnion and Experian for their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into an inaccurate and unverified account, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i. The furnisher of this information is XXXXXXXX XXXX, with the underlying debt serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nHistory of Disputes and Lack of Verification : I have disputed this account with both TransUnion and Experian on multiple occasions ( over 3 times each ), beginning on or about XX/XX/year>. In my disputes, I specifically requested that the Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) provide the verification documents used by the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX to substantiate the accuracy of this debt. To date, neither TransUnion nor Experian has provided any verifiable documentation for my inspection. This failure to provide proof of verification constitutes a violation of my rights under the FCRA. \n\nEvidence of Inaccuracy and Discharge of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ) : The account is factually inaccurate and misleading, especially in light of recent actions by the servicer. I am attaching a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year>, titled Notification of Proposal to Accept Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt ( UCC Strict Foreclosure ). \n\nThis letter explicitly states : We propose to accept your Membership in satisfaction of the balance, and the obligations due from you to us will be deemed discharged as a result.\n\nThis proposal, which I have not objected to, is a form of strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Once the collateral ( the Membership/Vacation Credits ) is accepted, the debt is legally discharged and satisfied.\n\nThe FCRA Violation : The continued reporting of this account as an active, outstanding, or delinquent debt by both TransUnion and Experian is a clear violation of the FCRA for the following reasons : 1. Failure to Verify ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : The CRAs have failed to provide any documentation proving the accuracy of the account, despite multiple requests. \n2. Reporting Inaccurate Information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : The account status is inaccurate because the debt has been satisfied and discharged ( or is in the process of being discharged ) via the UCC strict foreclosure process. The account should be immediately updated to reflect a XXXX balance and a status of Account Closed/Satisfied or Debt Discharged. \n3. Furnisher Violation ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : The furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to properly investigate my disputes and has continued to furnish information that is materially inaccurate and misleading to the CRAs, specifically failing to report the UCC strict foreclosure and subsequent discharge of the debt.\n\nRequest for Relief : I demand that TransUnion and Experian immediately delete this account entirely from my credit reports. Their repeated failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and their continued reporting of this inaccurate and unverified account, especially given the attached evidence of debt discharge, is causing me significant financial harm. \n\nI will be pursuing all available remedies, including litigation, if this account is not deleted immediately. \n\n\n5. Attachment ( Included Is the Collateral in Satisfaction of Debt","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-28T16:53:48.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"95829","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16869742","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-28T16:53:18.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issue <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys investigation Sub-issue : Investigation didnt fix an error on your report 4. <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> Account Information : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, Account # <em>XXXX</em> Account Name : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em>  Account Number : <em>XXXX</em> Desired Outcome : Complete deletion of this account from my credit report."]},"sort":[14.845142,"16869742"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14078502","_score":14.783103,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I hope this finds you well. I am writing in regards to a series of unanswered complaints by Experian that were filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in 2024, mainly CFPB Complaint XXXX. \n\nDespite multiple formal complaints filed with both Experian and the CFPB, this matter remains unresolved. Experian has claimed that my dispute could not be processed due to a lack of information ; however, I have provided all personally identifying information required under federal law, including my full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, current mailing address, phone number, and email address. I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information. I believe this constitutes perjury and other violations of United States Codeboth criminal and civil.\n\nPursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), consumer reporting agencies are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when furnished with sufficient identifying information and the nature of the dispute. I have met all legal thresholds under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically under 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( i ), which mandates reinvestigation of disputed items when proper notice is given. Experian has not investigated this matter, consistent with federal law. Rather, once again, I believe, on a good faith basis, that Experian is lying and submitting false statements regarding a lack of information to avoid having to do their jobs or upset a banking partner -- especially since Experian now offers debit card services. \n\nThis inaccurate and unresolved derogatory mark on my credit report is not only unwarranted given the timely payments made in XX/XX/year>, but it has also caused substantial harm beyond financial inconvenience. As a current law student aXXXX XXXX  XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, I have been forced to disclose this matter to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX due to its potential professional implications. Further, under the character and fitness requirements of the State Bar of Georgia, I may be required to disclose this credit dispute during the bar application process. This unjustified derogatory credit report entry could negatively affect my ability to sit for and pass the bar exam, directly impairing my future in the legal profession. I respectfully request that the CFPB take this matter seriously and request the CFPB order that the XX/XX/year> 30-day late payment notation be removed without further delay.\n\nIn accordance with my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ), I am formally disputing the inaccurate reporting of a 30-day late payment for XX/XX/year> on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card account XXXX I made two timely payments during that billing cycle {$130.00} on XX/XX/year> ( satisfying more than the required minimum ), and an additional {$160.00} on XX/XX/year>. Both payments were posted well within the billing period, and at no point was my account delinquent by 30 days or more. \n\nThe credit reporting error has resulted in a significant and unjustified drop in my credit score. I am respectfully requesting the immediate correction of this error and removal of the inaccurate late payment notation from my credit history with all relevant credit bureaus. Supporting documentation is enclosed, along with the original complaint filed that list all required information under federal law that Experian is making false statements about.\n\nThe information relevant to this disputeincluding the underlying facts, payment confirmations, and timeline of eventsis fully contained in the supplemental attachments provided. Additionally, a short narrative has been included in the updated portion of this submission to ensure clarity and compliance. This has been done specifically to preempt and refute any further false or misleading claims by Experian that there is \" not enough information '' to process the dispute. Such claims are directly contrary to federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 [ i ] ) and implementing regulations under 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 ( b ), which requires only basic identifying information and the nature of the dispute to trigger a reinvestigation. All such required informationmy full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, mailing address, phone number, email address, and a description of the errorhas been provided in full.\n\nAll information required under federal law to process and investigate this dispute has been fully provided, including my personal identifying details, a detailed description of the issue, and supporting documentation.\n\nTherefore, no further communication from Experian or any party should assert that there is not enough information to proceed. This claim has already been falsely made once and is without merit. In addition to the written narrative, I have included ample supplemental materials, such as payment confirmation screenshots and relevant bank records, which clearly demonstrate the error. The volume and clarity of the evidence submitted leave no legitimate basis to delay or deny a proper reinvestigation.\n\nIt appears that Experians reliance on third-party vendors to handle disputes is part of the problem, as their vendors must be operating with inaccurate or incomplete information. However, as consumers, we are never told who these vendors are or what methods they use to investigate disputesleaving the process entirely opaque and unaccountable. In my case, Experian only initiated any investigation after I filed a separate complaint highlighting their failure to act professionally or at all, contrary to federal law and federal regulations. Their claim that there was not enough information was not only false but seemed to be a deliberate attempt to avoid initiating a reinvestigation. Once that complaint forced them to act, Experian quickly ruled against meclearly favoring a result that would shield them from admitting that they had failed to follow federal law and had neglected their legal obligations to consumers. To acknowledge the error would have been to admit that they did not perform their duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that they allowed inaccurate information to harm consumers like myself. It appeared as if it was rigged, because it felt like it was just a game of mitigating legal liability for Experian.\n\nP.S. : I expressly reserve any and all rights and liberties afforded to me under statutory law, constitutional provisions, judicial precedent, and all other applicable legal frameworks, including but not limited to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, associated provisions within the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations, the Rules & Regulations of the State of Georgia, and the applicable ordinances and regulatory authority of XXXX XXXX and the City of Atlanta. I further reserve all rights under law and equity to pursue appropriate civil remedies and, if warranted, initiate or recommend criminal proceedings or referrals to applicable local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies.\n\nP.P.S. : I also formally request full transparency regarding this dispute, including the identity of the investigator ( s ) assigned to this matter and the name ( s ) of any third-party vendor ( s ) used by Experian in conducting their review. If any vendor or agent acted upon false or incomplete information or failed to comply with federal standards of reinvestigation, then theyand any individuals acting beyond their authorized scopemay be held personally and professionally liable in addition to their respective corporate entities. \n\nP.P.P.S : It is also important to note that, according to XXXX XXXX own policies and standard industry practices, negative credit reporting does not occur unless a payment is thirty ( 30 ) days past due. In this case, the minimum payment was made on XX/XX/year>, and a second payment was made just five days later on XXXX XXXX well within the billing cycle and well before the 30-day threshold. Even if the XX/XX/XXXX payment had posted a day late, it would not have triggered a 30-day delinquency under either industry norms or the Cardholder Agreement governing my account. Therefore, XXXX XXXX reporting of a 30-day late payment is factually and contractually unjustified and must be corrected. \n\nNARRATIVE : In midXXXX, I checked my credit score and was shocked to see a steep decline. I looked and noticed my payment history section was inaccurately dinged. It claimed I was late 30 days or more on my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card XXXX payment. That is incorrect, and I am requesting that it be removed from my credit report. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I paid more than the minimum payment obligation required ( {$130.00} ). Furthermore, on XX/XX/year>, I made an additional payment to XXXX XXXX toward my balance ( {$160.00} ). This was in addition to satisfying my minimum payment obligation ( {$25.00} a month ) that I paid in full and fulfilled on XX/XX/year> by a payment of {$130.00}. \n\nThe Experian Credit Report inaccurately reports that XXXX XXXX XXXX payment was a past due account by 30 days. That is incorrect because payments were made on XX/XX/year> and XX/XX/year>. Both payments were above the minimum payment required and received/posted in early XX/XX/year>, making it impossible to be 30 days past due. \n\nI am requesting the inaccurate information regarding payment history be removed from my credit report history.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-14T21:58:25.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14078502","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-14T21:45:14.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing in regards to a series of unanswered <em>complaints</em> by Experian that were <em>filed</em> with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in 2024, mainly CFPB <em>Complaint</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \n\nDespite multiple formal <em>complaints</em> <em>filed</em> with both Experian and the CFPB, this matter remains unresolved."]},"sort":[14.783103,"14078502"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17534605","_score":14.169509,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Regulatory Control ) XXXX  Product : Checking or Savings Account XXXX  Complaint Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : Problems when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Your Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank of America account received an unauthorized ACH DEPOSIT of {$39.00} on XX/XX/year>XXXX  with the descriptor XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a clear case of potential identity theft using my name. \nThe institutional process at Bank of America constitutes a systemic regulatory failure in seven major ways : PATTERN OF COMPLIANCE VIOLATION ( PRIOR CFPB FILINGS ) : This is not an isolated event. Prior CFPB complaints filed by me against Bank of America document a continuing pattern of systemic failure and policy abuse that deliberately obstructs fraud investigation and shifts liability onto the victim. This current case must be viewed within the context of the bank 's established, non-compliant operational history.\n\nINTENTIONAL DELAY & SHORTENING OF STATUTORY REMEDY WINDOW : The bank 's internal policy mandates that the claim 's official start date is delayed until the NEXT BUSINESS DAY after the fraud is reported. This procedure is an INTENTIONAL VIOLATION that shortens the consumer 's statutory 120-day or 180-day window for dispute resolution under Regulation E, effectively robbing the victim of legally mandated time to investigate their claim.\n\nSYSTEMIC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ACH FRAUD ( BILLIONS IN DAMAGE ) : The bank 's internal system prevents representatives from filing a direct \" Fraud '' claim for unauthorized ACH transfers, forcing them into a low-priority \" Dispute '' or \" Billing Error '' category. This deliberate abuse of Regulation E misclassifies millions of ACH-related fraud cases annually, a practice that has cost consumers an estimated BILLIONS of dollars in unresolved or delayed recovery. The banks process actively routes high-priority fraud cases away from required investigation tracks. \nImplied Admission, Obstruction, and Warning of Personal Risk : During my call at XXXXXXXX XXXX  EST ( Ref : XXXX XXXX ), the representative named XXXX provided an explicit and alarming warning to \" be careful '' before transferring me. This warning, coupled with XXXX having misspoken about a \" XXXX and something dollar credit, '' strongly suggests internal staff awareness of a hazardous or compromised claim process. Furthermore, the bank refused to provide any documentation in writing confirming the systemic policy flaws, which constitutes deliberate obstruction. \nEGREGIOUS BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE ( SUICIDAL DISCLOSURE ) : During a prior, separate call concerning money being taken from my account ( approximately a couple of months ago, right before my daughter 's birthday ), I directly disclosed to the Bank of America representative that I was crying, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  and self-harm due to the financial distress caused by the bank 's actions. The representative, upon hearing this direct disclosure of suicidal ideation, failed to follow any institutional crisis protocol, failed to advise me to seek help, and failed to connect me to any XXXX XXXX resources. This profound disregard for consumer welfare constitutes an EGREGIOUS BREACH OF THE BANK 'S DUTY OF CARE, directly linking their financial misconduct to the endangerment of a customer 's life. \nContradictory Regulatory Stance ( Control the Narrative ) : The bank 's internal processes create a contradictory regulatory stance. While the serious, high-value fraud against my account likely triggered an internal Suspicious Activity Report ( SAR ) treating me as the source of suspicionthe bank simultaneously forced my official complaint into a low-priority \" Dispute '' category. This dual action is a deliberate attempt to control the regulatory narrative and shift liability.