{"took":190,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":10,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18312950","_score":20.58464,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"My Cash App account was restricted/disabled, and I am unable to access or withdraw funds. Cash App support has stated that certain account features are XXXX but has refused to clearly confirm whether any of my funds are currently being held, reserved, frozen, or otherwise restricted. \n\nOn multiple occasions, I requested written confirmation of : Whether any funds are currently held The exact dollar amount ( if any ) Which legal entity has custody of the funds ( Cash App, Square, or Block, XXXX ) The reason category for any hold ( risk, compliance, dispute, or account closure ) The date the hold began and the policy authority for the restriction Despite these requests, Cash App has not provided a clear yes/no answer, has not disclosed any amounts, and has not identified the entity holding custody of any funds. Responses from support have been vague and non-specific. \n\nI am not disputing a transaction. I am requesting a formal accounting and written status of my funds and whether and when any funds XXXX be released. I am filing this complaint because I have been unable to obtain clear, complete information directly from Cash App.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-27T05:19:51.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"544XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18312950","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-27T04:45:17.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On multiple occasions, I requested written confirmation of : Whether any funds are currently held The exact dollar amount ( if any ) Which legal entity has custody of the funds ( Cash App, Square, or Block, XXXX ) The reason category for any <em>hold</em> ( risk, <em>compliance</em>, <em>dispute</em>, or <em>account</em> <em>closure</em> ) The date the <em>hold</em> <em>began</em> and the policy authority for the restriction Despite these requests, Cash App has not provided a clear yes/no answer, has not disclosed any amounts, and has not identified the entity"],"issue":["Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[20.58464,"18312950"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15105407","_score":14.421441,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this third CFPB complaint against EasyPay Finance / Duvera Billing Services LLC due to unresolved deceptive conduct, obstruction of dispute resolution, and retaliatory behavior. Despite my multiple written demands, formal complaints, and a clearly stated resolution deadline of XX/XX/year>, the company has failed to refund me for a fraudulent lease agreement that should have been disclosed and structured as a credit-based product. \n\nFull Background : I was enrolled in what was presented to me as a payment plan but later realized was falsely structured as a lease-to-own product. I have made XXXX payments of {$160.00}, totaling {$5300.00}. The terms and nature of the contract were not adequately disclosed at the time of signing, and I was never provided a physical or electronic copy at the outset, in violation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and standard consumer credit practices. \n\nMore than XXXX months after the initial payments began, the payment label suddenly changed from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX without notice, explanation, or documentation. This is a deceptive tactic designed to obscure the financial institution handling the funds. \n\nWhen I began requesting a refund and disputing the legitimacy of the lease structure, I was offered a 30 % refund, which I rejected. After I filed my first CFPB complaint, the company closed my account as paid in full, but refused to issue any refund or provide a response to my detailed objections. This closure appeared retaliatory and was used to silence my claim not to resolve it. \n\nI issued a final resolution demand via email and phone with a clear deadline of XX/XX/year> for the following : Full refund of {$5300.00} Written confirmation of {$0.00} account balance Explanation of why the product was structured as a lease Disclosure of a physical mailing address for legal service Contact info for legal or compliance staff Acknowledgment that no further collection attempts would be made Full written response to all previously submitted questions and objections What happened on deadline day ( XX/XX/year> ) : I called the company and asked a clear, simple question : Will you comply with the resolution deadline? \n\nThe representative refused to answer, instead repeatedly asked if I was recording the call. I explained I reside in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The rep falsely claimed none of our representatives allow that, despite the fact I have recordings of multiple agents and supervisors previously speaking with me without objection. He placed me on hold multiple times and then disconnected the call without resolving anything. \n\nThis representative is not the first to hang up once recording is mentioned. This pattern of obstruction is part of their coordinated effort to evade dispute resolution. \n\nRefusal to Provide Legal Address : When I requested a physical mailing address for legal service, I was told they could only provide a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. I explicitly stated the need was for legal correspondence. They refused to confirm or acknowledge any known address in XXXXXXXX XXXX  ( despite that being connected to their payment processor ). This constitutes obstruction of legal rights.\n\nCollection Attempts and Account Closure : Despite my refund dispute, the company closed my account as paid in full and would not confirm in writing that no further collection attempts would be made. This was clearly a retaliatory move following my first CFPB complaint and did not include any resolution, refund, or explanation. \n\n\n\nLaws and Protections Violated : 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( UDAAP ) unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) deceptive trade practices XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failure to provide copy of credit/lease agreement Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) misclassification of credit product as a lease FTC Act Section 5 deceptive business practices Retaliation after protected consumer complaint Obstruction of legal service and dispute resolution Changing account/billing name mid-term without notice Misleading and inconsistent statements by phone representatives","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-06T23:33:12.000Z","issue":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"78254","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15105407","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Duvera Billing Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-08-06T23:21:36.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Collection Attempts and <em>Account</em> <em>Closure</em> : Despite my refund <em>dispute</em>, the company closed my <em>account</em> as paid in full and would not confirm in writing that no further collection attempts would be made. This was clearly a retaliatory move following my first CFPB complaint and did not include any resolution, refund, or explanation."]},"sort":[14.421441,"15105407"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16538764","_score":12.225093,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'Security Credit Services, LLC Complaint Narrative\\n\\nConsumer: XXXX XXXX XXXXCompany: Security Credit Services, LLC\\nProduct: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports\\nIssue: Inaccurate or unverifiable account reporting / Failure to validate debt\\nFiling DateXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXReference: Former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account Ending XXXX1. Background and Context\\n\\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sold my credit account ending in XXXX  to Security Credit Services, LLC (Security), as confirmed by XXXX written sale letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  (attached as Exhibit A).\\n\\nImmediately following this sale, Security began furnishing the same account to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as an active collection account with a reported balance of XXXX. No validation of debt was ever mailed or provided to me, as required under FDCPA 809(b). I became aware of Securitys reporting only by reviewing my credit files  not through any legally required debt validation notice.\\n\\nDuring this same period, XXXX  continued to report the same account as a charge-off, producing dual and conflicting reporting of a single obligation. This created inaccurate, duplicate derogatory data and significant financial harm through elevated interest rates and credit denials.\\n\\n2. Prior Resolution by the XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n\\nIn response to my formal consumer disputes filed in XXXX, all three major credit reporting agencies (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX completed investigations and deleted the Security Credit Services tradeline by XXXX XXXX XXXX concluding that the information furnished by Security was unverifiable.\\n(AttacheXXXX XXXX Before and After reports confirming deletion  Exhibits D & E.)\\n\\nThis deletion constitutes an official finding that the data was not verifiable and bars its reinsertion without full certification of accuracy under FCRA 611(a)(5)(B).\\n\\n3. Ongoing Non-Compliance by Security Credit Services\\n\\nDespite this deletion, Security has never produced any validation of ownership, assignment, or accounting for the alleged debt. On XXXX XXXX XXXX  I sent Security a certified Debt Validation Request under FDCPA 809(b) (Exhibit B), received and signed for by an authorized agent XXXX XXXX. on XXXX XXXX XXXX  (Exhibit C).\\n\\nTo date, Security has not provided any of the required documentation or acknowledgment. This constitutes a continued violation of FDCPA 809(b) and FCRA 623(a)(1)(A).\\n\\nI subsequently issued a Final Notice  Illegal Reporting and Permanent Reinsertion Prohibition on XXXX XXXX XXXX mailed Certified XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  (Exhibit H), restating that the account remains deleted and unvalidated, and warning against any reinsertion or reassignment.\\n\\n4. Legal Summary of Violations\\n\\nSecurity Credit Services has violated multiple consumer protection statutes:\\n\\nFDCPA 809(b)  Failure to provide validation after written request and continuing to maintain records implying collection activity.\\n\\nFCRA 623(a)(1)(A)  Furnishing information known or reasonably believed to be inaccurate after deletion.\\n\\nFCRA 611(a)(5)(B)  Reinsertions prohibited without certification of accuracy (this deletion was confirmed XXXX XXXX XXXX\\nFCRA 607(b)  Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy.\\n\\n5. Closure of Potential Defenses\\n\\nTo avoid ambiguity or future misuse, the following points clarify that no legitimate defense remains available to Security:\\n\\nNo initial validation notice was ever sent. Therefore, the FDCPA 30-day window never began. Security remains in a permanent validation hold under 809(b).\\n\\nDeletion does not cure past violations. The act of reporting unverifiable data prior to deletion remains actionable under 616-617 of the FCRA.\\n\\nGood-faith reliance on XXXX  is not a defense. Once Security received my written dispute (XXXX XXXX XXXX, it assumed an independent duty to verify before reporting or retaining the debt.\\n\\nInternal recordkeeping does not exempt FDCPA obligations. Any continued storage or transmission of unverifiable data violates 807(8) (false representation of credit information).\\n\\nResale or reassignment is prohibited. Pursuant to 611(a)(5)(B), any attempt to re-report or transfer this account constitutes a new federal violation and will be treated as willful non-compliance.\\n\\nThis complaint is directly related to my pending CFPB Case XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and is part of the same transaction chain; please cross-reference both matters for enforcement and damages analysis.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-13T21:50:58.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78233","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16538764","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Security Credit Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-10-13T21:35:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Closure</em> of Potential Defenses\\n\\nTo avoid ambiguity or future misuse, the following points clarify that no legitimate defense remains available to Security:\\n\\nNo initial validation notice was ever sent. Therefore, the FDCPA 30-day window never <em>began</em>. Security remains in a permanent validation <em>hold</em> under 809(b).\\n\\nDeletion does not cure past violations. The act of reporting unverifiable data prior to deletion remains actionable under 616-617 of the FCRA."]