{"took":98,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":125,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8362010","_score":24.768373,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/2023, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-16T19:26:21.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"20110","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8362010","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-02-16T19:01:58.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[24.768373,"8362010"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6869531","_score":24.68428,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing about XX/XX/2021, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX ( the Company ), which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-20T10:17:50.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6869531","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-04-20T10:09:13.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[24.68428,"6869531"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9482046","_score":24.140196,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Between XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX - XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) ( I had previously sent this claim before but my advisor has informed me I send some incorrect information )","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-11T20:36:05.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33068","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9482046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-11T20:15:21.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) ( I had previously sent this claim before"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[24.140196,"9482046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17998026","_score":21.675041,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB Representative, I am writing to follow up on my original complaint XXXX XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/year>, regarding Bank of AmericaXXXX decision to block my account in XXXX and again for XXXX weeks in XXXX. \n\nAlthough Bank of America has restored my account access, they have not provided the written explanation I requested for the restrictions. On XX/XX/year>, the bank sent me a document addressing XXXX of Attorney procedures, but it did not explain why my account was blocked. \n\nSince more than XXXX days have passed without a substantive written response, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance in obtaining a clear explanation from Bank of America regarding : XXXX. Why my account was blocked in XXXX and XXXX, and XXXX. Whether any internal reviews, alerts, or compliance actions triggered the restriction. \n\nHaving this information in writing is essential for my records and to ensure that I did not inadvertently violate bank policies that could cause similar issues in the future. \n\nThank you for your assistance. I look forward to your follow-up. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T13:59:34.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17998026","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-12-01T13:45:23.000Z","state":null,"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":["Since more than XXXX days have passed without a substantive written response, I am requesting the CFPBs assistance in obtaining a clear explanation from Bank of America regarding : XXXX. Why my account was blocked in XXXX and XXXX, and XXXX. Whether any internal reviews, alerts, or compliance actions triggered the restriction."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[21.675041,"17998026"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6710788","_score":20.811554,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On or about XX/XX/2022, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America ( BOA ) account to a fraudulent investment firm ( s ).\n\nWhen I informed Bank of America of the fraud I was told that BOA had no responsibility for the process or for protecting my funds.\n\nI believe there is an issue of liability. I ask these questions : 1. Whether BOA did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety?\n\n2. Whether by virtue of BOAs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached? \n3. Whether BOA promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question?\n\n4. Whether BOA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures?\n\n5. Whether BOA owed duties to me, what the scope of those duties was, and whether BOA did not uphold those duties?\n\n6. Whether BOAs conduct was unfair?\n\nWhether BOA has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\n\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed.\n\nAll of the evidence suggests that BOA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-17T19:46:25.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"29414","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6710788","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-17T19:39:43.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Whether BOA promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question?\n\n4. Whether BOA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures?\n\n5. Whether BOA owed duties to me, what the scope of those duties was, and whether BOA did not uphold those duties?\n\n6. Whether BOAs conduct was unfair?\n\nWhether BOA has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[20.811554,"6710788"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10732839","_score":19.434135,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). \nI was looking for a job, so I decided to put my resume on XXXX. Then, someone contacted me and offered me a job. The job description was that they were doing reviews for the company called COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF Page 2 of 6 XX/XX/year> Page 2 of 6 XXXX operating under the domain - XXXX. At first, I thought this was legit, and the scammers convinced me that this was an easy way to earn money, which I needed at the moment. \nFor that reason, I thought this was a good idea. \nI would've never sent the funds if I was aware that this could happen. I didnt know that there are criminals tricking people like this, and the bank did nothing to warn me about this and inform me of the risks involved. \n\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-08T19:49:46.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33173","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10732839","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-11-08T19:39:59.