\n\nMishandling of Funds : As a direct result of the misclassification and delay, the bank has failed to properly isolate, remove, or trace the fraudulent funds, leaving the unauthorized {$39.00} commingled in my account. \nDesired Resolution : I require immediate escalation to a fraud compliance officer to properly classify and investigate this claim and remove the funds. Furthermore, I demand that the CFPB initiate a full, independent, third-party forensic audit of Bank of Americas entire Regulation E compliance, internal SAR filing protocols, and its crisis response procedures. Given the systemic nature of this fraud, the institutional cover-up, and the severe breach of duty of care, I demand that the CFPB use its authority to facilitate the immediate connection of the victim with suitable class action counsel to pursue structural remediation and a class-wide remedy for all affected consumers. We demand mandatory civil penalties for these systemic violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T04:30:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30143","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17534605","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-26T04:20:08.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, and Regulatory Control ) <em>XXXX</em>  Product : Checking or Savings Account <em>XXXX</em>  <em>Complaint</em> Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : <em>Problems</em> when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Your <em>Complaint</em> Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank"]},"sort":[14.169509,"17534605"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18207873","_score":13.686663,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint involves both Chime and XXXX, one or both of which committed a banking error as part of a botched dispute process that resulted in the literal disappearance of {$200.00} from my accounts.\n\nI have attempted to resolve the issue multiple times over the past 4 months with both XXXX and Chime, to include a 3-way call between XXXX and Chime representatives, but have yet to reach a solution. Both parties have acknowledged the existence and complexity of this discrepancy, however neither have taken any actual action to resolve the error. Chime has been largely unwilling to pursue the matter, or even provide documentation, while XXXXXXXX XXXX  process has been limited in its helpfulness. \n\nFor a background on this issue, it began with a fund transfer of {$200.00} from my XXXX checking account into my Chime account via XXXX XXXX  for my XXXX XXXX XXXX. The funds were transferred to pay a private merchant for a product advertised on XXXX XXXX, which unfortunately turned out to be a scam. Attempts were made to dispute the payment directly with Chime, however because the type of payment was akin to a cash transfer, a dispute was not possible. When filing a police report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department, the police recommended also initiating a dispute through XXXX. \n\nThe outstanding problems began as a part of this XXXX dispute process with Chime. The dispute was found not in my favor, which was the expected outcome, and I am NOT concerned with the original decision of the dispute. I know that original {$200.00} is gone for good. However, Chime inexplicably charged my own account a \" Debit Card Chargeback '' of {$200.00}, allegedly back to XXXX, which did not make it back into my XXXX account, and now neither bank can account for the funds. The first problem is that the dispute was never about my own transfer from XXXX to Chime, but the payment made to the merchant. Chime had sent XXXX documentation that the payment in question was unrecoverable. The second glaring problem is that Chime is claiming they executed a Debit Card Chargeback even though they had denied the dispute claim. Ultimately, between two financial institutions, they managed to make {$200.00} vanish into thin air. My Chime account is now at a - {$200.00} balance, with a total loss to me of {$400.00} to include the originally disputed payment to the scam merchant.\n\nPlease see below for a detailed timeline and narrative of events : XXXX XX/XX/year> {$200.00} transfer from XXXX to Chime, which was then used to pay for merchandise advertised on XXXX XXXX ( scam merchant ) XX/XX/year> Dispute filed with XXXX per XXXX Police Department recommendation when filing a police report - Temporary {$200.00} credit issued by XXXX pending outcome of dispute XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from XXXX that a dispute has been submitted to Chime XXXX XX/XX/year> My own Chime account shows a Debit Card Chargeback for {$200.00}, resulting in a - {$200.00} balance on my Chime account, however XXXX accounts did not reflect a credit or refund for {$200.00}. \n- Reached out to Chime customer service many times, who informed me that they approved and executed a chargeback to XXXX and that the charge can not be disputed - Payment to scam merchant still can not be recovered, so this chargeback to XXXX was essentially against myself XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from XXXX that the dispute did not result in my favor, and that the provisional credit will be reversed on XXXX XXXX. Note the 7 day discrepancies between the Chargeback date and the dispute decision date. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> Temporary credit reversed, and no credits from Chime back into my account exists - Net loss for me at this point is {$400.00}, {$200.00} of which is from this dispute gone wrong and vanished into thin air XXXX XX/XX/year> Contacted both XXXX and Chime several times to explain the error, resulting in inaction each time with neither party taking responsibility for the error. Chime essentially refused to speak to me about a way forward to resolve the charge in question as it involved another bank. Chime customer service would put me through endless transfers between departments and representatives, each time resulting in the agent allegedly exhausting options to help me further. One Chime agent actually told me this case is too complex and that they do not have a department capable of handling the issue. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> Initiated a 3-way call between XXXX, Chime, and myself to attempt to resolve the issue. During the call, the XXXX agent discovered several discrepancies, which should be detailed in the case notes, to include Chimes chargeback date pre-dating the denied dispute decision, and a general unwillingness by Chime to disclose information. \n- XXXX Agent re-opened the case and escalated for review. She also included a request for documentation. \n- XXXX Agent theorized that the money may be stuck somewhere in limbo in a XXXX account, and that the issue may be resolved with a transaction ID number, which Chime refused to provide at the time - XXXX Agent assured me that the case will be reviewed and that action/correspondence will occur between XXXX and Chime to resolve the banking error. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> Correspondence received for Request for Documentation, and case was closed without any action or remarks about the core issue. Correspondence consisted of transaction and supporting documentation used for the original decision, to include Chime 's response to the dispute along with their policies on the money transfer function. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I called XXXX back for a status of the review and was informed that the case was closed. I re-explained the issue, and the agent re-opened the case. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I once again received correspondence for Request for Documentation, the same exact ones sent earlier, once again without action or remarks for the outstanding banking error issue. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I called Chime to inquire about a transaction ID number for the XXXX XX/XX/year> chargeback, which the agent did provide this time but only verbally ( denied request to send written documentation ). The agent was difficult to understand due to his language barrier, but the Transaction ID, transcribed to the best of my ability, is : XXXX. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I called XXXX resolutions team to once again re-explain the issue, leading us to this point with the case re-opened for review. XXXX recommended that I submit this document to detail this complex issue. \n\nTo summarize, as part of this flawed dispute process, Chime alleges that they executed a {$200.00} Debit Card chargeback to XXXX, which was not received on my end in XXXX, meanwhile XXXX made a decision against my favor for the dispute, resulting in {$200.00} vanishing between two major financial institutions. I am not arguing the outcome of the original dispute decision, I know that original {$200.00} is gone to the scammer for good. The glaring issue now is how two banks made an additional {$200.00} disappear, with one side claiming that they approved a chargeback, and the other stating the dispute was unsuccessful and did not receive any amount returned by Chime. The net loss to me now is {$400.00} and many hours dealing with this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-21T20:40:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77459","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18207873","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-12-21T19:15:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please see below for a detailed timeline and <em>narrative</em> of events : <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>year</em>> {$200.00} transfer from <em>XXXX</em> to Chime, which was then used to pay for merchandise advertised on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( scam merchant ) XX/XX/<em>year</em>> <em>Dispute</em> <em>filed</em> with <em>XXXX</em> per <em>XXXX</em> Police Department recommendation when <em>filing</em> a police report - Temporary {$200.00} credit issued by <em>XXXX</em> pending outcome of <em>dispute</em> <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>year</em>> Received correspondence from <em>XXXX</em> that a <em>dispute</em> has been submitted to Chime <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>year</em>> My own"],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a lender or other company charging your account"]},"sort":[13.686663,"18207873"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18207939","_score":13.679547,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint involves both XXXX and USAA, one or both of which committed a banking error as part of a botched dispute process that resulted in the literal disappearance of {$200.00} from my accounts.\n\nI have attempted to resolve the issue multiple times over the past 4 months with both USAA and XXXX to include a 3-way call between USAA and XXXX representatives, but have yet to reach a solution. Both parties have acknowledged the existence and complexity of this discrepancy, however neither have taken any actual action to resolve the error. XXXX has been largely unwilling to pursue the matter, or even provide documentation, while USAA 's process has been limited in its helpfulness. \n\nFor a background on this issue, it began with a fund transfer of {$200.00} from my USAA checking account into my XXXX  account via XXXXXXXX XXXX for my USAA Debit Card. The funds were transferred to pay a private merchant for a product advertised on XXXX XXXX, which unfortunately turned out to be a scam. Attempts were made to dispute the payment directly with XXXX, however because the type of payment was akin to a cash transfer, a dispute was not possible. When filing a police report with the XXXX, CA Police Department, the police recommended also initiating a dispute through USAA. \n\nThe outstanding problems began as a part of this USAA dispute process with XXXX. The dispute was found not in my favor, which was the expected outcome, and I am NOT concerned with the original decision of the dispute. I know that original {$200.00} is gone for good. However, XXXX inexplicably charged my own account a \" Debit Card Chargeback '' of {$200.00}, allegedly back to USAA, which did not make it back into my USAA account, and now neither bank can account for the funds. The first problem is that the dispute was never about my own transfer from USAA to XXXX, but the payment made to the merchant. XXXX had sent USAA documentation that the payment in question was unrecoverable. The second glaring problem is that XXXX is claiming they executed a Debit Card Chargeback even though they had denied the dispute claim. Ultimately, between two financial institutions, they managed to make {$200.00} vanish into thin air. My XXXX  account is now at a - {$200.00} balance, with a total loss to me of {$400.00} to include the originally disputed payment to the scam merchant. \n\nPlease see below for a detailed timeline and narrative of events : * XXXX XX/XX/year> {$200.00} transfer from USAA to XXXX which was then used to pay for merchandise advertised on XXXX XXXX ( scam merchant ) * XX/XX/year> Dispute filed with USAA per XXXX Police Department recommendation when filing a police report. \n- Temporary {$200.00} credit issued by USAA pending outcome of dispute * XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from USAA that a dispute has been submitted to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/year> My own XXXX account shows a Debit Card Chargeback for {$200.00}, resulting in a - {$200.00} balance on my XXXX account, however USAA accounts did not reflect a credit or refund for {$200.00}. \n- Reached out to XXXX  customer service many times, who informed me that they approved and executed a chargeback to USAA and that the charge can not be disputed. \n- Payment to scam merchant still can not be recovered, so this chargeback to USAA was essentially against myself. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from USAA that the dispute did not result in my favor, and that the provisional credit will be reversed on XXXX XXXX. Note the 7 day discrepancies between the XXXX date and the dispute decision date. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Temporary credit reversed, and no credits from XXXX back into my account exists - Net loss for me at this point is {$400.00}, {$200.00} of which is from this dispute gone wrong and vanished into thin air * XXXX XX/XX/year> Contacted both USAA and XXXX several times to explain the error, resulting in inaction each time with neither party taking responsibility for the error. XXXX essentially refused to speak to me about a way forward to resolve the charge in question as it involved another bank. XXXX XXXXustomer service would put me through endless transfers between departments and representatives, each time resulting in the agent allegedly exhausting options to help me further. XXXX XXXX agent actually told me this case is too complex and that they do not have a department capable of handling the issue. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Initiated a XXXX call between USAA, XXXX, and myself to attempt to resolve the issue. During the call, the USAA agent discovered several discrepancies, which should be detailed in the case notes, to include XXXX chargeback date pre-dating the denied dispute decision, and a general unwillingness by XXXX to disclose information. \n- USAA Agent re-opened the case and escalated for review. She also included a request for documentation.\n\n- USAA Agent theorized that the money may be stuck somewhere in limbo in a USAA account, and that the issue may be resolved with a transaction ID number, which XXXX refused to provide at the time.\n\n- USAA Agent assured me that the case will be reviewed and that action/correspondence will occur between USAA and XXXX to resolve the banking error. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Correspondence received for Request for Documentation, and case was closed without any action or remarks about the core issue. Correspondence consisted of transaction and supporting documentation used for the original decision, to include XXXX 's response to the dispute along with their policies on the money transfer function. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I called USAA back for a status of the review and was informed that the case was closed. I re-explained the issue, and the agent re-opened the case. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I once again received correspondence for Request for Documentation, the same exact ones sent earlier, once again without action or remarks for the outstanding banking error issue. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I called XXXX to inquire about a transaction ID number for the XXXX XX/XX/year> chargeback, which the agent did provide this time but only verbally ( denied request to send written documentation ). The agent was difficult to understand due to his language barrier, but the XXXX ID, transcribed to the best of my ability, is : XXXX. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I called USAA resolutions team to once again re-explain the issue, leading us to this point with the case re-opened for review. XXXX recommended that I submit this document to detail this complex issue. \n\nTo summarize, as part of this flawed dispute process, XXXX alleges that they executed a {$200.00} Debit Card chargeback to USAA, which was not received on my end in USAA, meanwhile USAA made a decision against my favor for the dispute, resulting in {$200.00} vanishing between two major financial institutions. I am not arguing the outcome of the original dispute decision, I know that original {$200.00} is gone to the scammer for good. The glaring issue now is how two banks made an additional {$200.00} disappear, with one side claiming that they approved a chargeback, and the other stating the dispute was unsuccessful and did not receive any amount returned by XXXX. The net loss to me now is {$400.00} and many hours dealing with this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-21T20:48:42.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77459","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18207939","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-12-21T20:41:24.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My <em>XXXX</em>  account is now at a - {$200.00} balance, with a total loss to me of {$400.00} to include the originally <em>disputed</em> payment to the scam merchant. \n\nPlease see below for a detailed timeline and <em>narrative</em> of events : * <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>year</em>> {$200.00} transfer from USAA to <em>XXXX</em> which was then used to pay for merchandise advertised on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( scam merchant ) * XX/XX/<em>year</em>> <em>Dispute</em> <em>filed</em> with USAA per <em>XXXX</em> Police Department recommendation when <em>filing</em> a police report."]