},"sort":[12.225093,"16538764"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13122468","_score":11.968912,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint against JPMorgan Chase & Co. regarding a deeply concerning and harmful series of actions taken against me as a longstanding customer. Without my consent or proper notice, Chase closed my credit card account after I reported fraudulent activity, and subsequently locked me out of my entire online banking profile. This did not just affect the closed credit card accountit also completely cut off my access to my active checking, savings, and investment ( stock ) accounts. As a result, I have been rendered unable to manage my personal finances, pay bills, transfer funds, or even monitor account activity, placing me in an impossible situation through no fault of my own. \n\nThe issue began in XX/XX/2024, when I identified and reported unauthorized transactions on my Chase credit card. I followed all proper procedures and communicated with Chase as instructed. Despite my prompt response and full cooperation, Chase proceeded to close my credit card account without any explanation or prior warning. Soon after, I discovered that I had also been locked out of my online profile entirely. This means I can not log in to view or access not only the closed account, but also my operational checking, savings, and investment accountsessential resources I rely on for my financial well-being. I am unable to view balances, download statements, make transfers, or submit paymentsincluding payments toward the very credit account they closed and are now reporting as delinquent. \n\nWhile Chase continues to report this account to the credit bureaus as past due, the reality is that I am completely unable to make a payment or resolve the balance, as the bank has blocked every method to do so. This creates the false impression that I am avoiding responsibility, when in fact Chase has removed all avenues for compliance and is punishing me for an issue I responsibly reported. \n\nThis conduct violates multiple federal laws and regulations designed to protect consumers : The Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) prohibits creditors from penalizing consumers for disputing fraudulent charges. Chases closure of my account and subsequent lockout constitutes wrongful retaliation for a fraud report, directly violating this law.\n\nThe Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1637 & 1641 ) requires creditors to provide access to billing information and repayment options. By denying me access to all relevant accounts, Chase has made it legally and practically impossible for me to meet any payment obligations.\n\nCFPB Regulation 12 C.F.R. 1026.7 mandates timely access to billing statements and payment methods. Chase has entirely blocked this access, rendering compliance impossible.\n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). Locking me out of all my accounts, while continuing to hold me responsible for payment and reporting me as delinquent, is a clear violation of this statute. It is both abusive and damagingespecially given the broader financial consequences of losing access to my checking, savings, and investment accounts.\n\nAs a direct result of Chase 's actions, I have suffered significant harm. I can not make payments toward the closed account and now face negative credit reporting. I can not access my checking or savings accounts to pay other bills or manage basic household expenses. I am also unable to manage or monitor my stock investments, exposing me to potential losses and missed opportunities. These consequences are not the result of negligence on my part, but the outcome of a system Chase has deliberately locked me out of. My financial stability has been frozen, and the trust I once had in Chase as a financial institution has been completely eroded.\n\nIt is unacceptable for a financial institution to create a situation in which a consumer is held responsible for a debt while being systematically denied the tools and access needed to resolve it. Chase has acted in bad faith and in violation of consumer protection laws by removing my ability to manage my own accounts and then penalizing me for the resulting consequences. I am urging regulators to intervene, investigate these harmful practices, and hold Chase fully accountable for their actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-23T11:17:34.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30127","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13122468","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-04-23T11:13:10.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chase has entirely blocked this access, rendering <em>compliance</em> impossible.\n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). Locking me out of all my <em>accounts</em>, while continuing to <em>hold</em> me responsible for payment and reporting me as delinquent, is a clear violation of this statute."],"issue":["Closing your <em>account</em>"],"sub_issue":["Company closed your <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[11.968912,"13122468"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17249217","_score":10.156128,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, submit this complaint against Netspend Corporation for unlawful, deceptive, and retaliatory practices that have resulted in financial harm, data exposure, and obstruction of access to federally protected funds. The conduct described below constitutes violations of Regulation E, the Social Security Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. \n\nFactual Allegations On XX/XX/year>, I filed a dispute with Netspend supported by seventy-eight documented pieces of evidence, including merchant confirmations and ledgers showing duplicate and triplicate deductions for single orders. Despite this evidence, the dispute was initially denied. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, after escalation, Netspend issued a provisional credit in the amount of {$1600.00}. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Netspend reversed the credit. Their written explanation stated there was no evidence of fraud, device compromise, or transaction errors. When I requested documentation of how this conclusion was reached, Netspend produced a single-page, two-sentence statement : We were unable to resolve the amount with the merchant. This contradicted their own prior communication and ignored the evidence I had submitted, including merchant ledgers and Netspend agent confirmations of fraudulent charges. \n\nFollowing the reversal, Netspend overdrafted my account by {$1700.00}. When Social Security deposits for myself and my son XXXX were posted, for XXXX and XXXX instead of reflecting XXXX, Netspend garnished XXXX percent of the funds without court order, without notice, and without legal justification. My account remained overdrawn by {$620.00}, and from XX/XX/year>, to the present, I have been denied access to federally protected benefits. After numerous attempts to resolve this. Netspend agents laughed hung up and continued to make their intent clear when asked to abide by banking regulations and laws in place for divine order. We have been dismissed harassed and target XXXX accounts all linked to XXXX house hold. I have medical needs as well as my sons special needs that are late and passed due. My credit score is going down. I got a pay notice or quit for overdue rent. The attrition strategy is XXXX that impacts my health in my old age. I began experiencing XXXX and had to visit the emergency room. \n\nSimultaneously, Netspend froze my wifes account ending in XXXX, containing {$7600.00}. Despite submission of bank regulation documents confirming her account was already verified, Netspend refused to issue a refund check or provide access to her funds. \n\nXXXX additional accounts were also impacted. XXXX was activated and then blocked immediately after a {$30.00} load. Another was refused activation entirely, with Netspend stating the refusal was because I had filed a complaint regarding the current account.\n\nResulting Harm As a direct result of Netspends actions, my household has suffered severe hardship : - Rent arrears of {$210.00} with a pay-or-quit notice. \n- XXXX arrears totaling {$1400.00}, including a PG & XXXX bill for {$1000.00} and a secondary bill for {$430.00}. \n- Unpaid medical needs for my husband totaling {$550.00}. \n- Unpaid special needs expenses for my son totaling {$400.00}. \n- Complete deprivation of food and basic necessities. \n- Denial of access to {$180.00} in prepaid cards purchased for emergency use. \n\nNetspend was fully aware of these circumstances yet continued to obstruct access to funds, reject valid documentation, and retaliate against my household.\n\nLegal Violations Netspends conduct constitutes violations of : - Regulation E : unlawful denial of access to electronic funds and unauthorized reversal of dispute credits.\n\n- Social Security Act : improper garnishment of SSA deposits without judicial authorization.\n\n- Consumer Financial Protection Act : unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices.\n\n- FTC Act Section 5 : deceptive business practices and misrepresentation.\n\n- Americans with Disabilities Act : disproportionate harm to XXXX household members. \n\nRelief Requested I respectfully request regulatory enforcement action requiring Netspend to : 1. Immediately release all withheld funds via expedited check delivery.\n\n2. Reverse unjustified fees and overdraft assessments.\n\n3. Provide a written accounting of all deductions, reversals, and account closures.\n\n4. Confirm whether my personal data was unlawfully disclosed to third parties.\n\n5. Implement corrective measures to ensure compliance with federal consumer protection laws. \n\nI am prepared to submit supporting documentation, including merchant confirmations, call logs, email correspondence, utility bills, identity verification records, and evidence of phishing attempts. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T21:36:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"95060","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17249217","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Netspend Corporation","date_received":"2025-11-14T20:54:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We have been dismissed harassed and target XXXX <em>accounts</em> all linked to XXXX house <em>hold</em>. I have medical needs as well as my sons special needs that are late and passed due. My credit score is going down. I got a pay notice or quit for overdue rent. The attrition strategy is XXXX that impacts my health in my old age. I <em>began</em> experiencing XXXX and had to visit the emergency room. \n\nSimultaneously, Netspend froze my wifes <em>account</em> ending in XXXX, containing {$7600.00}."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_product":["Checking <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[10.156128,"17249217"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18025001","_score":9.805071,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint against Barclays Bank XXXX XXXX Barclays ) for their egregious mishandling of my JetBlue credit card account. This has resulted in significant damage to my credit profile, unnecessary exposure to identity theft risks, and a blatant disregard for fair lending practices and customer security. As a long-standing customer with an impeccable payment history, I have been subjected to incompetent, obstructive, and potentially illegal procedures that have caused me undue financial harm. Despite fully complying with their verification demandsincluding repeatedly providing the exact sensitive documents they requestedBarclays continues to stonewall me, refusing to approve the card or resolve the issues. I demand a thorough investigation into Barclays ' practices, immediate rectification of my account, and appropriate penalties against the bank for their reckless behavior. \nI have been a Barclays customer for over six years, holding their JetBlue credit card during this entire period. Throughout this time, I have made every payment on time and in full, maintaining an exemplary account history. My credit score exceeds XXXX, and I hold multiple other credit cards with aggregate limits surpassing {$100000.00}, demonstrating my strong financial standing and creditworthiness.\n\nThe issues began when I attempted to book a JetBlue flight and was presented with a promotion for the JetBlue PLUS card, which offered enhanced benefits. Given my longstanding relationship with Barclays and my existing JetBlue card, I reasonably assumed an upgrade would be straightforward without impacting my credit report. I contacted Barclays customer service by phone to inquire about upgrading my account. To my surprise, the representative informed me that no upgrade option was available and that I must apply for an entirely new card online. I expressed concern about the hard credit inquiry this would trigger, which could negatively affect my credit score, but was assured this was the only path forward. Reluctantly, I proceeded with the online application. \nThe application resulted in instant approval, but it was flagged for additional verification. A Barclays representative called me to gather more information. I provided and verified all requested details, including my date of birth, Social Security number, existing card number, address, and annual income of {$600000.00}, which they initially questioned as a potential error, despite it being accurate and verifiable. After this verification, the representative proposed closing my existing JetBlue card with its {$25000.00} credit limit, transferring that limit to the new JetBlue PLUS card, and issuing the new card immediately. I voiced strong objections, as this would result in two major negative impacts on my credit : the closure of a long-standing account ( reducing my average account age and available credit ) and a new hard inquiry. However, the representative insisted this was the sole option, leading me to agree under duress.