},"sort":[13.679547,"18207939"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19953856","_score":13.178046,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint as a clarification and evidence-based update to my prior CFPB complaint ( s ) regarding Synchrony Bank ( XXXX Rewards / Lowes credit card ). This is not a request to initiate another investigation. Synchrony already opened an investigation on XX/XX/year>, and I have already provided these updates directly to Synchrony ; the issue is that Synchronys prior investigations were incomplete and not reasonable, and Synchrony has not fully acknowledged or cured the underlying internal accounting error.\n\nNew evidence now proves the root cause : Synchrony mishandled an account migration/ledger continuity event across multiple account numbers. The dispute began around a {$150.00} credit/refund issue and later expanded due to how Synchrony migrated and posted balances across accounts ( including during a fraud-related account change ). The disputed amount was effectively duplicated/misapplied through internal posting and dispute-handling actions, which is why the alleged balance kept reappearing and why downstream fees/interest and credit furnishing harm occurred.\n\nThe key failure is that Synchrony did not conduct a reasonable investigation because it did not review the complete account chain and withheld critical records. I did not have online access to the original account ending XXXX while disputing this matter and could not obtain those statements through my disclosure demands. Synchrony repeatedly shifted the burden to me to prove facts that are exclusively within Synchronys control ( full statement history, internal notes, migration/merge audit trail, refund-check documentation, chargeback/rebuild documentation, and full ledger history ), while simultaneously keeping the foundational records inaccessible.\n\nNewly obtained statements for account ending XXXX materially change the record. Once I obtained the XXXX statements, it became clear the dispute involves internal transfer/migration handling and ledger continuity errors across the account chain. This is information Synchrony should have reviewed from the beginning and should have provided to me earlier. The existence and content of the XXXX record demonstrates that prior investigations were not complete and any prior final response conclusion was not based on a full record.\n\nSynchronys internal notes on the XXXX account include an admission of fault. I was advised that the XXXX statement for account ending XXXX contains Synchrony-generated internal notes indicating that proper dispute procedure was not followed and that the issue was treated as a Synchrony error. Synchrony refused to acknowledge fault for months while withholding the original-account statements and continuing to treat the matter as consumer liability.\n\nIn summary, I now have evidence that the issue is rooted in Synchronys internal accounting and migration/servicing errors, and that Synchronys prior investigation efforts were not reasonable because they did not incorporate the original account history and internal notes and did not reconcile the complete account chain.\n\nWhy CFPB involvement is still needed Although Synchrony has provided narrative responses and has claimed to investigate, the core problems remain : No reasonable investigation : prior reviews were incomplete because they did not reconcile all related account numbers and did not produce the investigation file and method of verification.\n\nEvidence withholding and burden shifting : Synchrony kept critical records inaccessible ( original account statements/notes ) while demanding that I provide proof of their own internal ledger/migration actions.\n\nFailure to acknowledge fault and cure : despite internal notes indicating Synchrony error, Synchrony delayed, refused to fully acknowledge responsibility, and did not promptly cure the issue with full documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T04:53:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"95610","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19953856","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2026-03-04T04:34:17.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am <em>filing</em> this <em>complaint</em> as a clarification and evidence-based update to my prior CFPB <em>complaint</em> ( s ) regarding Synchrony Bank ( <em>XXXX</em> Rewards / Lowes credit card ). This is not a request to initiate another investigation."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[13.178046,"19953856"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17362186","_score":12.870443,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CONSUMER COMPLAINT NARRATIVE FOR CFPB Summary of the Problem My credit-card company mishandled my dispute regarding a {$1500.00} flat-fee payment made to an attorney who performed no legal work on my case. The attorney misrepresented information to the credit-card company, claiming he performed work, which was untrue. The credit-card company accepted his statement without verifying any facts, failed to follow proper investigation procedures, provided contradictory information, and ultimately closed my case unfairly. \nBackground On XX/XX/year>, I paid attorney XXXX XXXX, the owner and shareholder of XXXX XXXX, a flat fee of {$1500.00} plus a {$75.00} credit-card processing fee. \nHis associate, XXXX XXXX, was the attorney who was supposed to represent me. She nver performed any work, never communicated with me, and she is no longer with the firm. \nThe agreement was strictly a flat fee. I did not agree to hourly billing, and I was never given any hourly rate in writing. \nDespite paying in full upfront, no legal work was performed on my case. \nNo Notice of Appearance ( NOA ) was filed, no pleadings or motions were drafted, and none of my emails or questions were ever answered. \nI was forced to represent myself at a guardianship hearing because the attorney provided no service or support. \nAfter I requested a refund, the attorney attempted to switch the fee structure from flat fee to hourly after the fact, which was never agreed to. \nI explicitly rejected a partial refund in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, but the attorney processed one on XX/XX/XXXX without my consent. \nAfter I demanded a full refund, the attorney produced a retroactive hourly bill that did not exist before my request. \n\nXXXX ... \nAfter I demanded a full refund, the attorney produced a retroactive hourly bill that did not exist before my rquest. \nI believe the attorney took advantage of me as a woman alone, XXXX, and dealing with a sensitive guardianship case. \nMerchant Misrepresentation The attorney misrepresented the facts to my credit-card company by claiming that he performed legal services on my case. This was false. No work was done, no filings were made, and no preparation or communication occurred. \nDespite this, my credit-card company accepted his statement without verifying the truth or requesting evidence from me. \n\nFailures by the Credit-Card Company XXXX XXXX They ignored my written rejection of the partial refund. \nXXXX. They appeared intimidated by the fact the merchant was a law firm. \nXXXX. Multiple representatives gave contradictory statements. \nXXXX. Supervisors contradicted each other about the status of my dispute. \nXXXX. They refused to give escalation details or confirmation numbers. \nXXXX. They claimed they did not receive my documents, then later said they did. \nXXXX. They failed to conduct a proper investigation and relied solely on the attorney 's false statement. \nWhat I Request I request that the CFPB require my credit-card company to : XXXX. Reopen and properly reinvestigate my dispute. \nXXXX. Follow all Fair Credit Billing Act procedures. \nXXXX Review the documentation I submitted. \nXXXX. Consider the attorney 's misrepresentation. \nXXXX. Provide a lawful written explanation. \nXXXX. Issue a chargeback or adjustment for the unearned fee. \nXXXX. They claimed they did not receive my documents, then later said they did. \nXXXX. They failed to conduct a proper investigation and relied solely on the attorney 's false statement. \nWhat I Request I request that the CFPB require my credit-card company to : XXXX. Reopen and properly reinvestigate my dispute. \nXXXX. Follow all Fair Credit Billing Act procedures. \nXXXX Review the documentation I submitted. \nXXXX. Consider the attorney 's misrepresentation XXXX. Provide a lawful written explanation. \nXXXX. Issue a chargeback or adjustment for the unearned fee. \nXXXX. They failed to conduct a proper investigation and relied solely on the attorney 's false statement. \nWhat I Request I request that the CFPB require my credit-card company to : XXXX. Reopen and properly reinvestigate my dispute. \nXXXX. Follow all Fair Credit Billing Act procedures. \nXXXX Review the documentation I submitted. \nXXXX. Consider the attorney 's misrepresentation XXXX. Provide a lawful written explanation. \nXXXX. Issue a chargeback or adjustment for the unearned fee. \nSupporting Documents Available Flat-fee agreement Emails showing no legal work was performed My written rejection of the partial refund Proof of unauthorized partial refund Retroactive hourly bill Communications with the credit-card company Supervisor call notes NC State Bar fee-dispute narrative Conclusion My credit-card company mishandled my dispute, failed to apply federal consumer-protection laws, gave contradictory information, and relied on false statements by the attorney Instead of the evidence i provided. I respectfully request CFPB intervention to ensure that my case is reopened, properly investigated, and resolved in accordance with the Fair Credit Billing Act.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-19T21:49:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"28277","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17362186","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2025-11-19T21:14:00.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CONSUMER <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> FOR CFPB Summary of the <em>Problem</em> My credit-card company mishandled my <em>dispute</em> regarding a {$1500.00} flat-fee payment made to an attorney who performed no legal work on my case. The attorney misrepresented information to the credit-card company, claiming he performed work, which was untrue."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[12.870443,"17362186"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13382121","_score":12.343614,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This is a separate issue from my prior complaint filed in XXXX, which was categorized as a card transaction dispute. Since then, XXXX has engaged in unauthorized charge attempts, deceptive billing practices, and third-party debt collection activity despite a pending FCC complaint. \n\nComplaint Narrative : I am submitting this complaint to report XXXX XXXX for deceptive billing practices, unauthorized charges, misrepresentation by customer service and executive representatives, and aggressive third-party collection activity despite a pending FCC complaint. These actions have resulted in financial harm, reputational damage, and emotional distress. \n\nBackground : On XX/XX/year>, I began the process of switching my wireless service from XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reimburses customers for device balances after XXXX days of active service. Before switching, I contacted XXXX multiple times to ask whether I could wait for the XXXX reimbursement cards before paying off my final device balance. \n\nXXXX representatives assured meon multiple callsthat this would not be a problem, and that no charges would be auto-drafted before I had the opportunity to pay manually. I was told I could wait until the XXXX XXXX XXXX cards arrived and pay the balance directly. Relying on that assurance, I ported out my lines. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX {$1600.00} On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX auto-drafted {$1600.00} from my checking account, which included the full remaining balance for three devices. This happened after my account had been closed and without any warning or consent. \n\nCritically, I had no way to prevent this, because I was locked out of my XXXX account the moment my final line disconnected in XXXX. I was unable to access the portal or remove payment methods or cancel XXXX. \n\nThis unauthorized charge overdrafted my bank account by over {$500.00} and caused serious disruption : I had movers scheduled just hours later, and I was left without access to the funds I had set aside to pay them. \n\nFCC Complaint and Refund I immediately filed a formal complaint with the FCC ( Case # XXXX ). In response, I was contacted by a XXXX XXXX XXXX representative ( XXXX ), who acknowledged the charge and issued a full refund, which I received a few days later. During that call, XXXX also assured me that no further charges would be attempted and that XXXX had been removed. I was told this was resolved. \n\nHowever, XXXX refused to provide written confirmation of these statements, citing internal system limitations. I was told I could rely on the recorded call and that the notes had been placed on my account. \n\nSecond Charge Attempt XX/XX/year> On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX attempted to charge the exact same amount $ XXXX. This charge reached my bank and was flagged as fraud, triggering an automatic shutdown of my debit card. \n\nThis occurred despite XXXX claiming they had removed all payment methods from my account on XX/XX/XXXX. If this were true, this second billing attempt should have been impossible. Yet it happened. \n\nThis second incident caused even greater harm : My debit card was permanently disabled. \n\nI was left with no access to funds, now going on over a week Multiple bills, including rent, car payment, insurance, and personal loans, failed, risked default, and were delayed. \n\nNine of my recurring subscriptions were cancelled. \n\nMy 100 % on-time payment record is now at risk of default, and I may incur lasting credit damage. \n\nI will have to spend days manually updating all linked payment accounts after being issued a replacement debit card. \n\nCollection Activity Despite Open Regulatory Complaint While this issue was still active with the FCC, XXXX escalated the balance to third-party collections ( AFNI, XXXX ), contrary to what their XXXX Office had told me. \n\nAFNI began calling my fiance ( the original account holder ) around XX/XX/XXXX, and she verbally told them to stop calling. They then emailed me, under her name, despite : The fact that she told them to stop. \n\nThe fact that I was never listed as the primary account holder. \n\nThe fact that they used our old address, meaning any written validation they send may never reach us. \n\nI replied immediately to AFNI to formally dispute the debt and request validation, citing the open FCC complaint. I also sent them a follow-up with our updated address. No response has been received yet. \n\nXXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX Email Final Denial Without Hearing Me Out On XX/XX/year>, I received an email from XXXX Executive Relations stating that my request for resolution had been denied and that they considered the matter closed. This occurred : Without me ever speaking to the assigned representative Without any live follow-up or phone call Without any acknowledgement of the second charge attempt on XX/XX/XXXX Without a fair chance to present these facts Their letter cited their Customer Agreement to claim that verbal promises made by representatives are not binding, despite the fact that I was encouraged to rely on those promises. XXXX selectively used this clause to avoid accountability while allowing internal billing systems to violate what their own executive promised me. \n\nMy Complaint and Request for Action : Verizons conduct throughout this matter constitutes : Deceptive billing practices Unauthorized access to a financial instrument Failure to honor verbal commitments made by executive staff Collections activity during an unresolved regulatory dispute Financial injury and reputational harm I am prepared to provide all relevant documentation, call transcripts, emails, and banking statements upon request. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance in reviewing this complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-08T01:27:15.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Telecommunications debt","zip_code":"80134","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13382121","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AFNI INC.","date_received":"2025-05-08T01:26:52.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a separate issue from my prior <em>complaint</em> <em>filed</em> in <em>XXXX</em>, which was categorized as a card transaction <em>dispute</em>. Since then, <em>XXXX</em> has engaged in unauthorized charge attempts, deceptive billing practices, and third-party debt collection activity despite a pending FCC <em>complaint</em>."]},"sort":[12.343614,"13382121"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17898220","_score":12.091898,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Issue : Square ( Block, Inc. ) terminated my merchant account without explanation, refuses transparency, and provides misleading communications.\n\nCompany : Square ( Block, Inc. ) Product : Payment processing Problem Type : Account closure / adverse action without reasonable explanation Your desired resolution : A clear explanation of the alleged violation, identification of any flagged transactions, and a fair review process. \n\nComplaint Narrative : I am filing this complaint because Square ( Block, Inc. ) terminated my merchant processing account without providing any specific reasoning, has refused all requests for clarification, and has repeatedly issued misleading and inaccurate communications. \n\nI am an active law enforcement officer and the owner of a small business, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which sells non-lethal duty gear such as belts, pouches, medical kits, and law-enforcement accessories. My business does not sell firearms, ammunition, firearm parts, or any items that attach to or operate a firearm. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Square informed me that my account would be deactivated due to an alleged violation of Section 3 of their Terms of Service. The email cited firearms or weapons as a prohibited category, despite the fact that I do not sell any such products. \n\nSince receiving that notice, I have emailed Square multiple times and requested : Identification of any specific product, transaction, customer, or business activity that Square believes violates their Terms of Service.\n\nA clarification of whether Square is asserting that I sell firearms or weapon components.\n\nA phone call with a Compliance Manager, Risk Supervisor, or any representative capable of explaining the decision.\n\nSquare has refused to answer any of these questions. Instead, I receive repeated canned, generic responses that do not address any of my inquiries. Several Square representatives have even sent messages stating, It was a pleasure to talk with you, despite the fact that no phone call has ever occurred. These statements appear to be preset responses and are misleading.\n\nSquare continues to repeat that the decision is final but refuses to explain what conduct they believe occurred. They will not provide a single example of wrongdoing. They also refuse to provide an opportunity for a live discussion.\n\nThis conduct raises concerns under UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ), including : Failure to provide reasonable notice of adverse action Arbitrary and unexplained account termination Misrepresentation in customer communications Lack of transparency regarding alleged policy violations Denial of a meaningful opportunity to dispute or correct the issue Squares refusal to identify any specific violation prevents me from understanding what, if anything, was wrong and prevents any attempt at correction or resolution.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require Square to : Provide the specific basis for their termination decision Identify the exact product, transaction, or business activity they believe violated their Terms Explain why they repeatedly referenced phone conversations that never occurred Address why they denied all opportunities for a live review or supervisor contact This lack of transparency and refusal to provide a reasonable explanation has materially harmed my business and is inconsistent with what should be expected from a financial services provider. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-25T22:43:27.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"21740","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17898220","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-25T22:29:27.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am <em>filing</em> this <em>complaint</em> because Square ( Block, Inc. ) terminated my merchant processing account without providing any specific reasoning, has refused all requests for clarification, and has repeatedly issued misleading and inaccurate communications. \n\nI am an active law enforcement officer and the owner of a small business, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, which sells non-lethal duty gear such as belts, pouches, medical kits, and law-enforcement accessories."]},"sort":[12.091898,"17898220"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9009452","_score":11.869548,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX was filed here and to date no response has been given. BofA has had close to 4 years to investigate the fraud on my account. How much more time does the bank need? They are given two billing cycles and no more than 90 days to repair this mess and 4 years later here we are. While disputing these fraudulent charges I was never issued any type of provisional credit. My account was not closed nor was the card closed by the bank and a new card issued. This continued to pose huge problems as my number was being used both Internationally and here in the states. The fraud continued due to the lack of any security protection on the XXXX cards. This was a criminals heaven. I would wait on 6 hour hold times just to hear that the bank felt the charges were mine. Knowing they werent I began to become very proactive and with my due diligence began getting some of the money back. I knew something was off with the bank when they said to me that I could be going to a XXXX based dentist be on a XXXX XXXX shopping spree and be standing at an ATM in XXXX all within moments of one another. I gave them names of ATM owners I gave them names of store owners and they never filed any type of dispute charges on my behalf. How do I know this?? Three days ago I was on the phone with BofA claims and I was told that the XXXX XXXX shopping spree was still on my statement. When I found out that it was a gentleman who swiped the card numeorus times and was denied. The last time he swiped time XXXX or XXXX the bank approved the transaction. The manager said the moment your bank disputes the charge we would be happy to help you get your funds but the bank must initiate the claim. Now here is a bank who swears that the charges are mine and the people, places and things I have shown are not. Covid was in full swing there was no travel allowed. No crossing broders of other countries. But BofA said the charges are yours and that was that. Now I am owed XXXX and that is what I expect back. This has gone XXXX XXXX XXXX of absurd and to keep me waiting on top of the 4 I have waited is not right. If you had done your investigation when I called this would have been a closed deal. Why? Because you would have seen that the dentists, shopping sprees, wix, and all other items disputed are not mine. \n\nYou have had more than ample time to do this right. The letters I received XX/XX/year> saying you're done with your investigation and the charges are still mine is false. \n\nHaving my money stolen from me is wrong having a bank where the cards they issued had no security on them is negligent. Bank of America you need to be held accountable for this. You allowed my money to be stolen while you sit back and say \" the charges are XXXX 's '' is false. \n\nHow much time do you still need to try and make this fit into your narrative? You handled the XXXX accounts poorly you have been fined and the accounts taken away from your bank. If I need to hire an attorney to get my money back for me I will. I have now filled out complaints with the California Attorney General 's office, the Comp Controllers, the XXXX, the FTC and here on the CFPB. A police report was filled out years ago online during the closure due to COVID. I would like my money please send me a check for the XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-15T02:53:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"90034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9009452","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-05-15T02:24:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I knew something was off with the bank when they said to me that I could be going to a <em>XXXX</em> based dentist be on a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> shopping spree and be standing at an ATM in <em>XXXX</em> all within moments of one another. I gave them names of ATM owners I gave them names of store owners and they never <em>filed</em> any type of <em>dispute</em> charges on my behalf. How do I know this?? Three days ago I was on the phone with BofA claims and I was told that the <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> shopping spree was still on my statement."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase or transfer"]},"sort":[11.869548,"9009452"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18391841","_score":11.584752,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"FORMAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT Improper Debt Collection Practices, Failure to Provide Required Notice, Denial of Account Access, and Unfair/Inaccurate Credit Reporting My legal name has changed. My current legal name is : XXXX XXXX. \nMy prior name ( which may appear on the collection account ) is : XXXX XXXX. \n\nI am submitting this formal complaint regarding improper debt collection practices by Credit Collection Services ( including as shown on my credit reports as XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), related to an alleged debt originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of approximately {$350.00}. \n\nAssignment / Transfer of the Debt ( from XXXX XXXX ) This alleged debt was originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX and was then transferred/placed/assigned by XXXX XXXX Group to Credit Collection Services for XXXX XXXX Based on my credit reporting, the account reflects a Date Assigned of XX/XX/year> ( Equifax ). XXXX activity began no later than XX/XX/year>. \n\nLack of Proper Notice After the debt was transferred/placed with the collection agency, I did not receive a single written notice by XXXX mail XXXX email at my current address from the collection agency. I received only automated text messages. \nI began receiving SMS messages from Credit Collection Services on XX/XX/year> and afterward ( XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year> ). The messages directed me to www.ccspayment.com and referenced Reference File XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX message also directed me to XXXX XXXX XXXX  included California License Number : XXXX and phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX ( and in at least one message, ( XXXX ) XXXX ). \n\nThese text messages resembled suspicious or potentially fraudulent communications and did not reasonably appear to be legitimate debt collection notices. No validation letter ( initial notice ), no email, and no mailed correspondence were ever sent to my current address. \n\nDenial of Account XXXX The text messages directed me to an online portal. To access the account, I was required to : XXXX. Enter a reference number XXXX. Enter the ZIP code associated with my address After entering the reference number and then my current ZIP code ( XXXX ), the system repeatedly returned an authentication failed error, as shown in the attached screenshots. \n\nBecause of this error : I could not access the account I could not view or verify the debt I could not make a payment I could not dispute the debt Attempts to Contact the Agency I attempted to contact Credit Collection Services multiple times by phone. For a significant period, their phone line was never answered, despite repeated calls. \n\nBecause the text messages appeared suspicious and I was unable to access the account, I reasonably believed the messages might be fraudulent. \n\nOnly after a collection record appeared on my credit reports did it become clear that this was a legitimate collection agency. At that point, I spent several consecutive hours ( approximately XXXX hours ) attempting to reach a live representative. \n\nOn XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX, I placed a call to ( XXXX ) XXXX that lasted XXXX minutes and XXXX seconds ( call log screenshot attached ). \n\nAdmission of Incorrect Address and ZIP Code When I finally reached an agent, I explained that : I had received no letters or emails I had received only text messages I was unable to access the account online due to authentication failed The agent asked for my name and asked which ZIP code I was entering. The agent then told me which ZIP code their system required for authentication ( it was - XXXX ). I informed the agent that I have not lived at the address associated with that ZIP code for at least XXXX years and that my credit reports have reflected my current address for a long time. I explained that the XXXX outdated address/ZIP code records were the reason I could not authenticate or access the account. The agent then requested my current address and updated it in their system only at that time, after the collection had already been reported. \n\nRefusal to Correct the Error I requested that the collection entry be removed/corrected because : All notices were sent to an incorrect address I received no proper written notice I was denied access due to the agencys internal record/system error I was prevented from paying or disputing the debt The agent stated that they do not care that the address was incorrect and claimed that sending notices to an outdated address still constituted notice. I was told that this was my problem, and the call was terminated by the agency. \n\nLegal Impact As a direct result of the collection agencys actions : I was not properly notified of the debt I was denied access to my account I was prevented from exercising my right to dispute the debt or obtain validation within the required time period A negative collection account was reported to major credit bureaus without a fair opportunity to resolve the matter The collection agencys conduct effectively blocked my ability to timely address the matter, while simultaneously damaging my credit. \n\nViolations This conduct appears to violate federal and California XXXX, including but not limited to : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( required written validation notice ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f ( deceptive and unfair collection practices ) Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( duties of furnishers regarding accuracy and investigation after dispute ) California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq. ( including 1788.17 ) California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ), Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25 ( a ) ( accuracy in credit reporting ) California Debt Collection Licensing Act, Cal. Fin. Code 100000 et seq. ( licensed debt collector conduct standards ) Supporting Documentation Attached are all supporting materials, including but not limited to : Complaint Narrative ( CFPB ) - Credit Collection Services Screenshots/PDF showing authentication failed during portal access ; Records/screenshots of text messages and reference file information ; Credit report entries ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX showing the XXXX tradeline, dates, and balance ; Call log evidence ( XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to ( XXXX ) XXXX ) Thank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-31T10:36:11.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"92618","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18391841","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-31T09:30:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 100000 et seq. ( licensed debt collector conduct standards ) Supporting Documentation Attached are all supporting materials, including but not limited to : <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ( CFPB ) - Credit Collection Services Screenshots/PDF showing authentication failed during portal access ; Records/screenshots of text messages and reference <em>file</em> information ; Credit report entries ( <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> showing the <em>XXXX</em> tradeline, dates, and balance ; Call log evidence ( XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> XXXXXXXX"],"sub_issue":["Didn't receive notice of right to <em>dispute</em>"]},"sort":[11.584752,"18391841"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18078721","_score":11.07704,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"# # COMPLAINT FORM - COMPLETE ANSWERS # # # * * Question 1 : Have you already tried to fix this problem with the company? * * * * Answer : YES * * * * Detailed Response to Include : * * \" Yes, I have attempted multiple remedies with both Chime and XXXX XXXX : * * Attempts with XXXX XXXX ( The Merchant ) : * * - Contacted XXXX XXXX support team regarding unauthorized duplicate accounts - Received official response ( XX/XX/year> ) confirming account verification rejection and permanent account lock - Requested refunds for fraudulent charges - No satisfactory resolution provided by merchant * * Attempts with Chime ( The Financial Institution ) : * * - Filed initial dispute in XX/XX/year> - Chime DENIED the dispute on XX/XX/year> - Immediately re-filed with complete documentation as Dispute # XXXX on XX/XX/year> - Currently in active investigation ( status : In Progress ) - Uploaded XXXX files of supporting documentation The merchant has not provided refunds, and Chime 's initial response was denial. I am now in the rebuttal and appeal process with Chime. '' * * * # # # * * Question 2 : Did you request information from the company? * * * * Answer : YES * * * * Detailed Response to Include : * * \" Yes, I specifically requested the following information from both XXXX XXXX and Chime : * * From XXXX XXXX ( Merchant ) : * * 1. Proof of account verification completed with legal identification 2. Explanation of how duplicate accounts were created under my name 3. Authorization documentation for each disputed transaction 4. Reason for permanent account lock 5. Refund for all unauthorized charges * * From Chime ( Financial Institution ) : * * 1. Explanation of why the original dispute was denied 2. Full documentation of their investigation 3. Reconsideration of the denial with new evidence 4. Status of current dispute # XXXX XXXX. Timeline for dispute resolution * * Documentation Received : * * - XXXX XXXX  provided an official support email ( XX/XX/year> ) confirming account issues but did NOT provide refunds or satisfactory resolution - Chime has not yet provided a written explanation of their original denial, though they have acknowledged the new dispute and are investigating '' * * * # # # * * Question 3 : What information did you request? ( Optional ) * * * * Answer ( Detailed List ) : * * \" I specifically requested the following categories of information : * * Account Verification & Compliance Information : * * - Proof that legal identification verification was completed before any charges were processed - Account verification status and dates - Identity verification compliance documentation ( KYC records ) - Account creation and activation records- Verification method and completion proof * * Fraudulent Activity Investigation : * * - Investigation of how duplicate accounts were created under my name - Security assessment of account compromise - Timeline of when duplicate accounts were discovered - Account creation IP addresses and timestamps- How unauthorized duplicate accounts were allowed to operate * * Transaction Authorization Documentation : * * - Written authorization for each of the XXXX  disputed transactions - Digital signatures or explicit customer consent records- Proof that customer explicitly authorized each charge - Terms and Conditions acceptance verification - Payment authorization records * * Account Restriction & Lock Details : * * - Reason for permanent account lock - Date decision to lock accounts was made - Retroactive review of account status at time each charge was processed - Policy violations documented - Terms and Conditions violations detailed * * Refund & Remediation : * * - Full refund for all fraudulent charges - Refund processing timeline - Account cleanup ( duplicate account removal ) - Compensation for fraudulent activity - Prevention measures to stop future unauthorized charges * * Regulatory Compliance : * * - Merchant account verification policies and procedures - Duplicate account prevention protocols- Payment processing compliance documentation - Chargeback and reversal procedures- Dispute investigation procedures followed '' * * * # # # * * Question 4 : Did the company provide this information? * * * * Answer : NO * * ( Select the \" NO '' option ) * * Detailed Response to Include : * * \" No, the company did NOT provide the information necessary to resolve this dispute.