\n\nThe representative then proceeded to close my existing account before finalizing the new one. This was a catastrophic error in process that left me vulnerable. Before completing the transfer, I was transferred to a security department representative, whom I can only describe as unprofessional and obstructive. Despite providing the exact same verification information, and more, this individual claimed they could not confirm my identity. They demanded that I mail physical copies of highly sensitive documents through the XXXX. XXXX XXXX  : my Social Security card ( front and back ), driver 's license, passport, and a utility bill as proof of address. I immediately raised alarms about the severe identity theft risks this posed, especially given the insecure nature of postal mail and my prior experience with identity theft. Barclays ' insistence on this archaic and dangerous method is not only outdated but recklessly endangers customers in an era of rampant data breaches and fraud.\n\nI made over five subsequent calls to Barclays, arguing with multiple representatives about the absurdity of this policy. Each time, I was told there was \" absolutely no way '' to submit documents securely via electronic means, such as encrypted email or a secure upload portal. These are standard practices at virtually every other financial institution. Finally, after persistent escalation, one supervisor begrudgingly authorized submission via fax. Lacking a fax machine ( as most modern consumers do ), I was forced to download a third-party app to send the fax, further exposing myself to potential identity theft risks through an unverified platform. Ironically, this was a method similar to one that led to my identity being stolen in the past.\n\nI faxed copies of my passport, driver 's license, and utility bills as requested. Unbelievably, Barclays then deemed this insufficient and doubled down, demanding a mailed photocopy of my Social Security card 's front and back. Despite my strong objections to the risks involved, I ultimately complied with this demand as well. I faxed copies of my Social Security card ( front and back ) over six separate times using the third-party app, each with confirmation of successful transmission and proof of delivery. Yet, Barclays continues to falsely claim they have not received these documents and has refused to approve the card or provide me with the credit I was promised.\n\nThis final refusal has been the breaking point, compounded by Barclays ' complete stonewalling at the highest levels. I have contacted their Office of the President multiple times, leaving over 10 detailed voicemails, but have received no response whatsoevernot even an acknowledgment of my calls. This deliberate inaction exemplifies their obstructive tactics and apparent intent to prolong the harm to my credit.\n\nAs a direct result of Barclays ' incompetence and inflexible policies, my credit has suffered three major derogatory marks : ( 1 ) the closure of my longstanding {$25000.00} credit line, reducing my total available credit and harming my utilization ratio ; ( 2 ) the loss of that credit line 's positive history from my credit report ; and ( 3 ) the hard inquiry from the new application, which remains unresolved because Barclays has not approved the card despite my full compliance with their demands. Had Barclays disclosed the full ramifications upfront or offered a simple upgrade without closure, I would never have proceeded. Their misleading representations and procedural failures have directly caused this damage.\n\nBarclays ' actions exhibit egregious behavior, including prematurely closing accounts without proper safeguards, misleading customers about application processes, enforcing outdated verification methods that prioritize internal bureaucracy over customer safety, and stonewalling even after customers provide requested documents. These practices pose significant risks to customers, such as heightened vulnerability to identity theft through insecure document transmission, unwarranted damage to credit scores that can lead to higher interest rates on future loans or denials of credit, and unnecessary financial stress from lost credit availability. Numerous complaints filed with the CFPB and XXXX  highlight similar issues with Barclays ' handling of fraud and verification, underscoring a pattern of negligence that endangers consumers ' financial well-being. \nAdditionally, Barclays has refused to provide any written decision regarding my application, deliberately stalling the process in an apparent attempt to coerce compliance or avoid resolution. This tactic exemplifies their egregious behavior by withholding transparency and documentation that consumers are entitled to under federal regulations, further exposing me to prolonged credit uncertainty and potential fraud risks. Such refusal violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) requirements for timely and written adverse action notices, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Act 's prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts that hinder consumers ' ability to resolve disputes efficiently.\n\nFurthermore, these actions violate several key consumer protection laws. By closing my account prematurely and reporting it to credit bureaus without ensuring the new card could be issued, Barclays may have breached the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), which requires accuracy in credit reporting and proper notice for adverse actions affecting credit. Their refusal to provide secure, electronic document submission options contravenes the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ), specifically its Safeguards Rule, which mandates that financial institutions implement reasonable measures to protect sensitive customer information from unauthorized access or misuse. Insisting on mailing or repeatedly ignoring faxed highly sensitive documents like Social Security cards exposes customers to fraud risks, potentially constituting an unfair or deceptive act under the Consumer Financial Protection Act and FTC regulations. This not only fails to safeguard nonpublic personal information but also smacks of predatory tactics that exploit customers ' trust. Such violations undermine the integrity of the financial system and warrant severe penalties to deter future misconduct.\n\nI demand the following immediate remedies : A full investigation by the CFPB into Barclays ' credit card upgrade policies, verification procedures, customer service practices, and executive response protocols, with appropriate fines and sanctions to prevent future harm to consumers.\n\nImmediate approval of my JetBlue PLUS card application without further demands or delays.\n\nOvernight delivery of the new card to my address on file.\n\nReinstatement of my original {$25000.00} credit line on the new card, without any additional credit inquiries or closures reported to credit bureaus.\n\nRemoval of all negative impacts from my credit reports related to this incident, including the hard inquiry, account closure, and any associated derogatory notations.\n\nThank you for your attention to this serious matter. I look forward to your prompt action.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-14T06:17:16.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"29588","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18025001","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2025-12-14T06:04:47.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My credit score exceeds XXXX, and I <em>hold</em> multiple other credit cards with aggregate limits surpassing {$100000.00}, demonstrating my strong financial standing and creditworthiness.\n\nThe issues <em>began</em> when I attempted to book a JetBlue flight and was presented with a promotion for the JetBlue PLUS card, which offered enhanced benefits."],"issue":["Closing your <em>account</em>"],"sub_issue":["Company closed your <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[9.805071,"18025001"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18826976","_score":9.5629635,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Bridgecrest / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX : XXXX Email : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Bridgecrest / XXXX ACCOUNT : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Re : Identity Theft Demand to Cease Collection and Reporting, Close Auto Account Account : XXXX / Bridgecrest Acct No. XXXX Balance XXXX XXXXXXXXTo Whom It May Concern : This letter is to notify you that I am a victim of identity theft and that the auto loan or lease account you are attempting to collect under Account Number XXXX is fraudulent and does not belong to me.I hold an FTC Identity Theft Report, FTC Report Number XXXX, and have filed reports with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX documenting this identity theft. My FTC Identity Theft Report lists this account as Fraudulent Auto Loan or Lease with the following details : Company : XXXX Bridgecrest, Account No. XXXX, date fraud began XX/XX/XXXX, discovered XX/XX/XXXX, total fraudulent amount $ XXXXUnder FCRA Section 605B ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c2 ), once you are informed that an account is the result of identity theft and provided with an Identity Theft Report, you must block and cease furnishing that information to any consumer reporting agency.Accordingly, I demand that Bridgecrest / XXXX : Immediately cease and desist all collection activities related to Account XXXX, including all calls, letters, repossession actions, and thirdparty collections.Immediately stop reporting this account to XXXX XXXX XXXX, or any other credit reporting agencies, and instruct them to delete the tradeline and any associated negative notations from my credit reports.Permanently close and delete this account from your internal records as a fraudulent identitytheft account with a XXXX balance owed by me.Provide written confirmation that this auto account has been closed as fraudulent, that all collection activity has ceased, and that all credit bureaus have been directed to remove the account in compliance with FCRA Section 605B.If you continue to attempt collection or reporting of this fraudulent debt after receipt of this notice and documentation, it will constitute a willful violation of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other applicable laws. \n\nPursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s2, and applicable state law, I dispute the accuracy and completeness of the information you are furnishing and hereby demand that you provide the following documentation : 1. A complete itemized accounting showing how the alleged {$9100.00} balance was calculated, including : Original amount financed, all payments received, dates and amounts of each payment ; Application of interest, late fees, insurance, addons, and any other charges ; Credits from the sale of the repossessed vehicle ; and Any other debits or credits applied to the account.\n\n2. Copies of all legally required notices related to the repossession and sale of the vehicle, including but not limited to : Notice of default and right to cure ; Notice of intent to repossess ; Presale notice of disposition of collateral, including date, time, and manner of sale ; Postsale notice setting forth the sale price, costs of sale, and resulting deficiency or surplus. \n\n3. Documentation demonstrating that the sale of the vehicle was conducted in a commercially reasonable manner, as required under applicable state Uniform Commercial Code provisions, including : Auction or sale records ; Proof of advertising or other sale efforts ; The actual sale price and purchasers.\n\n4. A copy of the original retail installment sales contract or finance agreement, bearing my signature, that allegedly authorizes the specific fees, costs, and methods of deficiency calculation you have applied.\n\n5. A complete payment history from account opening through repossession and closure.\n\nIf you are unable or unwilling to provide full validation and documentation, then the deficiency balance you are reporting is inaccurate and unverifiable. Continuing to furnish such information to any consumer reporting agency violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ), and maintaining inaccurate or incomplete information on my reports violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) and 1681i.\n\nFuture failure to substantiate your reporting may result in complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, my state Attorney General, and potential civil action seeking all remedies available under federal and state law. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX FTC Identity Theft Report No. XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-19T13:43:18.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"32779","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18826976","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","date_received":"2026-01-19T13:31:53.