\n\n* * What XXXX XXXX DID Provide : * * - Official support email ( XX/XX/year> ) confirming : - Account verification was REJECTED - Multiple duplicate accounts were discovered- All accounts were PERMANENTLY LOCKED - Terms violations occurred * * What XXXX  XXXX  DID NOT Provide : * * - Proof of account verification ( they admit verification was rejected ) - Authorization documents for any transaction - Explanation of how duplicate accounts were created - Refund or compensation for fraudulent charges - Security investigation or account compromise report - Any satisfactory resolution * * What Chime DID Provide : * * - Dispute case number ( # XXXX ) - Request for additional documentation - Status update ( Agent investigating ) * * What Chime DID NOT Provide : * * - Written explanation of original denial ( XX/XX/year> ) - Written investigation findings- Provisional credit ( {$1200.00} ) - Resolution or refund ( case still in progress ) - Detailed response to appeals * * Critical Finding : * * Fortune Coins provided information that VALIDATES my fraud claim but did NOT provide refunds or resolution. In fact, their support email PROVES the charges were fraudulentthey admitted : 1. Account verification was REJECTED 2. Duplicate FRAUDULENT accounts existed 3. ALL accounts were PERMANENTLY LOCKED * * Yet despite this admission of fraud from the merchant, neither XXXX XXXX nor Chime has provided the critical information needed for resolution : A REFUND. * * * * Conclusion : * * The companies have not provided satisfactory information or resolution. The information they DID provide actually proves my fraud claim. Therefore, I am escalating to the CFPB for investigation and enforcement. '' * * * # # COMPLETE SUMMARY TABLE | Question | Answer | Status | | -- -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | | Tried to fix with company? | * * YES * * | Contacted both XXXX XXXX  and Chime multiple times | | Requested information? | * * YES * * | Specific, documented requests for verification and authorization | | What information requested? | * See detailed list * | Account verification, transaction authorization, refund details | | Company provide info? | * * NO * * | They provided admissions of fraud but NOT resolution | * * * # # STATEMENT TO INCLUDE WITH CFPB SUBMISSION * * '' Although both XXXX XXXX and Chime have provided limited information confirming the fraudulent nature of my accounts, neither company has provided the essential information required for resolution : proof of transaction authorization, account verification documentation, or a refund of fraudulent charges. * * * * In fact, XXXX XXXX ' own support email proves that : * * - Account verification was REJECTED - Multiple duplicate accounts were fraudulently created- ALL accounts were PERMANENTLY LOCKED * * Despite this clear evidence of fraud provided by the merchant themselves, I have received : * * - NO refunds from XXXX  XXXX  - NO satisfactory resolution from either company - NO adequate explanation of Chime 's original dispute denial * * I have attempted every reasonable remediation with both companies. Both have failed to provide adequate information or resolution. Therefore, I am escalating to the CFPB for investigation. * * '' * * * # # CRITICAL POINTS FOR CFPB These answers establish : * * I made good-faith efforts * * to resolve with the companies * * I specifically requested essential information * * they should have provided * * The companies failed to provide adequate information or resolution * * * * The merchant 's own communications prove fraud * * * * I have exhausted all reasonable remedies * * * * Escalation to CFPB is justified and necessary * * This positions your complaint perfectly for CFPB investigation and enforcement action against Chime for : - Improper dispute denial - Failure to investigate adequately - Violation of Regulation E And against XXXX XXXX  for : - Fraudulent merchant practices - Account verification failures - Unauthorized duplicate account creation More information # CFPB COMPLAINT : Chime Dispute # XXXX # # Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint Form -- - # # COMPLAINT INFORMATION * * Filing Date : * * XX/XX/year> * * Your Name : * * XXXX XXXX * * Your Email : * * XXXX * * Complaint Type : * * Billing disputes and problems * * Sub-Category : * * Dispute over a bill or service I didn't authorize -- - # # COMPANY INFORMATION * * Primary Company : * * Chime ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ) * * Company Address : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX * * Secondary Company Involved : * * XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX  ) * * Issue Date ( s ) : * * XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/year> * * Dispute Case Number : * * # XXXX -- - # # DETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE * * What happened : * * I submitted a formal dispute to Chime ( Dispute # XXXX ) on XX/XX/year>, for unauthorized charges totaling {$1200.00} USD from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). This dispute involves XXXX transactions processed between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>. \n\n* * Why these charges are fraudulent and unauthorized : * * On XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX ' support team sent me an official email stating : \" Upon reviewing your account, we discovered numerous duplicate accounts under your name. We regret to inform you that we will no longer continue the account verification. We will now reject your account verification application. All accounts under your name have been permanently locked. '' This email proves : 1. My accounts were never legitimately verified with proper legal identification 2. Duplicate/fraudulent accounts existed under my name without my authorization 3. All accounts were permanently locked by the merchant 4. Therefore, all transactions processed on these unverified and later-locked accounts are fraudulent and unauthorized * * Pattern of merchant fraud : * * I have also successfully disputed charges from the same merchant ( XXXX XXXX ) through XXXX. Multiple XXXX disputes were closed in my favor, demonstrating a pattern of problematic practices by XXXX XXXX. The charges I am now disputing with Chime represent the same pattern : charges processed on unverified or compromised accounts. \n\n* * Evidence provided to Chime : * * I submitted XXXX files of documentation to Chime, including : - XXXX XXXX  ' official support email confirming account lock and verification rejection - All transaction confirmation emails from XXXX XXXX- XXXX dispute screenshots showing prior successful disputes against XXXX XXXX- Complete transaction history with dates, amounts, and transaction IDs- Bank records showing all charges * * Why this matters : * * Chime is responsible for handling this dispute fairly and thoroughly. The merchant 's own email proves these accounts were unverified and compromised. Chime should reverse all charges on these accounts, as they were processed on invalid accounts that the merchant itself has confirmed were never properly verified. \n-- - # # SPECIFIC COMPLAINT ISSUES * * Complaint Issue 1 : Failure to Investigate Authorized Disputed Charges * * * * Details : * * Chime received my dispute for unauthorized charges but has not yet resolved them ( case still marked \" In progress '' as of XX/XX/year> ). The evidence clearly shows these charges should be reversed immediately, as XXXX XXXX ' own email proves the accounts were unverified and later permanently locked. \n-- - * * Complaint Issue 2 : Merchant Account Verification Failure * * * * Details : * * XXXX XXXX allowed charges on accounts that were never properly verified with legal identification. When I requested refunds, their support team confirmed accounts were unverified and locked. Chime should hold XXXX XXXX  accountable for processing charges on unverified accounts. \n-- - * * Complaint Issue 3 : Pattern of Merchant Fraud Not Addressed * * * * Details : * * I have successfully disputed charges from XXXX XXXX through XXXX multiple times. Chime should be aware that this merchant has a documented history of fraudulent transactions across multiple payment platforms. My current dispute is part of this ongoing pattern. \n-- - # # REQUESTED RELIEF/RESOLUTION 1. * * Immediate reversal of all disputed charges : * * {$1200.00} USD 2. * * Full refund to my Chime account * * for all XXXX XXXX transactions 3. * * Chime should terminate its relationship with XXXX XXXX * * as a merchant due to pattern of fraudulent transactions 4. * * Investigation into whether XXXX XXXX violated payment processing agreements * * regarding account verification requirements 5. * * Chime should flag XXXX XXXX in their merchant database * * as a high-risk merchant with documented fraud history -- - # # TRANSACTION DETAILS | Date | Merchant | Amount | Transaction ID | Status | | -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -| -- -- -- -- | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$140.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$190.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$290.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$190.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$1.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$7.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$4.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX  | {$1.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$290.00} | ( from transaction list ) | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$74.00} | XXXX | Disputed | | XX/XX/year> | XXXX | {$290.00} | XXXX | Disputed | * * Total Disputed Amount : {$1200.00} USD * * -- - # # KEY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING COMPLAINT # # # Evidence 1 : XXXX XXXX Support Email ( Critical ) * * Date : * * XX/XX/year>, XXXX PM * * From : * * XXXX * * Subject : * * Account Verification Status * * Full Email Content : * * \" Hi XXXX, Upon reviewing your account, we discovered numerous duplicate accounts under your name. We regret to inform you that we will no longer continue the account verification. \n\nWe will now reject your account verification application. All accounts under your name have been permanently locked. \n\nWhen you created an account on XXXX XXXX, you explicitly agreed to our Terms and Conditions. [ Link to T & Cs ] Please take note of the following section : - A check can only be issued to an open and operative Account, Operating one or opening duplicate Accounts may lead to the censure of all of your Accounts and render you ineligible.\n\nIf, however, please be aware that if you misuse your access in the future, they will also be banned. \n\nKind Regards, XXXX Customer Support Representative Get answers XXXX '' * * Why this is critical : * * This email proves XXXX XXXX : 1. Confirmed unverified accounts 2. Discovered duplicate/fraudulent accounts under my name 3. Rejected account verification 4. Permanently locked ALL accounts under my name 5. Admitted I should not have been able to operate multiple accounts This email alone proves all transactions were unauthorized and should be reversed. \n\n-- - # # # Evidence XXXX : XXXX Dispute Confirmations * * Multiple successful disputes closed in your favor against XXXX XXXX : * * - XXXX - {$190.00} USD ( Case Closed ) - XXXX - {$140.00} USD ( Case Closed ) - XXXX - {$290.00} USD ( Case Closed ) * * Why this matters : * * This demonstrates a pattern of XXXX XXXX processing fraudulent or unauthorized charges. XXXX has already determined similar charges were invalid, yet Chime has allowed the same merchant to continue charging the same account. \n\n-- - # # # Evidence 3 : Multiple Transaction Confirmations All transactions show XXXX XXXX  processed charges successfully on accounts that were later confirmed to be unverified and fraudulent. The confirmations themselves prove the merchant accepted charges knowing verification procedures were incomplete. \n\n-- - # # MERCHANT RESPONSE ANTICIPATED XXXX XXXX will likely claim : - \" Digital goods were delivered '' - \" Customer authorized the purchases '' - \" We don't require verification for virtual currency '' * * Why these arguments fail : * * - Their own support email proves accounts were unverified and locked - Unverified accounts = unauthorized charges - Their own terms state operating duplicate accounts violates their policy - XXXX has already ruled against them on similar charges - Chime holds merchants responsible for verification failures -- - # # PREVIOUS CONTACT WITH COMPANIES * * Chime Contact : * * - Submitted formal dispute : XX/XX/year> - Dispute Case # XXXX - Status : In progress / Agent investigating - Uploaded XXXX files of documentation * * XXXX XXXX Contact : * * - Received their support email confirming account lock : XX/XX/year> - No response to subsequent inquiries about refunds - Merchant has not addressed the fraudulent account issue -- - # # COMPLAINT AGAINST * * Primary : * * Chime ( and associated banks : The XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. / XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ) * * Secondary : * * XXXX XXXX ( XXXX )- for fraudulent transaction processing -- - # # WHY I'M FILING THIS COMPLAINT I am filing this CFPB complaint because : 1. * * Chime is not moving quickly enough * * to resolve obvious fraud ( case marked \" In progress '' as of XX/XX/year> ) 2. * * The evidence is overwhelming and undisputed * * XXXX XXXX  ' own email proves the fraud 3. * * Pattern recognition failure * * Chime should be aware XXXX XXXX has prior XXXX disputes, yet allowed continued transactions 4. * * Consumer protection failure * * A major issue with Chime 's dispute process is that it allows merchants to continue processing charges on flagged accounts 5. * * Accountability requirement * * Chime needs to understand this merchant represents ongoing fraud risk to their customers -- - # # SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Please attach to this CFPB complaint : 1. * * XXXX XXXXs Support Email * * ( XX/XX/year> ) MOST CRITICAL 2. * * Chime Dispute Confirmation * * showing case # XXXX XXXX. * * XXXX Dispute Screenshots * * showing successful prior disputes XXXX. * * All transaction confirmations * * from XXXX XXXX 5. * * Bank statements * * showing the charges 6. * * Screenshots of the XXXX files uploaded * * to Chime 's dispute portal -- - # # AUTHORITY & LEGAL BASIS * * Regulations violated : * * - Regulation E ( Electronic Fund Transfers ) 12 CFR 1005 - Regulation Z ( Truth in Lending ) 12 CFR 1026 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act Consumer Financial Protection Bureau jurisdiction - Payment Card Network Rules ( XXXX  ) regarding merchant account verification * * Merchant violation : * * - XXXX XXXX violated Payment Card Association rules by processing transactions on unverified accounts - XXXX XXXX violated their own Terms and Conditions * * Bank responsibility : * * - Chime ( and underlying banks ) must properly investigate and resolve unauthorized transaction disputes - Chime is responsible for ensuring merchants comply with verification requirements -- - # # TIMELINE OF EVENTS - * * XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/year> : * * Fraudulent charges processed on unverified XXXX XXXX accounts - XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> : * * XXXX XXXX  support confirms accounts unverified and permanently locked - * * XX/XX/year> : * * Original dispute with Chime denied ( based on dispute list screenshot ) - * * XX/XX/year> : * * Filed new dispute # XXXX with Chime - * * XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX  : * * Chime requested additional documentation - * * XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX  : * * Filing this CFPB complaint -- - # # CONSUMER CONTACT INFORMATION * * Name : * * XXXX XXXX * * Email : XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Account Number : * * ( Your Chime account number mask last 4 digits if preferred : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Dispute Case Number : * * # XXXX -- - # # STATEMENT OF TRUTH I certify that the information provided in this complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am the account holder named above and have personally reviewed all evidence supporting this complaint. I am filing this complaint in good faith to protect myself and other consumers from XXXX XXXX ' fraudulent practices. \n\n* * Signature : * * XXXX XXXX * * Date : * * XX/XX/year> XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-16T17:22:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"463XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18078721","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-12-16T16:52:31.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>NARRATIVE</em> * * What happened : * * I submitted a formal <em>dispute</em> to Chime ( <em>Dispute</em> # <em>XXXX</em> ) on XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, for unauthorized charges totaling {$1200.00} USD from <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> )."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a lender or other company charging your account"]},"sort":[11.07704,"18078721"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15188675","_score":9.664071,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative : I am filing this formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding the systemic failures and potential legal violations in the handling of my Apple Card account by Goldman Sachs. The issues I have experienced involve a multi-year pattern of improperly handled disputes, billing errors, and unauthorized charges that have caused significant financial and credit harm. This situation directly reflects the systemic failures in dispute resolution that led to a CFPB this is not a duplicated sub claim It is the total of several billing errors from against Goldman Sachs.