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX Balance XXXX XXXXXXXXTo Whom It May Concern : This letter is to notify you that I am a victim of identity theft and that the auto loan or lease <em>account</em> you are attempting to collect under <em>Account</em> Number XXXX is fraudulent and does not belong to me.I <em>hold</em> an FTC Identity Theft Report, FTC Report Number XXXX, and have filed reports with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX documenting this identity theft."]},"sort":[9.5629635,"18826976"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8576967","_score":6.5573177,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\n\nComplaint ID #2XXXX\n\nOriginally submitted on XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a Federal Reserve banking services credit card product issue, the problem stated as a purchase shown on my account statement, filed against XXXX XXXX, has been formally withdrawn, given better understanding of the Federal regulatory divisions.  \n\nSo for clarity, this complaint is intended against XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its credit card subsidiaries for violations of the legacy and recently issued customer compliance outlook dated XXXX.\n\nThe Federal Reserve consumer protection and community development to help ensure a fair and transparent financial services marketplace that benefits all Americans.\n\nFairness and transparency  along with consistency  are guiding principles that inform my perspective on bank supervision and regulation. \n\nTogether, these three elements help to ensure that the supervisory expectations are clear and, in doing so, encourage open communication between banks and supervisors. \n\nAs the Consumer Compliance Outlook (CCO) furthers these goals by providing financial institutions, compliance professionals, and the public with information about compliance with the laws and regulations that protect consumers and support investments in communities.\n\nId share that as the control documents fall into an ever-growing directory of regulations, laws, and advisories, its increasingly difficult for consumers to point to a single control document to gain the banks support staff attention i.e., REG E, once stop the process and guided prescribed steps required, without such assistance its often difficult to expedite consumer concerns.\n\nAmerican Consumers and lawmakers have repeatedly called for common-sense oversight surrounding personal financial data that gives consumers more control.\n\nTowards that end, there needs to be a restriction on what and how financial data can be bought and sold with, by, and through Big Tech firms as they morph into payment giants, demanding restrictive actions and oversight of peer organizations.\n\nIf tech names can show connective on financial transaction, its intimidation of consumers, intended or not, is seemingly insurmountable. So, if you go to the bank and are then returned to the culprit, where do you go for assistance?\n\nAlthough my complaint requires filing with both CFPB and FTC, its difficult to explain the issue without referencing both and correctly the U.S. financial institutions credit card issuers in these complaints the language may vary, however the results convey and enforce uniformly the same.\n\nU.S. Banks will not accept formal filings of complaint against XXXX XXXXXXXX., and thus, no consumer dispute calendar is ever engaged. \n\nAnd recently, just confirming those facts I found can generate a new series of actions by XXXX  about consumer identity and/or financially related inquiries, although a consumer has a known relationship with XXXX.\n\nIt sounds as if the banks refer consumer into XXXX, but the banks support and service personnel advise,   its difficult to contact XXXX by phone (but, easier than the standard long convoluted online client assistance offered by XXXX as a standard service method) so, expect long wait times, and please avoid Mondays under all circumstances. \n\nI wont call names but, one service representative, told the bank didnt accept disputes because all issues involving XXXX had to have XXXX  approval to resolve and only after insisting she offered an alternative.\n\nThe Banks representative asked me to hold. She stated,   however when I return dont refer to me, just explain the circumstances to XXXX, Ill listen silently and when the Apple rep. agrees and disconnects remain on the line and Ill return to insure a credit is issued. \n\nTraditionally, however, the banks representatives simply state questions related to XXXX credits and charges are exclusively handled by XXXX.\n\nThere is one exception, specific to XXXX XXXX deservant of special note, which was a back office engagement.\n\nIn the XXXX XXXX XXXX, on three separate and distinct dates, the Banks automation kicked-off the following advice:\n\nPlease let us know if you or an authorized user recognize the purchase below. The sooner we hear from you, the sooner we can help protect your account from unauthorized purchases.\n\nOn all three (3) the merchant, XXXX for XXXX, each had received an automated DECLINE, the electronic notice further stated.\n\nIf you respond yes, declined transactions will stay declinedAfter responding, try your card again.\n\nI received the same notice on XXXX XXXX and on XXXX XXXX XXXX, at which time I called the Bank to inquiry why Id started receiving these notices. I, like many, dont always use the same card from purchase to purchase or month to month.\n\nBut, I didnt realize these notices were connected to the Banks systematic authorization application and would generate auto-declines on any purchase in the future anytime the card was used and without explanation.\n\nIt was a holiday weekend, as I recall, so it would have been  Wednesday, XXXX XXXX XXXX, when I spoke to a Bank customer service representative, who asked for patience as she transferred the call. \n\nThe authorization rep., wasnt as I recall being in the least concerned for my understanding, which was usual but, it was clear the authorization rep., needed and was going to clear the decline against XXXX at all cost.\n\nWhat made it especially memorable was the fact, he advised the card would stop every time used until the decline was lifted and when I asked why he advised it was the fact the card had a decline for a charge against XXXX? \n\nThe comment, the authorization issue, was so bothersome. I stated it would not be acceptable, and Id need a name and what policy of XXXX XXXX this decision was tied to?\n\nThat was the first time he began searching for work around-s but it was the first time he advised hed insure the card continued to operate.\n\nI can only assume he re-instated or removed it all together because wed agreed Id reach out to advise but, when I researched the one item, it lead to another and quickly became overwhelming.\n\nI cant imagine what a senior or young college-age-consumer or anyone working outside the home could do to manage through the process and maintain employment, or a reasonable family-life or a life, period.\n\nWith no assistance from the Bank I attempted to complete a forensic audit and recap of the credit cards transactions held with XXXX XXXX alone, for XXXX:\n\nLet me walk you through just one of many transactions with one credit card processor.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills my XXXX account twice once for Cloud storage and the second a music subscription.\n\nXXXX RECONCILIATION DOC: of XXXX billing shows both a Music Subscription and Cloud storage charge dated XXXX and XXXX.\n\nREMEMBER XXXX XXXX automated system reports a serial of transaction requiring authorization and in discussion with their authorization support member, basically its agree or every future authorization with be, declined and, the advice offered is I have number to offer for assistance but, staffing is limited (notifications dated XXXX XXXX and XXXX).\n\nMost importantly, no documentation is kicked off or documented and/or disclosures generated.\n\nXXXX SUPPORT is online only, so the consumer is required to figure out the description successfully to get to the end-result. \n\nIf youre unsuccessful, you can ask a chat-bot which offers the same details in an endless loop with no live support available so, can anyone see how this meets the ADA requirements or timelessness standards?\n\nXXXX, XXXX also bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX, for Music Services and a separate generated billing and statement (attached)\n\nXXXX, 1XXXX XXXX  bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# titled BILL CA.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX, XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bill XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally TV service.\n\nXXXX XXXX bills XXXX XXXX account XXXX# traditionally Music storage charge.\n\nXXXX XXXX accounts once, re-numbered, not continue to report or display so, you need bank assistance to determine long-term damage and access. \n\nAnd whether inadvertent or intentional, the scope and manner of XXXX actions and provide warning of how easily monopolist organizations set-up shop undetected before the American people. \n\nId also add, until this XXXX, Ive never requested access to Music or TV and have never used either, although the XXXX APPS are available but, Ive never downloaded the TV APP. \n\nOne critical point who buys a service which is never used, or the required app to use the service, is never downloaded in a closed loop environment is impossible to use without XXXX authorization.\n\nStorage has been previously sold to XXXX and has now returned to XXXX but, many times at the point of opening, the photo files it holds  immediately degrade until unusable. \n\nEach of these entities (XXXX and XXXX) having platform interest, storage i.e., one picture generations additional opportunities, to edit one generating two files of storage, each picture edit standalone into multiple files driving up storage expenses consumers may or may not be aware, extra document review generates a new file, etc. , thus device, and related entities.\n\nLet alone temporary files, which are maintained without many times consumer awareness so, files only useful to the big 3 or 4 generate endless storage opportunities and up-charges and billings, etc.\n\nXXXX recently began demanding privacy issues of responsibilities and assuming ownership over the phone producer. \n\nSo is the seller the owner, or the manufacturer if XXXX or XXXX, etc., the producer or does every owner thereafter become the privacy owner, selling, and enabled to start new relationships, etc., so where do consumers reclaim privacy data exposed?\n\nAnd since XXXX isnt a traditional entrant, why do they have an interest in your data other than to sell financial materials to others but, clearly these actions set the ground-work of determinations of unwinding products and services unconsidered.\n\nBohemian corporations like XXXX, seem to express and engage in cooperative relationships with peer organizations to pierce traditional oversight measures which weve observed in the U.K. i.e., XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money in so-called, reserve accounts structures. XXXX payment policy states the reasons for putting money on hold include a sudden increase in sales, a shop having only made its first sale recently, the shop committing a policy violation or other risk factors.\n\nSome sellers told the XXXX that two reserve periods were imposed on them consecutively, said XXXX XXXX, XXXX Business reporter, headline XXXX accused of destroying sellers by withholding money, published XXXX XXXX XXXX.\n\nBut, theres a much larger issue which never consolidated by oversight there are direct sub-sets all tied to financial transactions and services which combined directly disadvantage not only small businesses but, consumers who are easily overwhelmed not only by the direct correlation but, all the associated and unseen correlations, continues XXXX.\n\nXXXX is an online marketplace that allows independent sellers to set up their own shop. It specialises in bespoke items, handicrafts or things not usually available in High Street shops.\n\nXXXX XXXX. is a US-based company which trades its shares on the XXXX XXXX XXXX in New York, where it listed its stock in XXXX. XXXX shares currently trading at XXXX each - a far cry from an all-time high of XXXX during the Covid pandemic in XXXX.\n\nIts biggest shareholders are major financial institutions such as XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX.\n\nThe company is led by chief executive XXXX XXXX who has worked at an eclectic mix of businesses such as online auction site XXXX, the internet chat firm XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX. He has been chief executive since XXXX.\n\nIt was originally founded in XXXX by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX who started the business from XXXX XXXX Brooklyn apartment. None of them remain with the firm.\n\nThe CFPB must advance quickly plans to begin the tactical widening issues  of rule-making that would subject XXXX XXXX XXXX and others to supervision as it examines how companies monetize data that and continues an unfair assault on consumers.\n\nAnd even with items highlighted the list unseen considerations continues consumers and small business are assaults daily including, independent Internet companies affect anyone as consumers are tracked online through XXXX and other browsers, given the ability without oversight to freely, come and go-to browser comes through search engine the playground of the Big 3 or 4 i.e., XXXX, etc. with each browser uniquely given comprehensive privacy protection and controls but, in protection of whos interest?\n\nTens of millions of consumer are or arent  protected not at their behest everyday online activities, searching browsers, email, on the unlimited platforms of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX\n\nBut, whats clear, American CORPs have increasingly jumped the moon and time is ticking, and not on the side of U.S. consumers. \n\nHow XXXX has accessed and kept up-to-date posting against numerous MasterCard/VISA account numbers, sometime able to access closed accounts which have been closed for fraud activities.\n\nReporting any fraud generally receives no follow-up most consumers would state but, an account closure, new card and account generated. \n\nAny unauthorized transactions until recently, when I found multiple transactions from a Tech Giant, which were reversed over months and no other action taken.\n\nIt also points out the varieties methods for MasterCard/VISA accounts are recorded and records-kept by banks, some disappear such as XXXX XXXX systemically goes through and removes accounts so, how does a client further identify all activity and does the FED have any accounting standard?\n\nAnd from a safety and liability stand-point how many accounts are reconciled by a certified public auditing and accounting corporation perspective?\n\nAnd if XXXX is off the reservation, how does such measurement impact bank stability overall today and into the future?\n\nXXXX will pay XXXX to resolve harassment charges after top executives sent live spiders and cockroaches to two bloggers who wrote critical articles about the company.\n\nSenior staff at the US tech firm launched a petrifying harassment campaign against XXXX  and XXXX XXXX, a couple from Massachusetts who run the e-commerce Bytes blog.\n\nToday its impossible to say what wont be done in the steeple decline of civility, during COVID-19 and the housing crisis who didnt financial services CEO, swearing at American consumers and stockholders?\n\nExecutives were upset with some of the coverage on the blog and said the writers had to be burned down.\n\nBesides a box of live spiders and cockroaches, the couple was sent a funeral wreath, a bloody pig mask, and a book about surviving the loss of a spouse.\n\nIna Steiner received bizarre and sometimes threatening messages on Twitter purportedly from groups such as an irritable bowel syndrome patient support group and the Communist Party of the United States.\n\nThe pairs home address was also posted online alongside invitations for strangers to attend sexual encounters, yard sales and parties, while the employees made plans to break into their garage and place a GPS tracker in their car.\n\nThe XXXX said the harassment had a damaging and permanent impact, on them emotionally, psychologically, physically, reputationally, and financially.\n\nOver three years after the employees were prosecuted, the US Justice Department has now charged XXXX with stalking, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, said XXXX XXXX of the Telegraph under the headline, XXXX ordered to pay couple XXXX after senior executives sent bloody pig mask and live cockroaches, published XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX  acting as Massachusetts US Attorney, said: XXXX engaged in absolutely horrific, criminal conduct.The companys employees and contractors involved in this campaign put the victims through pure hell, in a petrifying campaign aimed at silencing their reporting and protecting the XXXX brand.\n\nThe need for stronger, sustained and long-term oversight is clear and each case filed takes the marketplace further and further down the rabbits hole but, neither commitment nor oversight shows true interest in resolving such acts, if it were so, the record would show success but, it doesnt because neither institution public nor private is focused on the American peoples interest to the financial services great demise.      \n\nThus when I advise it appears XXXX has access to credit card numbers and account unrestricted and even further credit reporting agencies, all form a web-connection with concern, add to the team MasterCard, Visa who are exclusive unrestricted parties and American consumer are basically unprotected victims awaiting further victimization in a pool of sharks.\n\nIt may not seem the same but, it is when XXXX bills you repeatedly for the same services and holds hostage any photos or documents refusing to save or hold documents and refining the storage held and doing this while having been paid for the service, shows no controls in place i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullnotifications, actions, dated 1XXXX XXXX, etc. XXXX  shows no controls or correlation, continuing to forward notifications for many devices from one record which appears as its organized to overwhelm clients, taking lazy revenue dollars against the consumer and doubling or tripling revenue, i.e., Your iCloud storage is fullBecause youve exceeded your storage plan, dated XXXX, etc.  \n\nIn addition, XXXX has established direct connection links so, even passing and reviewing monthly transactions generations Thank you for viewing purchase details associated, and sets new parameters which can convey intended or not an implied threat and why does XXXX need a live-connection if this is the same service provided by US banks?\n\nNotifications dated XXXX XXXX\n\nIf nothing else is true, each additional touch conveys exceptional status between U.S. banks, which are regulated with XXXX right, wrong, or indifferent?\n\nIt creates a status intended or not, which is advantageous to XXXX alone and further, oversight and regulatory understanding and complexity safety. \n\nThe most important rule making for the CFPB in XXXX will be the Tech Giants\n\nIn the absence of Congressional actions only the FED-regulators and the U.S. Courts are ability to exercise some controls and corporations and financial services are already heading back to the U.S. Courts to destabilize the marketplace, this only an example of the liability and regulatory environmental landscape, collapsing onto American consumers.\n\nWorse than the conscious destabilizing action are unconscious impacts when corporations extend pressures as the parents seen in the last Congressional hearing with XXXX XXXX, it can become immobilizing to the human psyche. XXXX  walks out feeling put upon but, hes wrong just as financial services, internet service providers and the Federal government are the civilization fails whenever every day for We the People is the story of David and Goliath, Congress plays a continued game as it allows this issues unaddressed to go to the U.S. Courts or become Executive Orders.\n\nIncreasingly, its clear, its not a matter of whos watching the hens house, theyre busy watching from XXXX, CO no longer concerned American consumer will find, discover or take rath but, its foolish to believe your actions are invisible everyones replaceable and theres always one born every minute, even smarter oh and its a presidential election year, as the fryers hearing up on bad behavior.\n\nFinally, as XXXX XXXX, the FED and regulatory bring a new merger for consideration, almost like the XXXX XXXX), which the FED brought forward and ultimately become XXXX XXXX, which continues to bleed consumer confidence and legal actions its clear Justice needs a much larger and better partner than the FED who seems to have lost its oversight expertise.     \n\nIt knows until the law addresses the People intent, its basically waiting for appeal, a second bite at the same issues upon appeal and its wrong, We the People depend on righteousness to prevail, known.\n\nThank you in advance for your guidance and assistance.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-19T22:56:46.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"06066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8576967","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-03-19T21:49:41.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As the Consumer <em>Compliance</em> Outlook (CCO) furthers these goals by providing financial institutions, <em>compliance</em> professionals, and the public with information about <em>compliance</em> with the laws and regulations that protect consumers and support investments in communities."]},"sort":[6.5573177,"8576967"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17798555","_score":5.2511187,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint as a former tenant of XXXX XXXX Apartments in XXXX, WA. After I vacated my apartment on XX/XX/XXXX ( prior to a new lease term beginning ), the landlord claimed I owed a large balance for alleged unpaid rent and property damages. The initial move-out statement ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) showed an Outstanding Balance of {$6600.00}. A later version of the statement showed an Outstanding Balance of {$7900.00} an increase of over {$1200.00} with no clear explanation. This increase was driven by an inflated charge for flooring damage that jumped from an initial {$2000.00} estimate to a final {$3200.00}, despite no new evidence of additional damage. I dispute owing any of this debt, both because of the circumstances under which I moved out and the lack of documentation to justify these charges. I had informed the landlord of severe financial hardship and requested release from the upcoming lease, but management effectively forced my departure without mitigation efforts. It is unconscionable and unlawful for them to charge me for future rent or excessive damages under these conditions, yet they referred this disputed debt ( approximately {$7900.00} ) to ProCollect Inc. for collection.\n\nProCollects Failure to Validate the Debt I formally disputed the entire debt and requested validation from ProCollect in writing ( letter sent XX/XX/XXXX ). I invoked my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and Washington State law, demanding that ProCollect provide proof that the debt is valid and owed. I outlined specific documentation needed to validate the debt including a copy of the lease, a full account ledger, itemized bills/receipts for each damage, photos of the move-out condition, evidence of the landlords efforts to re-rent the unit, and a legal justification for every charge. Under the FDCPA, once a debt is disputed, the collector must cease collection efforts until verification is provided, and any credit reporting must note that the debt is disputed. Washingtons landlord-tenant law also imposes strict duties on the landlord to document any damages and mitigate rent losses, which directly bear on the validity of this claim.\n\nProCollects response was grossly insufficient. The only materials I received from ProCollect were a copy of the lease agreement and a one-page move-out charges invoice for {$3200.00} essentially a duplicate of what the landlord had already provided. Simply re-sending the lease and a generic bill does not satisfy the debt validation requirements under federal law. ProCollect failed to provide any of the key supporting documents I had demanded. To date, none of the following required items have been provided, despite my explicit written requests : Complete Account XXXX : Not provided. I asked for a full rent ledger showing all charges, credits, and how the balance was calculated, but ProCollect sent no account statement. There is no evidence detailing how the landlord arrived at the {$7900.00} figure or any accounting of payments vs. charges.\n\nRepair Invoices/Receipts : Not provided. I requested copies of all receipts, invoices, or contractor bills to substantiate each damage charge ( with details of materials, labor, dates, and who performed the work ). ProCollect provided no invoices or receipts whatsoever for the {$960.00} in cleaning/repairs or the {$3200.00} flooring replacement. There is XXXX proof that any repair work was actually done or paid for. \n\nPhotographic Evidence : Not provided. I asked for time-stamped photos or similar evidence of the apartments condition before and after my tenancy, to prove the damages claimed were beyond normal wear-and-tear and caused by me. ProCollect did not produce a single photograph. \n\nProof of Mitigation ( Re-rental ) : Not provided. Under Washington law ( XXXX  XXXX ), a landlord must make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit if a tenant leaves early, and can only charge rent until a new tenant is found ( and only for the period the unit actually sat vacant ). I requested evidence of the landlords mitigation efforts e.g. when they advertised or re-listed the apartment, how long it stayed vacant, and when a new lease began. ProCollect provided no information at all on whether or when the unit was re-rented. They have not shown that I owe any rent for periods after my move-out. \n\nExplanation for Inflated Flooring Charge : Not provided. The landlords initial paperwork had a placeholder charge of {$2000.00} for flooring, which was later increased to {$3200.00}. I demanded an explanation and proof for this 64 % increase who determined the higher cost, based on what estimate or invoice, and whether the flooring was actually replaced. No explanation or documentation was given. This {$1200.00} jump appears completely arbitrary and unsubstantiated. \n\nMove-Out Inspection Report : Not provided. Washington law requires landlords to perform a move-out inspection ( ideally with the tenant ) and document any damages in a written checklist or report ( XXXX  XXXX ). I asked for a copy of the final move-out inspection report, including the date it occurred, who conducted it, and evidence that I was notified or allowed to be present. ProCollect did not furnish this. I was never given an opportunity to do a joint walkthrough, yet they are charging me for a long list of damages.