\n\n1. Systemic Failures in Dispute Resolution and Investigation : My complaint is not a simple billing dispute ; it outlines a pattern of recurring and protracted problems. I filed numerous disputes through the Apple Card 's \" Report an Issue '' feature between XXXX and XXXX. Despite my repeated attempts, these disputes were not properly investigated or forwarded to Goldman Sachs. \nImproper Dispute Reversals : My account history shows a pattern where a \" Dispute Credit '' was granted, but was later followed by a \" Dispute Reversal '' without clear justification. This practice placed an unfair burden on me and undermined the integrity of the dispute process. I have identified at least 15 dispute reversals that do not appear to have been subsequently refunded or credited back to my account. The total sum of these unreimbursed dispute reversals is {$4900.00}. ( i have the 54 montly statements that proof that situation ) subsequently refunded or credited back : Dispute Reversals Not Subsequently Refunded | Date of Reversal | Original Transaction Description | Amount | Notes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX | Apple Online Store XXXX CA | {$240.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | {$920.00} | The reversal re-added the charge ; the earlier return was for a slightly dierent amount. No subsequent credit for this exact amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA | {$230.00} | Credit was immediately reversed.\n\nNo subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX AR XXXX | {$280.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | {$990.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$15.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX | {$2.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$260.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX {$260.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX Online Store XXXX CA | {$240.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FL XXXX | {$610.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  | {$90.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX {$160.00} | Credit was reversed. No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX | {$310.00} | No subsequent credit for this amount identified after this reversal. \n\n\nInadequate Customer Service : I have spent over 15 hours in support chats, phone only to be transferred between multiple agents and supervisors without resolution. In one instance, a supervisor named XXXX asked, \" what disputes are you referring to? '' after I had already explained the issue multiple times, demonstrating a significant lack of internal communication and case management. This failure to provide a reasonable and effective channel for dispute resolution is a core issue.\n\n2. Documented Billing Errors and Unauthorized Charges : My statements contain clear, documented billing errors that have gone unresolved.\n\nCharges Despite this, I was charged monthly installments of {$53.00} for this item for approximately eight months, including XX/XX/XXXX and then again from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Charging for a product that was cancelled is a severe violation of my consumer rights. \nErroneous \" Cash Back '' Reversal : The XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX statement includes a two charges of {$630.00} described as a \" Cash Back Advance redemption ( REVERSAL ) ''. This appears to be an improper rebilling of a resolved dispute, as the Apple Card does not permit cash advances. This entry suggests a significant accounting error where a resolved dispute was improperly charged to my account again under a misleading description.\n\nFailed Trade-In Credit : I have evidence of a promised {$240.00} trade-in refund that was documented as \" Canceled '' and was never credited to my account. This represents a direct financial loss.\n\n3. Potential Violations of Federal Law : The actions of Goldman Sachs in this case point to violations of several key federal consumer protection laws that the CFPB is mandated to enforce. \nTruth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Regulation Z : TILA requires lenders to investigate disputes and correct billing errors within a specific timeframe. The repeated failure to resolve my disputes over several years, charging for undelivered goods, and not honoring refunds are potential violations of TILA.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : This act requires that information furnished to credit reporting agencies be accurate. By reporting disputed debts as valid and delinquent, Goldman Sachs may have violated the FCRA. I allege that my FICO score dropped from XXXX to XXXX as a result of these actions. \nUnfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) : The collective failures in this case, such as misleadingly rebilling a {$630.00} charge as a \" cash back reversal '' and creating an overly burdensome dispute process, could be considered unfair and deceptive practices that have caused substantial injury.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB conduct a thorough investigation into my account and the systemic issues I have faced. Goldman Sachs 's own response to the CFPB acknowledges a \" processing error '' but dismisses the majority of my claims. The volume and nature of my documented complaints, including specific statement errors and chat logs, make this investigation essential. I am prepared to provide all documentation to support my claims.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-09T11:48:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92231","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15188675","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-08-09T11:20:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am <em>filing</em> this formal <em>complaint</em> with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding the systemic failures and potential legal violations in the handling of my Apple Card account by Goldman Sachs. The issues I have experienced involve a multi-<em>year</em> pattern of improperly handled <em>disputes</em>, billing errors, and unauthorized charges that have caused significant financial and credit harm."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a purchase shown on your statement"],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[9.664071,"15188675"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5021577","_score":9.337814,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I received the results of a dispute I'd filed around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The results of the dispute stated the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, had verified the information they supplied to XXXX for a student loan were accurate. \n\nIncluded in the results was a payment history for the last two ( 2 ) years. For the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, the data supplied to XXXX lists expected payment amounts of seventy-two ( XXXX ) dollars and records that no payments were received for either month. The dataset shows that no payments were due for the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX and that a payment was due for the months thereafter. \n\nNow, the date for which the first payment was allegedly due AFTER XX/XX/XXXX corresponds to the end of an in-school forbearance. The month for which student loan reapayments began is listed as XX/XX/XXXX. However, a letter from XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX states the student loans were in forbearance until XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A letter from early in that yearXXXX XX/XX/XXXX lists the end-date for the in-school forbearance as XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. A first statement is then generated on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX with a current due date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFor each subsequent statement, CFPB interpretation of Regulation Z requires the statement date to be the same date each month with no more than a four ( 4 ) variation from the date established per the first bill. Moreover, the minimum duration between the statement date is to be no less than twenty-one ( XXXX ) days under 12 CFR 1026.2 \" Definitions and Rules. '' XXXX XXXX acknowledges this in some facet in a letter from research and remediation associate XXXX XXXX : \" Please note that our office is only required to provide you at least a XXXX grace period between the statement notice and the due date of your monthly payment installments. '' The date of this letter is XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In direct contrast to this knowledge, the duration of statement dates from time of repayment transfer to new loan servicer and/or charge-off was consistently less than XXXX ( XXXX ) days. Thus, XXXX XXXX consistently violated its own \" policies '' and was habitually non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2. Moreover, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly made dubious claims of payment being required during priods for which a statement was NOT generated. This directly contradicts the terms of the MPN which requires staements to be provided even during periods of forbearance and/or deferment, which encompasses in-school forbearances, in-school deferments, disaster forbearances, etc. \n\nAny month in which XXXX XXXX furnished payment history data that is/was non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026.2, is non-reportable by a CRA and can not be included in a consumer file because it compels the CRA to report consumer history that violates my protections under 12 CFR Part 1026. As consequence the CRA would then be reporting data that is patently inaccurate resulting in CRA violations of the FCRA as amended and enforced under 12 CFR 1022, at minimum. Yet, XXXX continues to include this patently inaccurate data in my credit file, even when portions of that dataset for the same account/tradeline contradict other portions of the dataset for the same account/tradeline. Contradictory information is patently inaccurate and non-reportable by a CRA. Moreover, if supplied in whole ( or part ) as contradictory from a data-furnisher, it is patently unverifiable -- the data is patently false, thus violating 12 CFR Part 1022. \n\nAny payment history that results from inaccurate data is to be removed because that data is inaccurate and/or unverifiable. Documentation supplied by the consumer in a consumer complaint that demonstrates the data is inaccuarate, becuase it contradicts other pieces of data on which a data-furnisher 's assertion is made, necessitates removal without the consent of the data furnisher because it is patently inaccurate and continues to harm a consumer during a CRA \" investigation ''. The threshold for such instances is supplying the CRAs with information generated by the data-furnisher, that directly contradicts the information the CRA has on-file per the account/tradeline of the data-furnisher. Typically data that refutes the data within a consumer file is provided as a statement on the data-furnisher 's letterhead. \n\nIn examining the payment history data table supplied by XXXX itself there are a serious number of inaccuracies for which XXXX can not reasonably construe as \" accurate '' given the documentation that I have supplied, documentation supplied, on the data-furnisher 's letterhead, that directly refutes other pieces of data within the data-set for the XXXX accounts/tradelines for the same periods. Additionally XXXX knows the data supplied by XXXX is inaccurate and unverifiable because they removed some of the offending data between reports generated XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Evidence of the rroneous data still propagating past XXXX XX/XX/XXXX include months showing payment history charge-off status codes, such as ( L ) or ( CO ), that can not possibly exist becuase XXXX has clearly registered \" no data available '' in the corresponding history table. Alleged CO status periods are boxed by CO monthsfor which the CO status has corresponding \" no data available ''. Conseuquentially the CO status indicators for months in-between ( and inclusive of ) XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX are unverifiable because they have no identified action in the dataset that would warrant a CO action. Months for which accounts were in an in-school forbearance, acknowledged by XXXX XXXX as such in multiple letters, are recorded as having scheduled payment amounts while other months encompassing the same forbearance/deferment period show no scheduled payment amounts. One such case is the months of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, for which it has already been stated and corroborated by XXXX XXXX that the account was in an in-school forbearance status, but reflect in the XXXX dataset as a payment scheduled and owing, while periods XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX show none. Other examples include dates for which XXXX records show payments were made, most of which were in excess of the scheduled payment, but show zero ( 0 ) decrease or increase in balance : the balance for a subsequent month remains identical to that of the previous month. Finally newer months in the XXXX history have corresponding last payment dates that are older than that of prior months. For example the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, while the month of XX/XX/XXXX indicates a ldate of last payment of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Both of these stand in stark contast to XX/XX/XXXX that shows a last payment date of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAt best the dataset housed by the CRAs for the XXXX accounts is incohate. Be it due to nascency or flat-out incoherence, the data can not possibly meet the reprting requirements under the FCRA as implemented in 12 CFR Part 1022.\n\nI have filed nearly one-hundred ( 100 ) complaints with the CFPB regarding these issues, many of which have been transmitted to both the CRAs AND XXXX XXXX, thus satisfying my responsibilities to ensure factual accuracy of my credit files as permitted under the FCRA. Because many of these CFPB complaints have also been transmitted ( in writing ) to the data furnisher, I have also submitted 623 complaints directly to XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX has received the documentation I've supplied to the CRA disputes, AND the CFPB complaints, yet has furnished the same erroneous data to the CRAs and susbsequently, or even simultaneously, submitted responses to the CFPB complaints that contradict, and in some cases directly refute, the information supplied in the dataset to the CRA. Therefore, XXXX XXXX knows, OR SHOULD KNOW there is a serious problem with their records and likely have refused to admit the failures for fear of consequences akin to those outlined in prior XXXX XXXX consent agreements they've previously enterd into with the CFPB for poor lending practics, poor billing practices, and non-compliance as a data furnisher when reporting consumer account statuses to the CRAs. Thus, despite receiving numerous XXXX  disputes, and FCRA disputes, XXXX XXXX has chosen not to fulfill its responsibilities as a data-furnisher under 12 CFR 1022.20 - 1022.43 \" Duties of Furnishers of Information ''. \n\nLikewise, the CRAs have received my complaints and the obviously erroneous/inaccurate/unverifiable data is perpetuated due to the CRA reliance upon the data furnisher instead of independent review of consumer dipsute narrative and accompanying documentation. Thus, it would the CRAs continue to perpetuate patently inaccurate data within my credit file that harms me as a consumer with current and potential lenders for products ranging from education financing, automobile financing, housing, etc. The fact is, data generated by a data furnisher that is non-compliant with 12 CFR 1026 in general is not reportable as a part of a consumer file. Yet, the CRAs, in this case XXXX, continue to use the blanketed statement \" the information was being reported as accurate '' becuase the data furnisher, XXXX XXXX, had verified its accuarcy. This clearly indicates XXXX has repeatedly failed in its responsibilities under FCRA to conuduct an investigation and repeatedly abridged my rights of due process under the FCRA by simply processing disputes, translating them into an eOSCAR code ( not necessarily reflecting the correct reason for the dispute ). The CRAs, here XXXX, has then submitted the dispute to the data-furnisher, to leave it to the data-furnisher ( or its computer system ) to verify the accuracy of the data. The woeful ignorance of the CRAs in even refusing to conduct a cursory examination of the documentation, or to take steps when the data-furnisher 's own statements contradict the information supplied by the data-furnisher, indicates the CRAs, in this case XXXX, knows OR SHOULD KNOW there is inaccurate information, and has thus knowingly and of their own volition chosen to abdicate their responsibilities as outlined in 12 CFR Part 1022 pursuant to the FCRA as amended. \n\nPrecedent at the Federal level indicates that I have cause to file legitimate claims within Federal courts to obtain relief, for which I am allowed to seek damages from XXXX AND the CRAs for their roles, in what coloquially would be referred to as a s-show, in what constitues a willful abdication of responsibility, integrity, and adherence to law. I am therefore demanding the CRAs, here XXXX, remove the accounts/tradelines for both XXXX student loan accounts.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-12-18T15:18:10.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5021577","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2021-12-18T15:12:42.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On or around <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> I received the results of a <em>dispute</em> I'd <em>filed</em> around <em>XXXX</em> XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>. The results of the <em>dispute</em> stated the data furnisher, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, had verified the information they supplied to <em>XXXX</em> for a student loan were accurate. \n\nIncluded in the results was a payment history for the last two ( 2 ) years."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing <em>problem</em>"]},"sort":[9.337814,"5021577"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15290313","_score":9.27281,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX  MA XXXX XXXX XXXX Company Names : XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nSunnova Energy Corporation Product : Credit Reporting Incorrect information on credit report Problem : Improper reporting of late payments, missing required fields, and non-compliance with XXXX XXXX data standards. \nXXXX Complaint Narrative : On my XXXX  credit report dated XX/XX/year>, Sunnova Energy Corp is reporting an account ( Account No. XXXX ) with XXXX late payments and a balance of {$33000.00} ( original ), marked Paid Off. However, the reporting contains numerous material inaccuracies, omissions, and contradictions that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and XXXX XXXX reporting standards. \nI have attached my direct dispute letter to Sunnova ( furnisher ) and my FCRA XXXX dispute letter to Experian. The specific issues include : XXXX. Missing Payment History & DOFD No month-by-month payment codes or Date of First Delinquency provided, making the late payments unverifiable. \nXXXX. Paid-Off Status Without Payoff Date The account is marked Paid Off but with no closure or payoff date. \nXXXX. Blank Balance Fields Current Balance shows as instead of {$0.00}, and Amount Past Due is not provided despite late payment claims. \nXXXX. Duplicate Entries Same incomplete Sunnova account appears multiple times in my Experian file. \nXXXX. Account Type Misclassification Listed as Utility despite the loan-like structure and large original balance. \nXXXX. Missing Update Dates Balance updated date is blank. \nXXXX. Missing Furnisher Contact Info No address or phone for Sunnova in the credit report. \nXXXX. Re-Aging Risk No DOFD or closure date means the account could be re-aged beyond the XXXX limit. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Data Field Non-Compliance Multiple missing required fields under the XXXX XXXX format. \nXXXX. Failure to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy Violates FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\nImpact : This inaccurate reporting is damaging my credit score and misrepresenting my credit history. I have already sent disputes to both Experian and Sunnova under FCRA 611 and 623 ( a ) ( 8 ), but I am concerned about ongoing violations and the failure to follow industry reporting standards. \nRelief Sought : Immediate deletion of the Sunnova account from all credit reporting agencies, OR full correction to comply with XXXX XXXX standards and FCRA requirements. \nWritten confirmation from both XXXX  and Sunnova. \nAssurance that this account will not be re-aged or re-reported without full compliance. \nAttachments : XXXX  dispute letter ( FCRA 611 ) Sunnova dispute letter ( FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ) ) Credit report excerpt showing inaccurate tradeline XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXt Sunnova Energy Corp XXXX Name / Number Exact Error XXXX XXXX Standard / FCRA Law Violated Why Violation ( Accuracy / Completeness / Consistency ) Payment History Profile ( Field XXXX ) No month-by-month payment codes provided despite claim of XXXX late payments XXXX XXXX Field XXXX XXXX FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), 1681e ( b ) Prevents verification of delinquencies ; incomplete payment history violates XXXX XXXX Date of First Delinquency ( Field XXXX ) Missing DOFD entirely FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX Field XXXX XXXX to determine XXXX reporting limit ; omission allows illegal re-aging Account Status ( Field XXXX ) / Date Closed ( Field XXXX ) Marked 'Paid off ' with no closure or payoff date XXXX XXXX Field XXXX & XXXX ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Status/date mismatch prevents determining when delinquency ended Current Balance ( Field XXXX ) / Amount Past Due ( Field XXXX ) Current balance is \" instead of {$0.00} ; Amount Past Due missing XXXX XXXX Field XXXX & XXXX Blank balance fields are inaccurate ; past due must be {$0.00} if balance is {$0.00} Base Segment Creditor Contact Information No furnisher address or phone number listed FCRA 609 ( a ) ( XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX Base Segment Consumers must be able to contact furnisher to dispute Account Type ( Field XXXX ) Reported as 'Utility ' despite large loan-like balance XXXX XXXX Field XXXX ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Misclassification can mislead lenders and scoring models Date of Account Information ( Field XXXX ) 'Balance updated ' date blank Metro XXXX Field XXXX ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Missing update date prevents determining currency of data Duplicate Tradeline Rule Same Sunnova account repeated multiple times without full details XXXX XXXX prohibition on duplicate tradelines ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Misleads lenders into thinking there are multiple delinquent accounts FCRA Maximum Possible Accuracy Standard Multiple blank, contradictory, and incomplete fields FCRA 1681e ( b ) If data is unverifiable or incomplete, it must be deleted","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-14T16:55:58.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02151","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15290313","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Sunnova Energy Corporation","date_received":"2025-08-14T16:55:27.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Complainant : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> # <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  MA <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Company Names : <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \nSunnova Energy Corporation Product : Credit Reporting Incorrect information on credit report <em>Problem</em> : Improper reporting of late payments, missing required fields, and non-compliance with <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> data standards. \n<em>XXXX</em> <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : On my <em>XXXX</em>  credit report dated XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, Sunnova Energy Corp is reporting an account ( Account No."]},"sort":[9.27281,"15290313"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15290278","_score":9.2533655,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Company Names : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Credit Reporting Incorrect information on credit report Problem : Improper reporting of late payments, missing required fields, and non-compliance with Metro 2 data standards.\n\n________________________________________ Complaint Narrative : On my Experian credit report dated XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting an account ( Account No. XXXX ) with XXXX late payments and a balance of {$33000.00} ( original ), marked Paid Off. However, the reporting contains numerous material inaccuracies, omissions, and contradictions that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and Metro 2 reporting standards. \nI have attached my direct dispute letter to XXXX ( furnisher ) and my FCRA 611 dispute letter to Experian. The specific issues include : 1. Missing Payment History & XXXX  No month-by-month payment codes or Date of First Delinquency provided, making the late payments unverifiable. \n2. Paid-Off Status Without Payoff Date The account is marked Paid Off but with no closure or payoff date. \n3. Blank Balance Fields Current Balance shows as instead of {$0.00}, and Amount Past Due is not provided despite late payment claims.\n\n4. Duplicate Entries Same incomplete XXXX account appears multiple times in my Experian file. \n5. Account Type Misclassification Listed as Utility despite the loan-like structure and large original balance.\n\n6. Missing Update Dates Balance updated date is blank.\n\n7. Missing Furnisher Contact Info No address or phone for XXXX in the credit report. \n8. Re-Aging Risk No XXXX or closure date means the account could be re-aged beyond the XXXX limit. \n9. Metro 2 Data Field Non-Compliance Multiple missing required fields under the Metro 2 format.\n\n10. Failure to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy Violates FCRA 1681e ( b ).\n\nImpact : This inaccurate reporting is damaging my credit score and misrepresenting my credit history. I have already sent disputes to both Experian and XXXX under FCRA 611 and 623 ( a ) ( 8 ), but I am concerned about ongoing violations and the failure to follow industry reporting standards.\n\nRelief Sought : Immediate deletion of the XXXX account from all credit reporting agencies, OR full correction to comply with Metro 2 standards and FCRA requirements. \nWritten confirmation from both Experian and XXXX. \nXXXX that this account will not be re-aged or re-reported without full compliance. \nAttachments : Experian dispute letter ( FCRA 611 ) Sunnova dispute letter ( FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ) ) Credit report excerpt showing inaccurate tradeline ________________________________________ Metro 2 Field Violation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Name / Number Exact Error Metro 2 Standard / FCRA Law Violated Why Violation ( Accuracy / Completeness / Consistency ) Payment History Profile ( Field XXXX ) No month-by-month payment codes provided despite claim of XXXX late payments Metro 2 Field 28 ; FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), 1681e ( b ) Prevents verification of delinquencies ; incomplete payment history violates Metro 2 Date of First Delinquency ( Field XXXX ) Missing XXXX  entirely FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ; Metro 2 Field XXXX Required to determine XXXX reporting limit ; omission allows illegal re-aging Account Status ( Field XXXX ) / Date Closed ( Field XXXX ) Marked 'Paid off ' with no closure or payoff date Metro 2 Field XXXX & XXXX ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Status/date mismatch prevents determining when delinquency ended Current Balance ( Field XXXX ) / Amount Past Due ( Field XXXX ) Current balance is \" instead of {$0.00} ; Amount Past Due missing Metro 2 Field XXXX & XXXX Blank balance fields XXXX inaccurate ; past due must be {$0.00} if balance is {$0.00} Base Segment Creditor Contact Information No furnisher address or phone number listed FCRA 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; Metro 2 Base Segment Consumers must be able to XXXX furnisher to dispute Account Type ( Field XXXX ) Reported as 'Utility ' despite large loan-like balance Metro 2 Field XXXX ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Misclassification can mislead lenders and scoring models Date of Account Information ( Field XXXX ) 'Balance updated ' date blank Metro XXXX Field XXXX ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Missing update date prevents determining currency of data Duplicate Tradeline Rule Same Sunnova account repeated multiple times without full details Metro 2 prohibition on duplicate tradelines ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) Misleads lenders into thinking there are multiple delinquent accounts FCRA Maximum Possible Accuracy Standard Multiple blank, contradictory, and incomplete fields FCRA 1681e ( b ) If data is unverifiable or incomplete, it must be deleted","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-14T16:55:56.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02151","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15290278","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-14T16:45:27.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Complainant : <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> Company Names : Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \n<em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> : Credit Reporting Incorrect information on credit report <em>Problem</em> : Improper reporting of late payments, missing required fields, and non-compliance with Metro 2 data standards.\n\n________________________________________ <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : On my Experian credit report dated XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> is reporting an account ( Account No."]},"sort":[9.2533655,"15290278"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22083328","_score":9.020644,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"The company ( Wells Fargo ) responses are total XXXX!! They are not addressing the issues of their mismanagement of my account. There are 2 significant errors that lead to this entire situation and they are 100 % rsponsible for those errors, MISAPPROPRIATION OF MY PROPERLY SUBMITTED P & I FUNDS and A FRAUDULENTLY SUBMITTED COURT FILING.\n\n1 ) They redirected one of the payments I made for the monthly P & I to a third party company who had no business or rights to receive those funds. This created a situation where every payment I made after that transaction was \" late '' and they charged me late fees for it for 3 years, while I disputed the transaction. That payment was NOT DUE to the 3rd party becasue they did NOT OWN the property during this time and my funds were illegally sent to them. Wells Fargo redirected my timely payment from XX/XX/XXXX. The payment was alledgedly owed for XX/XX/XXXX, but the 3rd party transferred ownership to Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX, so they clearly did not own the property nor have any right to any sort of payment. There is a purchase contract that proves this as well as Wells Fargo 's Billing statement from XX/XX/XXXX that also confirms the ownership transfer. Wells Fargo misappropriated my properly submitted P & I funds to a Non-Associated 3rd party wihich, in my humble opinion, is THEFT.\n\n2 ) Wells Fargo began charging me for a FORCED Home Owners Insurance Policy in XX/XX/XXXX. This was 100 % UNNECESSARY, as I had full and complete coverage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for 100 % of the time in question. I proved this to Wells Fargo with the assistance of XXXX XXXX and there is NO DOUBT that I was properly insured for the time period in question. I have emails from Wells Fargo CONFIRMING my XXXX XXXX insurance, but Wells Fargo inappropriately used this false billing to \" manufacture '' some sort of billing shortage, as they took my monthly P & I payments, which I made 100 % ON TIME, and paid this bogus and totally unnecessary forced insurance policy premiums for 9 months.\n\nThese 2 noted factors are 100 % accurate and easily provable using Wells Fargo 's own billing statements. I have pointed this out to them numerous times and they refuse to acknowledge the truth. Their Office of Executive Management, who is reviewing all this, is either corruprt or just plain stupid. Anyone with 1 oz. of common sense can see that they are 100 % wrong in these 2 key issues.\n\n3 ) This is probably the most aggregious action that Wells Fargo has taken. They used these 2 totally false scenarios, noted above, to file a FALSE FORECLOSURE on my property. The \" evidence '' they have submitted to the 53rd District Court for this foreclosure is 100 % false and a complete and total fabrication of the actual facts. THIS IS A FRAUDULENT LAWSUIT/FORECLOSURE!!\n\nThey have blocked me from making payments during this process and created an actual arears situation, which I have tried to resolve with their Home Preservation team, but they are extremely uncooperative. \nI am a 100 % XXXX Veteran and I swear on my Oath that these are the TRUE facts, 100 %, and I will not be bullied by Wells Fargo when they are in the wrong. Their Executive Office is not investigating anything and they refuse to acknowledge their significant error in this matter. They are submitting a bunch of mumbo jumbo XXXX as evidence, that they are correct and they are clouding the actual REAL issues in this matter.\n\nWells Fargo is making a MOCKERY of this whole appeals process and they are not participating in good faith to resolve these issues, which could easily be fixed.\n\nThey are 100 % at fault and have filed fraudulent court documents!! They are basically trying to steal my home or force me into a situation where I owe them a significantly increased amount of money. The loan in question was a simple HELOC loan with the noted 3rd party vendor. They did purchase this loan and I believe the reason they are pursuing all this made up XXXX is becasue the rate on the original note in question is only 2.61 %. They are losing money on this loan and they are trying to change that with these activities. I have a letter from their Home Preservation Dept which basically confirms/indicates that the 2.61 % rate is a problem.\n\nI WILL NOT QUIT FIGHTING WELLS FARGO BECAUSE THEY ARE 100 % WRONG and I WILL NOT BE A VICTIM!!\n\nSupport info Wells Fargo continues to refuse to provide useful and accurate responses to the new problems I have noted in my CFPB complaints. They are simply replying with the same inaaccurate information they have submitted previously. They have not personally contatced me in over 120 days and are not accurately addressing my concerns or working to resolve the numerous issues I have noted in my complaint ( s ).\n\nThe situation with their inaccuracies during the payment and insurance/escrow process are fixable, if they would simply acknowledge their errors and correct them. This has gone on for over a year and could have been resolved in the first 60 days ( XX/XX/XXXX ) if they would fix the problems they caused. I have noted that thier own billing documents 100 % fully support my claims of inproprities in their billing and escrow process. They accepted, then misapplied 10 of my P & I payments and manufactured a scenario where I appeared to be deficient in my payments, but that is 100 % inaccurate. They used my P & I payments for other than standard or necessary activities. If they correct the 2 main issues regarding my payments, this whole issue could be resolved. They refuse to even acknowledge any responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on them. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and they misapplied these payments and this is NOT disputable!! I have submitted the prove to them previously. They need to fix that.\n\nAs a result of their noncompliance with my requests for repair, I am now filing a Motion to Dismiss their fraudulent Foreclose lawsuit. I will use thier own documents to prove to the court that their lawsuit is false, based on the misrepresentation/distortion of the facts. I will also file a counter lawsuit for repair of the damages I have incurred as a result of their inappropriate actions. They have 14 days from me filing this complaint ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with CFPB to actually reach out to me and in good faith work to resolve the issues they have created in this fiasco. I am a 100 % XXXX Veteran with XXXX years of service to my country and I have rights and deserve to be treated properly by Wells Fargo XXXX in a fair and just manner. They have refused/ignored my requests for resolution to this matter for months and I will tolerate it no longer. My motion to dismiss based on fraudulent information/documentation will be filed XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nWells Fargo is not addressing or properly responding to the issues I am raising. They continue to resubmit the same response and info that is false and not approriate or accurate to the issues I am raising. Nothing can be resolved if Wells Fargo will not properly address their errors and work to resolve them. To date, they are simply repeating the same inaccurate lies. I will not go away until they work to address and resolve the 100 % accurate issues i am presenting. They have lied on multiple issues and committed fraud by submitting a false petition to the court in regard to the foreclosure lawsuit. \nMy points are 100 % accurate and Wells Fargo continues to ignore them. I NEVER missed a payment and they used my P & I payments for nofarious purposes. \n\nWells Fargo continues to fail to properly respond to my legitimate complaint about their conflict resolution process. I have asked for the complaint to be escalated and reviewed by their legal department and I have requested information from phone calls that has yet to be provided. They have not properly responded to any of this. They are blatantly trying to abuse this process and are failing to address their inappropriate actions, which I have documented with significant proof ( ACTUAL BILLING STATEMENTS ). I will continue to file complaints until they actually respond, in detail, to the information provded in this complaint. They are not above the law, but they are certainly acting like they are and it is disgusting. Wells Fargo STOLE my P & I payments and used them for inappropriate purposes other than payments and then created a false narrative in order to file a Ficticious Foreclosure Lawsuit. They have provided all sorts of nonsensical information that does not apply to my complaint, of which the details ar enoted below. Wells Fargo is refusing to acknowledge their accountability in the issues I have presented. They have lied and created false scenarios that do not address my complaint. They filed a foreclosure lawsuit against me using false data, false numbers and created a scenario that looked like I was at fault or some sort of dead beat, but it is all lies. Now they are dodging any sort of real response by repeating the same lies. They are creating a paperwork smoke screen that is designed to direct attention away from their fraudulent activities and the filing of a Foreclosure lawsuit based on false data and these lies. The CFPB is not holding them accountable and they are simply lying to get out of doing the right thing. I will continue to file complaints until they actually acknowledge what occurred and correct their mistakes. I have proven that they misappropriated funds that I sent to them and used them for inappropriate activities on my account. They charged me for services that I did not need and then did not refund the money and claimed that I was in default. This is absolutely false and thier own documents, billing statements, prove that I am 100 % correct and they continue to hide the truth by dragging in non-sensical issues like XXXX XXXX. This was a simple HELOC that they bought from a 3rd party and not a government supported mortgage. Never was, but they are trying to say it is and ignoring the facts of what they have done to this 100 % XXXX Veteran after I served my country for 30 years.. I have asked them to escalate this to a higher authority and they claim to have no higher authority than these mindless robots who just keep repeating the same lies. I can and have proven, using thier own billing documents, that they misappropriated funds that I sent in to pay the P & I on my loan. I never missed a payment, they simply rerouted my payments to false \" entities '' and then wanted more money from me. Regardless, they mis-used funds that I sent to them and created a false deficit and are hiding behind a bunch of data that does not even apply to the situation I want addressed. I would like to hear from their Legal Department and see what they have to say about the mis-appropriation of my funds and the lies the Executive Office is putting forth. The bottom line is that I sent in 100 % of my payments. They used those payments for other that approriate activities. I had Home Owners insurance 100 % of my time with them and I, along with XXXX XXXX, have proven this.They took my P & I payments to pay some outrageous totally unnecessary insurance policy claiming that I had no insurance at all. They have most certainly broken the law, in my opinion, with some of this fund redistribution activity and filing a Lawsuit using this false data. I made 100 % of my P & I payments and that is indisputable and easily provable. They have recorded customer service phone calls that I made to them, that back up my allegations and they won't acknowledge or provide the call data. They lied to a District Court to get a Foreclosure Lawsuit filed against me and used false \" evidence '' to make it appear that I was in the rears, I was NOT!! I will continue to file CFPB complaints against them until I get some resolution in this matter and I am notifying XXXX XXXX about their illegal activities toward a Highly Decorated 100 % XXXX Veteran of the XXXX XXXX. I want a response from their Legal Department in regard to their activites, including filing a Fraudulent Lawsuit in District Court. I can prove my points to be 100 % accurate using their own billing statements and I can prove they are lying. Wells Fargo is corrupt, in my opinion and experience, and they have been in trouble with the government and legal authorites many times prior to his instance. They pay fines and then go right back to thier past activites. It's time for it to stop!!","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-11T18:26:47.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"786XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22083328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-11T18:19:13.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I will continue to <em>file</em> <em>complaints</em> until they actually respond, in detail, to the information provded in this <em>complaint</em>. They are not above the law, but they are certainly acting like they are and it is disgusting. Wells Fargo STOLE my P & I payments and used them for inappropriate purposes other than payments and then created a false <em>narrative</em> in order to <em>file</em> a Ficticious Foreclosure Lawsuit."]},"sort":[9.020644,"22083328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17213987","_score":8.357978,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns the continued reporting and verification of the Chapter XXXX bankruptcy identified as Ref : XXXX, which appears in the public records section of my consumer credit reports. The purpose of this complaint is to document the inaccuracies, verification failures, and unlawful reporting practices surrounding this bankruptcy record, and to request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intervene to ensure compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nI am not disputing the historical fact that a Chapter XXXX case maXXXX have existed. Instead, I am disputing the accuracy, verification, source, timing, and procedural compliance of how this particular bankruptcy record is appearing on my credit reports. Because the credit bureaus failed to verify the information with the original bankruptcy court, relied on unauthorized third-party vendors, and refused to provide the required method-of-verification documentation during reinvestigation, the reporting of this record violates multiple provisions of federal law. \n\nThis narrative provides a complete, detailed, and lawful description of what occurred and why this bankruptcy is being reported improperly. \n\nXXXX. How I Discovered the Reporting Problem While reviewing my credit reports, I noticed that a Chapter XXXX bankruptcy labeled Ref : XXXX was listed. Immediately, issues were apparent : The date formatting was unusual and did not resemble standard federal bankruptcy docket formatting. \n\nThe reference number included codes ( XXXX ) that did not match official XXXX court documentation. \n\nDifferent credit bureaus displayed the record differently. \n\nDetails such as the court location, chapter, docket number, and disposition were incomplete. \n\nThe status of the case was inconsistent across bureaus. \n\nBecause bankruptcy information must be precise and match the official court record, these irregularities raised questions about whether the listing was accurate, up-to-date, or verified properly. \n\nXXXX. Bankruptcy Courts Do NOT Furnish or Verify Information for Credit Reports XXXX of the most important facts is this : Federal bankruptcy courts do not : Furnish consumer data to credit bureaus Verify bankruptcy information for private companies Communicate with credit bureaus XXXX reinvestigation Participate in consumer reporting Authorize third-party vendors to transmit bankruptcy records This means that any claim by a credit bureau that this bankruptcy was verified did not come from the court. Instead, the verification originated from third-party public-record vendors, which are not original, legal sources of bankruptcy information. \n\nXXXX. The Reporting Uses a Non-Court Reference Number A true bankruptcy reference must match the official docket format, such as : YY-NNNNN YY-NNNN-BK District identifiers ( XXXX, MO-W ) However, the reference XXXX is not consistent with : XXXX  docket formatting CM/ECF formatting XXXX Bankruptcy Court indexing Clerk of Court dispositions Standard case numbering found in federal filings This strongly suggests the information is not based on court records but on automated OCR scraping or vendor indexing, which is prone to errors. \n\nXXXX. I Filed Disputes with All Three Bureaus Upon discovering inconsistencies, I exercised my rights under FCRA 611 ( a ) and disputed the bankruptcy with all three major bureaus. In each dispute, I requested : The method of verification Identification of the source of the information Copies of any documents reviewed The name of the furnisher A detailed description of procedures used The public record as obtained from the court These are rights guaranteed under FCRA 609 and 611. \n\nXXXX. Bureaus Returned Generic Verified as Accurate Responses All bureaus responded with nearly identical automated letters stating that the bankruptcy had been verified and would remain. However : No bureau provided the method of verification No bureau named a furnisher No documentation was provided No court records were shown No detailed procedures were disclosed No evidence was produced showing original record review This confirms that : The reinvestigation was automated, not meaningful. \nXXXX. The Reinvestigation Was Unreasonable The FCRA requires a reasonable reinvestigation. For a public record like bankruptcy, reasonableness requires : Reviewing the original docket Confirming filing and dismissal dates Verifying the case disposition Matching the reference number Confirming the bankruptcy chapter Ensuring reporting matches the official court record But the bureaus did : No contact with the XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX No XXXX review No comparison to official documents No document examination No human involvement Instead, they relied solely on automated responses from a vendor such as XXXX or another public-record scraper. \n\nXXXX. XXXX-Party Vendors Are NOT an Acceptable Source of Truth Under FCRA The FCRA requires that public records be verified using accurate, reliable, court-sourced information. \n\nHowever, credit bureaus rely on : XXXX XXXX CoreLogic Data-harvesting companies Public-record scrapers Automated XXXX systems These companies : Are not original sources Do not certify accuracy Do not verify court data Are prone to errors Are not authorized by courts Because this bankruptcy record depends entirely on third-party vendor data, it can not be considered verified. \n\nXXXX. Inconsistencies Across Bureaus Prove the Data Is Inaccurate For a bankruptcy to be accurate, all bureaus must report : The same dates The same reference The same court location The same status The same disposition However, the reporting for XXXX contains significant inconsistencies : Dates differ across bureaus Status ( dismissed versus open versus verified ) varies Reference numbers differ Update timestamps do not match Case details differ Under FCRA 607 ( b ), bureaus must ensure maximum possible accuracy. The inconsistencies demonstrate non-compliance. \n\nXXXX. Bankruptcy Reporting Windows May Be Incorrect A Chapter XXXX bankruptcy may remain on a credit report for : XXXX  years from the date of filing, not dismissal. \n\nIf the XXXX portion of the reference corresponds to XX/XX/year>, then : The record may have been misdated The filing date may not match court records The dismissal/verification date ( XXXX ) may not be legally relevant If the wrong date is used, the bankruptcy may already be : Outside the legal reporting window Reported for too long Reported prematurely Reported with incorrect dates All of this violates the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Provide the Method of Verification Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), when a consumer asks how an entry was verified, the bureau must provide : The method The procedures The documentation The source of the information None of the bureaus complied. \n\nThis failure alone makes the bankruptcy legally unverifiable, requiring deletion under 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). \n\nXXXX. The Bankruptcy Record Was Not Verified Using the Original Court Docket I obtained official bankruptcy documents from the federal court system and compared them to the reporting. Those documents included : The petition filing The docket sheet Case disposition XXXX records XXXX  notices Dismissal order These official documents do not match the way the credit bureaus report the record. The formatting, numbers, and dates differ. \n\nThis proves the bureaus did not review : XXXX  documents CM/ECF filings XXXX of XXXX entries Thus, the verification is illegitimate. \n\nXXXX. The Reporting Is Incomplete and Misleading For bankruptcy, bureaus must report : Correct filing date Correct status Correct docket number Correct court Correct chapter Correct disposition Accurate timestamps However, the entry labeled XXXX is XXXX Incomplete Misformatted Not court-standard Missing the precise court identifier Missing core docket information Not identical to official records Incomplete public records violate the XXXX accuracy mandate. \n\nXXXX. The Bankruptcy May Have Been Reported Based on a Misindexed Case Third-party vendors often : Misread docket entries Pull incomplete data Merge unrelated cases Apply non-court reference numbers Assign internal indexing codes Misrepresent dates The XXXX reference strongly suggests : A vendor indexing code Not an actual bankruptcy court file Therefore, the reporting is likely based on : Misindexed data A misread case Inaccurate vendor interpretation Credit bureaus can not legally maintain vendor-generated errors. \n\nXXXX. Harm Caused by the Improper Reporting The inaccurate and unverifiable reporting of this bankruptcy has caused : Lower credit scores Higher interest rates Denied credit applications Loss of financial opportunities Difficulty obtaining housing Employment barriers Insurance impacts Emotional distress Difficulty rebuilding credit A bankruptcy is XXXX of the most damaging items on a credit report. When reported inaccurately, the harm is compounded. \n\nXXXX. The Bureaus Violated Multiple FCRA Sections The reporting of this bankruptcy violates : 607 ( b ) Accuracy requirement 611 ( a ) Failure to reinvestigate reasonably 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to provide method of verification 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to delete unverifiable information 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) Failure to provide the source of information 623 Furnisher accuracy obligations The bankruptcy is therefore unlawfully reported. \n\nConclusion The Chapter XXXX bankruptcy Ref : XXXX is being reported inaccurately, without proper verification, using unauthorized XXXX-party vendor data, and without adherence to FCRA procedures. The credit bureaus did not verify the information with the bankruptcy court, did not provide method-of-verification details, did not review original court documents, and did not maintain maximum possible accuracy. \n\nBecause the bankruptcy is unverified, inaccurate, incomplete, and improperly sourced, it is unlawful for it to remain on my credit file. \n\nI request immediate CFPB intervention to ensure that the credit bureaus comply with federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T03:08:52.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17213987","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-14T03:01:30.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>narrative</em> provides a complete, detailed, and lawful description of what occurred and why this bankruptcy is being reported improperly. \n\n<em>XXXX</em>. How I Discovered the Reporting <em>Problem</em> While reviewing my credit reports, I noticed that a Chapter <em>XXXX</em> bankruptcy labeled Ref : <em>XXXX</em> was listed. Immediately, issues were apparent : The date formatting was unusual and did not resemble standard federal bankruptcy docket formatting."]},"sort":[8.357978,"17213987"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":39,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":39}]}},"product":{"doc_count":39,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":13}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":4},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":39,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":8},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fees charged for closing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged too much interest","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":39,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":38},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":39,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":25},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":9},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":4},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":39,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":39}]}},"company":{"doc_count":39,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":7},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"AFNI INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aspen Yo LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deutsche Bank","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"ShoulderTap Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Fizz","doc_count":1},{"key":"Sunnova Energy Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":39,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"GA","doc_count":6},{"key":"MO","doc_count":5},{"key":"TX","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"CO","doc_count":2},{"key":"MA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":39,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":23},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":39,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":6},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[8.36019,"17213987"]}}}