\n\nLegal/Lease Justifications : Not provided. I requested that each charge be tied to a specific lease clause or legal authority permitting it. ProCollect gave no written explanation of the basis for each charge ( e.g. early termination fees, cleaning fees, etc. ), aside from citing the lease generally. \n\nProof of Causation for Damages : Not provided. There is no evidence that any alleged damage was caused by me ( or my negligence ) as opposed to pre-existing conditions, normal wear-and-tear, or issues caused by others. ProCollect failed to provide any expert statements or documentation on this point.\n\nIn sum, ProCollect has not validated this debt at all they have only supplied a copy of the lease and the landlords summary invoice, and nothing else. They ignored my detailed validation demand that was well within my rights under 15 U.S.C. 1692g. This falls far short of the FDCPAs standard for verification. Simply restating the amount claimed or forwarding an existing bill is not true verification of a debt ; the FDCPA requires the collector to obtain and provide meaningful evidence that the debt is legitimate and owed by the consumer. ProCollect never did so.\n\nCrucially, even the original creditor has effectively admitted that no further documentation exists. In late XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Ridges management confirmed in writing that they had forwarded only the signed lease and a generic invoice to ProCollect, and nothing more. In an email dated XX/XX/XXXX, I noted to the landlord that the only thing the collection agency has sent me was the second invoice ( after the initial estimate had been changed ) and the copy of the lease, to which they did not add any additional documents. This is a written admission by the landlord that no photographs, no receipts, no detailed itemization, etc., were ever provided to the collection agency. In other words, both the landlord and ProCollect know that none of the legally required supporting documents exist or were produced. Despite this, the collection account remains active and ProCollect has continued to pursue it and report it, causing ongoing damage to my credit. \n\nContinued Collection and Credit Reporting Despite Dispute ProCollects conduct after my dispute violated the law. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), once I notified them on XX/XX/XXXX that I dispute the debt and requested validation, they were required to cease all collection efforts until they mailed me verification of the debt. Collection efforts include reporting the debt to credit bureaus or otherwise attempting to collect. ProCollect, however, did not cease collection. They persisted in maintaining the collection account and continued to report the debt on my credit report even though it was ( and is ) unverified and disputed. Additionally, the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) ) prohibits a debt collector from reporting credit information it knows is disputed without flagging it as disputed. I explicitly informed ProCollect of this obligation, yet for many months the collection tradeline on my credit report did not show any dispute notation, indicating ProCollect failed to communicate the dispute to the credit bureaus. I eventually had to file a direct dispute with TransUnion in late XXXX to get the item updated. Following my dispute, XXXX investigation results showed that the disputed information [ was ] updated on the ProCollect account and certain fields were changed essentially adding the proper dispute remarks and updating the record. This belated update, prompted by my intervention, confirms that ProCollect initially reported the debt without noting it was disputed, in violation of 1692e ( 8 ). ProCollect had notice of my dispute since XXXX, yet the correction to the credit report only occurred after I escalated the issue months later. \n\nMoreover, ProCollects ongoing collection activities in the face of a void/invalid debt raise additional FDCPA concerns. They are attempting to collect amounts that are not legally collectible due to the landlords failures ( see below ), which is a false representation of the character and amount of the debt ( a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ). It is also an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt under 15 U.S.C. 1692f, given that the debt has not been validated and appears to be baseless. I informed ProCollect that continuing to pursue a debt not actually owed or substantiated is unlawful and would expose them to liability, but they have persisted. To date, the derogatory collection account remains on my credit reports, harming my credit score and reputation, and ProCollect has not withdrawn the collection or corrected the record fully. Every day this disputed, unverified debt remains is a continued injury to me as a consumer. \n\nViolations of Law by ProCollect ( FDCPA ) and the Landlord ( XXXX XXXX ) The actions of ProCollect ( and the underlying landlord, whose claim they are attempting to collect ) flout multiple provisions of federal and state law. The following is a summary of the key legal violations demonstrated in this case : Failure to Validate Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ). ProCollect did not provide adequate verification of the debt after my timely dispute. They continued collection without furnishing the required documentation, violating 1692g ( b ) which mandates ceasing collection until debt validation is provided. Sending only a lease and a one-page invoice is not true validation under the FDCPA.\n\nFalse Credit Reporting of Disputed Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) ). ProCollect reported the debt to credit bureaus without noting that I disputed it, despite having been informed of the dispute. Failing to communicate a known dispute is explicitly prohibited by 1692e ( 8 ). This deceptive omission was only rectified after I directly disputed with the credit bureau months later.\n\nMisrepresentation and Unfair Collection ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e & 1692f ). By attempting to collect an amount that is not supported by law or facts, ProCollect is misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt ( violating 1692e ( 2 ) ) and using unfair means to collect ( violating 1692f ). Demanding ~ {$8000.00} without the requisite proof and in the face of clear state-law violations by the landlord is both false and unconscionable.\n\nImproper Damage Charges and Documentation Failures ( XXXX  XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX required the landlord to provide me with a full and specific itemized statement of damages within 30 days of move-out, including copies of estimates or invoices to substantiate each charge. The landlord failed to do so I was never given any receipts or verifiable documentation within the 30-day window ( or ever ). XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( b ) expressly prohibits a landlord from charging a tenant for damages that are not properly documented as required, and from assigning such unsubstantiated charges to any collection agency. By sending an unsupported {$7900.00} claim to ProCollect ( and by ProCollect attempting to collect it ), they have violated this statute. Essentially, the landlord forfeited the right to claim these damages by not following the law, yet ProCollect is pursuing them regardless. \n\nFailure to XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). The landlord also charged me for future rent ( XX/XX/XXXX rent, even though I had vacated on XX/XX/XXXX ) without showing any mitigation efforts. XXXX XXXX requires landlords to make diligent attempts to re-rent the unit and only allows recovery of rent for the period the unit sits vacant ( or the difference if re-rented at a lower rate ), whichever is less. I notified the landlord well in advance that I could not continue the lease and left early under duress, yet they still billed me as if the entire lease term was my responsibility. ProCollect provided no evidence that the unit wasnt re-rented promptly or that any actual rental loss occurred. Charging me for the full month of XX/XX/XXXX ( and potentially beyond ) violates XXXX  XXXX duty to mitigate. If the apartment was re-leased shortly after I left ( which I suspect it was or could have been ), then attempting to collect that rent from me is unlawful. \n\nNo Move-Out Inspection or Acknowledgment of Wear-and-Tear ( XXXX XXXX ). Washington law gives tenants the right to a joint move-out inspection to document any damages beyond normal wear-and-tear. I was not given an opportunity to participate in any such inspection, nor have I seen a move-out checklist or report. The laundry list of damages the landlord compiled ( for painting, cleaning, etc. ) appears to include ordinary cleaning/maintenance and possibly pre-existing conditions, which should not be chargeable to me. By failing to conduct or document a proper move-out inspection with me, the landlord violated XXXX XXXX. ProCollect is attempting to collect these improperly assessed damage charges regardless.\n\nIn summary, the debt ProCollect is pursuing is legally defective. The landlords own non-compliance with XXXX  XXXX ( failing to provide documentation and mitigate damages ) means the underlying charges are not lawfully collectible. XXXX persistence in collecting this debt without verification and in the face of these clear violations has caused multiple FDCPA breaches on their part as well. \n\nImpact on Consumer and Request for Relief Because of ProCollects actions, I have been unjustly subjected to a derogatory collection account for over a year. My credit report was hit with an ~ {$8000.00} collection item, severely damaging my credit score and hindering my ability to obtain housing or credit on fair terms. I have spent considerable time and effort trying to resolve this, including writing detailed dispute letters, following up repeatedly, and filing a credit bureau dispute. The stress and harm to my reputation are real and ongoing. It is profoundly unfair that an unvalidated, disputed debt one that I do not even owe under the law is being used to penalize me. ProCollect had an obligation to investigate and substantiate the debt before reporting or continuing to collect it ; instead, they have been content to blindly chase whatever the landlord claimed, with no regard for the truth or the law.\n\nI am requesting the CFPBs intervention to put an end to these practices. Specifically, I ask that the Bureau require ProCollect to either : ( a ) provide a full and proper validation of this debt with all supporting documents, or ( b ) immediately remove this collection from my credit reports and cease all collection efforts. Given the facts, the only acceptable outcomes are for ProCollect to either prove the debt with the detailed evidence required by law or delete it entirely. At this stage, I have no confidence that any such proof exists and indeed the landlords admissions indicate it does not. Therefore, the appropriate resolution is likely the complete removal of the tradeline and closure of the account. ProCollect should also update all credit bureaus to reflect that the debt is disputed and/or deleted and ensure no further negative reporting occurs.\n\nAdditionally, I want to note that I am prepared to pursue further action if necessary. The pattern of behavior here failing to validate, continuing to report a disputed debt, and attempting to collect unlawful charges is egregious. I urge the CFPB to take this complaint seriously and hold ProCollect accountable to all applicable laws, so that no other consumer is subjected to such a frustrating and harmful experience. I simply want this baseless collection removed from my name unless the collector can truly and lawfully substantiate every XXXX ( which, to date, they have utterly failed to do ). Thank you for your attention to this matter and for helping enforce my rights under the law. \n\nComplaint Summary : ProCollect Inc. has failed to validate a disputed debt and is attempting to collect amounts not lawfully owed, in violation of the FDCPA and Washington State law. They only provided a lease and a one-page invoice, refusing to supply the required proof ( rent ledger, receipts, photos, etc. ). The alleged balance itself changed without explanation ( from ~ {$6600.00} to {$7900.00} ) and includes charges that are unsubstantiated and improper under XXXX XXXX. Despite my dispute, ProCollect continued collection activities and credit reporting without marking the debt as disputed. I request that CFPB compel ProCollect to provide full validation or delete the collection, as their current conduct violates multiple consumer protection laws and is causing ongoing harm.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-21T01:53:25.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"993XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17798555","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ProCollect, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-21T01:26:40.000Z","state":"WA","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":["Therefore, the appropriate resolution is likely the complete removal of the tradeline and <em>closure</em> of the <em>account</em>. ProCollect should also update all credit bureaus to reflect that the debt is <em>disputed</em> and/or deleted and ensure no further negative reporting occurs.\n\nAdditionally, I want to note that I am prepared to pursue further action if necessary. The pattern of behavior here failing to validate, continuing to report a <em>disputed</em> debt, and attempting to collect unlawful charges is egregious."]},"sort":[5.2511187,"17798555"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6942887","_score":4.83209,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"US Bank\nU.S. Bancorp Center XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Corporate Switchboard\nXXXX XXXX Customer Service\nXXXX  - Cardmember Service Fraud Prevention Department\nXXXX  - Cardmember Service Fraud Prevention Department\nXXXX  - XXXX XXXX (Social media guy that threatened me)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\n\nPersonal Checking: XXXX\nBusiness Checking: XXXX\n\n\nAgreements:\n\n\n\n\nOpen Issues:\n\nThese are the open issues. The date cited next to the issue is when the issue first happened. \nScroll down in the log to that date to see all details, and scroll up to see the history.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  - US Bank representative called me, was rude, harassing, and threatened me. (XXXX)\n\t- XXXX  from Social Media team called me.\n\t- Called me stupid, then threatened me with unspecified physical violence.\n- US Bank branch personnel were incredibly rude and nasty to me. (XXXX)\n\t- XXXX XXXX XXXX  \t- One lady refused to answer any of my questions.\n\t- Another lady butted in and started loudly and rudely talking at me.\n\t- That second lady ignored me altogether, chased me out of the bank, and accused me of yelling.\n- US Bank personal account fraud charges issue (XXXX)\n\t- I got a text about fraud charges, had to dig deep for ID for sender.\n\t- Checked my US Bank personal checking account (XXXX), FOUR fraudulent charges.\n\t- Requested assistance via phone and in person several times, all refused.\n- Unknown deposit in business account (XXXX)\n\t- Unknown check deposit for $100 XXXX XXXX  \t- On XXXX, this transaction is not found at all.\n- Unable to reach a person via telephone for assistance\n\t- This issue has been going on for a long time.\n\t- The automated systems don't allow me to speak to a person\n\t- The automated systems say my information is invalid and hang up on me\n\t- The automated systems don't offer me an option for why I'm calling\n- Inability to utilize offered services\n\t- US Bank refuses to process my application for a personal or business credit card\n\t\t- They've said I need to unlock/unfreeze all three of my credit reports for 2-4 weeks, this is not acceptable to me.\n\n\n\nLOG\n---\n\nXXXX\n\nNothing heard from XXXX XXXX, still no statements. Time to reach out for more help.\nXXXX, calling corporate switchboard. Transferred to C/S?\nXXXX XXXX Confirms she's C/S, not corporate. I told her what I'm after and left her to it. She became argumentative and abusive, then hung up on me.\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX VM, left VM.\nOn Monday I need to ask for external help again.\n\n\nXXXX\n\nEmailed XXXX  again about the statements, need them for a payment dispute, asked him to please email them to me today.\n\n\nXXXX\n\nBumped email to XXXX  for statements again.\n\n\nXXXX\n\nIt appears I've been issued credits for all four XXXX fraud charges.\n\n\nRequested again that XXXX provide me with the statements.\n\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nCFPB response from company.\n\nXXXX  Response, US Bank says no change.\nReceived statements and stuff in the mail today.\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nStill no resolutions.\nCalled CFPB, gave info/reminder. 3 times.\nAfter a lot of calls and XXXX, it finally got resolved and I could view the response. \n\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nCalled CFPB, same stupid nonsense in the first call. Finally got to a supervisor in the 2nd call, gave my info and request again.\nEmail from XXXX XXXX statements have been mailed, disputes are in process.\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX, Called CFPB to follow up, XXXX, still no help or cooperation.\nCalled Ombudsman, left Vm. Emailed Ombudsman.\nXXXX, XXXX also refused to assist or cooperate.\nXXXX After MANY calls to the CFPB this morning, I finally got to a supervisor that was willing to cooperate. I gave her the information, and asked for an email when the task is completed.\n\n\n\nXXXX  \nCalled CFPB to follow up again, still no help/cooperation there.\nStill nothing from US Bank either.\nXXXX called XXXX XXXX, got through. VERY difficult, kept talking over me/at me, and blaming me for all the problems.\nHe hung up on me, so I called back. He claims he couldn't hear me... \nHe's going to mail me the statements (all of them!) and dispute the fraudulent transactions, then send me an email with proof thereof. \nMore emails to the CFPB Ombudsman asking for help there.\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nUS Bank is apparently sending me a new debit card.\nWow. XXXX\n\nEmailed all reminding them I am still in need of assistance.\nReplied again to last email asking for help.\nCalled CFPB to ask again for help with the complaint response. Got a lady that hung up on me. \n\nSeveral calls to CFPB, more rude people.\nEmailed CFPB ombudsman. Auto reply.\nCalling Ombudsman office. TXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Toll-free)\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nEmail from XXXX XXXX  with some garbage/spam stuff. I think he was trying to send me my statements.\nI replied, let him know of the issue, and asked for my statements directly as .pdf's.\nI did offer to come by his office and let him put them on a flash drive I'll provide.\nI called the corporate switchboard and it goes to hold music for awhile, then disconnects.\nAll of the numbers I've called go to hold music, then disconnect, it appears they've blocked my number.\nThey clearly no longer wish to communicate with me directly, so I'll have to take this up externally.\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX response from US Bank, in short, they closed my accounts because I asked them to allow me to dispute the four fraudulent transactions, and they refused to do so.\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nReceived a letter and some checks from US Bank, they're closing my account. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nI cannot retrieve statements in my business account, and I cannot log in at all to my personal account.\n\nXXXX, Called, VM, left VM. \nXXXX, called XXXX Main branch, opt 3. Unavailable. \n\nXXXX, Submitted CFPB complaint for account closure without full refund or statements, ID FOR COMPLAINT SENT TO US BANK\nXXXX\n\n\nCannot file Texas Banking Department complaint, need to file federal. \nhelpwithmybank.gov, called XXXX XXXX  to see who regulates US Bank, no help.\nEmailed help form for help.\n\nXXXX, call, corp switchboard, looking for Exec office. Sounds like C/S, called again. \nXXXX same again, call 3, XXXX. Same thing.\n\nXXXX, CFPB response, says company replied. I can't view or get to the attachments.\nSubmitted feedback saying so. \nCalling CFPB for help.\nXXXX XXXX Complaint # XXXX. Not helpful, taking a long time. Refused to help me, nothing more can be done here.\n\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX Called XXXX XXXX operator, system hung up.\nXXXX, Corp. XXXX, no help.\nXXXX, Emailed all addresses with Open Issues List.\nXXXX call customer service, eventually got through to a person, she completed everything I said and refuse to assist\nXXXX, called the corporate switchboard number, talked with XXXX again, still does not want to help me.\n\n\nXXXX XXXX, From XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (3 minutes ago)\nto me\nGood Morning, \n\nThe second email you sent with your notes copy and pasted has not come through.  I was not able to gain access to your notes through the link you provided either. When you have a moment, would you please resend your email with your notes copied? Once I have those notes, I can submit the fraudulent activity to our fraud department.  \n\nThank you,\n\nXXXX XXXX\n\nUS Bank\n\nI replied, sent an acknowledgement/compliance email first, then copy/pasted the note again into it's own email reply. XXXX received a call from XXXX, a gentleman from US Bank whose name I did not write down or remember, and was responding to my survey feedback. Some difficulty in getting him to tell me whether or not he had read my log, we did determine that he has not read it, I told him if he would send me an email requesting it I would send it to him and he could read it over and then choose whether or not he wanted to provide me with actionable resolution steps.\n\nXXXX calling XXXX XXXX. VM, left VM. \n\n\nXXXX\n\nXXXX no progress yet.\nEmail sent to all addresses nudged, reply all asking for help again.\nXXXX, checking online banking. No changes, no messages.\nXXXX, calling Corp. XXXX. He started trying to learn more about the issues, then started talking over me. End of call.\nXXXX Call, C/S, lots of '0#'. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX. Gave name and intro. Refused to assist or transfer to supervisor, then began to argue about it. XXXX, Calling Fraud, auto system, no human.\nXXXX next #, also fraud, auto system, no human. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, left VM.\n0815, Found a way to access chat through 'Contact us'.  XXXX. I  gave her the open issues list with a link to my log, she ignored it all and either doesn't know how to help me, or, won't help me.\nXXXX end chat.\nXXXX Email from Social Media Team, \nGood morning, XXXX\nThanks for emailing us again. I understand you still need assistance. I notice you spoke to our ambassador XXXX last week. He is currently out of the office, but if you'd like a different ambassador to reach out, please let us know. \nAll the best, \nXXXX XXXX.\nU.S. Bank\nSocial Media Ambassador | Social Media Customer Care\n\nReplied:\nI AM COMPLETELY SHOCKED AND AMAZED AT YOUR INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT RESPONSE.\nAS IT WOULD SEEM I HAVE NOT MADE MYSELF CLEAR, I AM, AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES, STILL AWAITING ASSISTANCE FOR RESOLVING THE OPEN ISSUES WITH US BANK.\nI AM NOT CONCERNED WITH ***HOW*** YOU PROVIDE SAID ASSISTANCE, I AM SIMPLY WAITING ON YOU TO ***START*** PROVIDING ASSISTANCE.\n\nTHERE ARE MULTIPLE OPEN ISSUES AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING THEM. PLEASE SEE THE DETAILS PROVIDED AND PROVIDE ME WITH ASSISTANCE TOWARDS A RESOLUTION.\n\n\nXXXX email again.\nSocial Media Customer Service Shared\nXXXX (3 minutes ago)\nto me, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX there, XXXX.\nWed be glad to offer our assistance in any way we can to help address your concerns. Please let us know if you would like us to give you a call today and discuss our available options to further resolve this matter. We look forward to hearing from you and being able to further assist.\n\nWarmly,\n\nXXXX XXXX  \nCommunications Rep\n\nPronouns: She / Her / Hers \n\nU.S. Bank\n\nMissouri A Home-Based\n\nReplied:\nI SEE I STILL HAVE NOT MADE MYSELF CLEAR.\nI AM STILL REQUESTING ASSISTANCE WITH THE OPEN ISSUES.\nPLEASE REVIEW THE DETAILS ALREADY PROVIDED TO YOU, AND PROVIDE RESOLUTIONS.\nAGAIN, I DO NOT CARE ***HOW*** YOU RESOLVE THE ISSUES, JUST THAT YOU ***DO***.\n\nAS ALWAYS, I WOULD MUCH PREFER TO NEVER BE ON THE PHONE WITH US BANK AGAIN SINCE YOU'RE ALREADY RUDE, DIFFICULT, AND ARGUMENTATIVE ON THE PHONE. IF THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN PROVIDE RESOLUTIONS, THEN PLEASE STOP WASTING SO MUCH TIME AND START GETTING THINGS DONE.\n\nXXXX, Called corp office to see if they would like to help move this along. Got XXXX again. Difficult conversation, I gave him the information he asked for, and then he talked over me, and hung up on me.\n\nXXXX, XXXX from US Bank called me, XXXX \nXXXX\nLots of talking, finally getting down to brass tacks, emailed him my log.\nHad to copy/paste into an email, he can't use the link yet. \nWorks at a branch in XXXX, helps the district with complaints. \nSounds promising, will get back to me ASAP with fraud/dispute case #'s and then work on getting the rest of the issues resolved.\nOpen to call tomorrow evening, same time frame.\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX calling corp #. XXXX. I attempted to have a conversation with him, but he kept talking over me.\nXXXX, calling C/S. XXXX XXXX. I gave her my blurb and info, and asked for someone higher up to help me.\nShe became belligerent and harassing, then hung up on me.\nXXXX finally able to login. ONE of the four charges has been refunded to me.\nCalling C/S #, call 2. XXXX XXXX. gave name, req supervisor, gave reason, req supervisor again. She became abusive, I had to move on.\nXXXX, Call #3. \nXXXX Female agent, couldn't get name. I req. supervisor. Refused to transfer. Continued to argue and lie.\nXXXX, CFPB complaint filed, ID FOR COMPLAINT SENT TO US BANK XXXX XXXX XXXX, not a supervisor. Asked for one again. He hung up on me. \nXXXX corp. XXXX, rude C/S agent, refused to listen.\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX, calling Corp. Switchboard. \nXXXX XXXX. We had an incredibly difficult exchange, but he finally stopped talking long enough for my to get a few words in and I briefly summarized the issue.\nI also confirmed he sees my phone number on caller ID.\nHe asked me to hang on, then hung up on me.\n\nChecking online banking, all four charges are still present. Attempted to dispute charge, told to call or visit branch.\nXXXX, Calling XXXX. Automated system, very difficult.\nXXXX XXXX. Ignoring me, req supervisor. XXXX, hold. XXXX, they hung up on me. XXXX call 2. Automated system, 0# a bunch, hold. XXXX Refused to assist or transfer, asked for the reason for a supervisor right after I told her why, ignored me, talked over me, hung up on me. \nXXXX call 3. Another rude woman, lots of difficult, put me on hold, XXXX After several bad exchanges, she hung up on me.\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nI stopped by the branch on XXXX  this morning while visiting XXXX  house.\nThe lady I talked to there said I had to have an appointment, no appointments were available, and would not tell me when the next available appointment was.\nStatement email; replied with request for updates. XXXX XXXX  Calling to follow up on open issues. XXXX took my call ( I had to ask for his name), refused to answer my question about updates, and then transferred me to a dead line.\nXXXX, logging in to personal account, balance is XXXX XXXX transfer to XXXX  taken out, XXXX charges completed.\nFound and using dispute transaction link.\nIt says I have to call or visit XXXX, calling. \n\nXXXX  still fighting with the automated system, transferred to the card services fraud department auto system. The system hung up on me saying my phone number is not valid.\n\nBusiness checking account is not showing the XXXX check deposit anymore.\nFound and added XXXX profile to log.\nFiling XXXX complaint. Your temporary complaint ID is XXXX  . If you provided an email address, you will receive an email with your official complaint case number and a link to your case within approximately 48 hours.\n\n\n\n\nXXXX Emailed all addresses above asking for help, copy/pasted open issues, gave log link.\nXXXX XXXX response, complaint sent to business.\n\n\nI had another call this evening where I actually got through to a human. She refused to assist me, wouldn't answer any questions, wouldn't get me anyone else, or a supervisor.\n\n\n\n\nXXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX  from US Bank social media dept called me from XXXX\nHe did not read my log.\nHe lied, saying he does not have access to my log.\nHe failed or refused to provide ANY intended resolutions to the open issues.\nHe then went on to talk over me, and then threatened me, sounded like, 'If you don't stop talking and listen, I'll make you shut up'.\nI hung up.\nI updated the XXXX review with this information.\nXXXX, called the Corporate #. XXXX took my call, I had to ask for his name twice.\nI have him my summary, and he says he would transfer me to the executive office. I asked him not to, and gave him my name and #, which he refused to accept, and transferred me anyway. The line disconnected when he transferred.\n\n\nXXXX\n\nI received some odd text messages last night, perhaps about fraud.\n\nChecked my online banking, found matching charges that aren't mine.\nReplied with 2 to the SMS.\nI called the number in the sms alert, XXXX Suspicious, seemed like spam.\nCalled US Bank customer service, XXXX, rude agents, no help.\n\nCanceled my external transfers into this account.\n\nI went into the branch on the corner of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX this morning, and asked for help with this. The girl at the counter was very difficult, did not answer any of my questions, and said I had to call the phone number on the back of my card. I called it again while I was there with her, and I had the same results, the automated system hung up on me. The girl behind the counter said it was my fault because I didn't follow the directions and I needed to keep pushing buttons until I reached a person like the system said, even though the system did not say that. She also refused to tell me the minimum balance necessary in the account to keep the account open.\n\nI then called the so-called corporate phone number, XXXX, and I got several rude people there who talked over me, ignored me, argued with me, harass me, and refused to assist me.\n\nAs I'm not able to find anyone to assist me with any of these issues, and I currently have no further methods of contacting US Bank to ask for help, I don't know what else I might be able to do. At this time I'm simply waiting for the fraudulent transactions to process, and then I'm hoping to find a way through the website to mark those transactions as fraudulent, or to dispute them. Once I'm able to get that resolved I will simply transfer most of my money out of that account, and wait for them to solve their problems.\n\nThe difficult girl at the bank branch did say that my personal debit card is suspended until the fraud alerts are resolved, so nobody can use that card anyway. Also, there was another girl there who started talking at me while I was talking to the first girl and even though I told her I was not interested and I did not want to have two people talking at me she continued to talk at me anyway, saying that the phone number the first girl gave me was the correct phone number, which is stupid because I never asked if that was the correct phone number to call. That same second girl also accused me of yelling, which of course I was not yelling. I then gave them a very clear example of the difference, and they got very bent out of shape and started crying about me needing to leave.\n\nI posted a review for that branch on XXXX XXXX.\n\nXXXX\nReply on XXXX XXXX:\nThank you for taking a moment to share your experience with us, XXXX. Were happy to review this with you to see how we can help. Please send us an email to XXXX with your phone number and reference number XXXX, and we will call you directly to assist. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. XXXX  \nI forwarded the XXXX XXXX  email to them with a link to this log and a request to read it, then reply there with their intended resolutions.\n\nThese are the fraudulent transactions:\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\n\nEmail response, they're insistent on talking to me... XXXX XXXX XXXX\nI replied, gave them, my home number, warned them clearly.\n\nAlso, on the business side, I have a check deposit of $XXXX XXXX XXXX  today and I don't know what that is. I know I did not deposit any checks with US Bank today.\n\nXXXX  check Check XXXX Pending XXXX Transaction info  DescriptionCheck  Transaction DateXXXX  \nTransaction timeXXXX XXXX. Typecheck\n\n\nXXXX\nEmail from US Bank saying I've been unenrolled from XXXX.\nI replied asking which one caused it and why.\n\n\nXXXX\nAnother email, correction, customer group is NOT changing.\n\n\n\n\nXXXX\nEmail from USB, saying my customer group has changed.\n\n\n\nXXXX\nEmailed XXXX  to see what US Bank can do for me in business banking.\n\n\nXXXX\nHaving issues. Tried to pay for XXXX order with debit card, woudln't go through. Finally got in to chat with US Bank rep, they said call or go to branch.\nCalled branch, too busy to take my call.\nChat caused my laptop to freeze, had to hard reboot.\nCalling C/S :(\nXXXX XXXX, xfer to business center? XXXX hold. XXXX XXXX. Refuses to assist, keeps arguing, lying, refusing to help, answer any questions, etc. Says she's 'trying to help', but all of her actions have been harassing.\nAt this point, there's nothing we can do to move forward. When US Bank wants to resolve this, they can send me an email to get that process started. Until then, I understand they don't want to assist.\n\nXXXX emailed XXXX XXXX XXXX, email from XXXX, he says credit reports are frozen. For the card, he says if it's international, I'll need to apply for a block to be removed.\nGot a call from him, we talked, he wants to help me fix these things.\n\nAnother email from XXXX, they want all three credit reports unlocked for 48 hours, which I already advised I'm not willing to do.\nAt this point, I'm led to believe that US Bank just isn't interested in helping me, and I've spent too much of my time with this already.\n\n\n\n\n\nXXXX  Visited branch in XXXX today, met with XXXX XXXX, business banker.\nHe got me applied for a business credit card, and said they could also help me with a business line of credit once the card is established in good standing.\n\n\nXXXX\nUnable to login to my personal account. Wrong XXXX, wrong XXXX, no profile found? XXXX\nI stopped in at the XXXX XXXX  branch while I was in town to ask about cleaning up the account issues.\nWorked with XXXX XXXX had to explain things multiple times, but she says she made progress, and the issues should be resolved in 2-3 days.\nI was able to change my business profile User ID. \nThere is no option to be able to manage my business account debit card from my personal profile.\n\n\n\nXXXX\nError persists in business profile.\nMore emails with XXXX Online department is involved, something wrong in the background.\nNo useful information.\n\nIn my personal profile, when I attempt to link my personal external account, I get stuck at the secure access code screen. I get a call, a secure access code, and I enter it, but then the US bank website starts the process over.\n\nI setup a link from XXXX to US Bank, waiting for the trial deposits.\n\n\n\nXXXX\nBumped email to XXXX  again.\n\nXXXX\nIn business profile, I get an error when I attempt to transfer funds to my external account:\n\nYou are not currently eligible for external transfers.\n\n\nYou can view any past transfer activity on your account, but currently you cannot make any transfers.\n\nI emailed XXXX for help.\n\n\nXXXX XXXX, calling to get help linking my external account. I want to link my XXXX account so I can move money back and forth. XXXX XXXX, not helpful, kinda difficult. XXXX  back to queue. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nLogged into personal. Changed all options to paperless.\nChanged my username, logged out, logged back in. \n\n\nXXXX\nOpened Business Account\n\n\n\nXXXX\nOpened Personal Account","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-08T18:50:06.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"763XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6942887","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2023-05-08T18:47:16.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I called the corporate switchboard and it goes to <em>hold</em> music for awhile, then disconnects.\nAll of the numbers I've called go to <em>hold</em> music, then disconnect, it appears they've blocked my number.\nThey clearly no longer wish to communicate with me directly, so I'll have to take this up externally.\n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX response from US Bank, in short, they closed my <em>accounts</em> because I asked them to allow me to <em>dispute</em> the four fraudulent transactions, and they refused to do so."],"product":["Checking or savings <em>account</em>"],"issue":["Managing an <em>account</em>"],"sub_issue":["Problem accessing <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[4.83209,"6942887"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":10,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":10}]}},"product":{"doc_count":10,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"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":3}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting 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":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":10,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"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":1},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","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":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a 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 shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":10,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":9},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":10,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":10}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":10,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":10}]}},"company":{"doc_count":10,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Duvera Billing Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"ProCollect, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Security Credit Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":10,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":10,"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":4}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":10,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3},{"key":"Older American","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":{}}}