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[19.434135,"10732839"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4376945","_score":17.062405,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"ATTENTION CFPB : Ongoing severe, systemic policy and practice issues requiring additional regulation of, and regulatory actions regarding, American Express XXXX XXXX \n\nXXXX This complaint is regarding new and additional issues that have arisen in connection with American Express 's permanent suspension of my Serve checking account, which they closed on XX/XX/XXXX, and their withholding of over XXXX XXXX dollars in funds from me, which have already been the subject of XXXX prior CFPB complaints : XXXX XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX. To date, I still have not received my funds and American Express continues to withhold them. \n\nXXXX To date, per the request of American ExpressXXXXServe, XXXX XXXX has sent several letters to American ExpressXXXXServe, to the XXXX email address XXXX Exh. A, Exh. B, Exh. XXXX XXXX. American ExpressXXXXServe has twice asked XXXX XXXX to revise the letter, and XXXX XXXX has twice revised the letter and re-sent the letter to American ExpressXXXXServe. XXXX Exh. D, Exh. E ) XXXX To date, American ExpressXXXXServe does not appear to have replied to XXXX XXXX to confirm receipt of the most recent version of the letter, even though they replied to the two prior versions of the letter requesting more information. XXXX Exhs. D, E ) XXXX American ExpressXXXXServe customer service continues to provide misinformation, contradictory information, not keep promises, hang up on me, and apparently not follow the company 's own policies and procedures. I have spent nearly ten to twenty hours on the phone with American ExpressXXXXServe, and almost every call causes me to become irate ; getting answers to even simple questions requires a XXXX XXXX interrogation. \n\nXXXX Here is a summary of all communications that have occurred since the filing of the previous XXXX second ) CFPB compliant in this ongoing matter : XXXX On May XXXX, XXXX, American Express / Serve responded to my prior CFPB Complaint, XXXX ( filed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. In that response, XXXX XXXX in American Express Regulatory Compliance wrote that \" The account funds will be release to Customers Bank within our usual process. '' But she didn't mean it. That was a lie. Her letter suggested that the XXXX XXXX letter had already been received by American ExpressXXXXServe XXXX especially seeing as how it was also forwarded to American Express as part of my prior CFPB complaint ), when she said my funds \" will be release XXXX d ] XXXXXXXX XXXX sic ) - thus, in the context of a regulatory complaint, American Express XXXX Serve made affirmative misrepresentations. \n\nXXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX, in Acct. Protection Services, to attempt to find out what the \" usual process '' is XXXX given that XXXX XXXX referred to a \" usual process '' XXXX. He said, \" I wish I could tell you '' and says I would have to mail a letter to the XXXX XXXX XXXX find out what the usual process is. I asked for supervisor. \n\nXXXX Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX, Supervisor, Acct. Protection Services. She said they will be sending my funds to the originating bank within ten business days. She said that the acct. will remain permanently suspended, rather than being closed. She said there is no notation yet on the acct. in re : the return of the funds, but that once the funds are already returned to originating bank, there will be notation on acct. that already successfully returned funds back to the originating bank. \nThen she said that American ExpressXXXXServe hasn't yet received the letter from XXXX XXXX. Once they receive that, will notate right away. She also said that she would send a request to XXXX for an update on the status of my letter. I said that I would give American Express XXXX Serve a few days to process the request and call back. \n\nXXXX. In addition to the letter having been sent by email by XXXX XXXX to American ExpressXXXXServe, I also attached it to my prior CFPB Complaint XXXX XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX1 ), meaning that it has been forwarded to and received by American Express 's Regulatory Compliance Dept. \n\nXXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX, Acct. Protection Services. He said we did not receive any updates regarding your acct. I asked for a supervisor. \n\nXXXX. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX, XXXX, id XXXX, Acct,. Protection Services. She said that there was a notation on XX/XX/XXXX, that they were not able to receive any letter. ; and no notation of any other mail. She said, if they had received it, there would be notations on the acct. She said they are refusing to accept the document from me. Our system never fails to document, she says. She said, if you really do have a copy you have option to send that to P.O. Box for double checking. \nI asked how the verification XXXX double checking ) process would work if I sent an additional copy as she requested, but she said, \" It depends on our team to verify, I really could not provide further details. '' She said there are no notes on acct. from Regulatory XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with regard to any of my CFPB Complaints. She said she is not sure what that dept. is and that I should only be communicating with their XXXX XXXX . XXXX American Express should not be suggesting to their customers that they do not have rights under federal law to file a CFPB Complaint, even if they do not know what the CFPB is! ) XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called back but line disconnected. \n\n14. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called back and spoke with Ice, Acct. Protection Services. I told Ice that the letter had been sent again and I was copied on the email. He said we have not received the letter. He said it could take up to XXXX hours to process letter. I asked for supervisor. \n\n15. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, a supervisor came on line, but as soon as I started speaking I could no longer hear her. \n\n16. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called and spoke with XXXX, Acct. Protection Services, and asked for supervisor. \n\n17. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX, id # XXXX, Supervisor, Acct. Protection Services. He said he was submitting a request to the compliance team to find out whether the XXXX had been received, and that a response would be received within one to two business days. \n\nXXXX However, as later revealed, there is no indication that XXXX ever sent that request, and therefore he lied and you all did not keep the process made to me. \n\nXXXX XXXX also stated that he saw a notation from XX/XX/XXXX, stating that American Express XXXX Serve was waiting on an \" updated letter. '' This would suggest that a letter had been received but that it needed to be updated. \n\nXXXX In fact, American Express XXXX Serve has already emailed XXXX XXXX twice asking them to revise the letter, including by adding a mailing address to mail the check with my remaining funds. XXXX Exhs. D, E ). And XXXX XXXX has already provided two revised letters XXXX Exhs. B, C ). \n\nXXXX I asked XXXX whether there was documentation of *any* letter having been received. He said no. He agreed that the prior agent who advised me that all correspondence would be documented was correct, and that the letter should have been documented even if it was deemed insufficient. \n\nXXXX. Therefore, either I have been provided misinformation twice about whether all correspondence would be documented ; or American Express XXXX Serve did not follow its own policies and procedures by failing to document correspondence received on my account. XXXX Exhs. A, B, apparently also C ) XXXX. As of this date, Customers Bank has received no reply from American ExpressXXXXServe confirming receipt of the second revised letter. \n\nXXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I called and spoke with XXXX, Acct. Protection Services, but the call was disconnected. \n\nXXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I called and spoke with XXXX, Acct. XXXX Services, and asked for supervisor. \n\nXXXX Then on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX, Acct. Supervisor, id XXXX, Acct. Protection Services. At first, she indicated the updated letter was received : \" We havent received any update aside of notation of confirmation of letter of indemnity and are reviewing. '' I said, oh, you received the updated letter and you're reviewing it? She said, no, contradicting herself, and saying they did not receive it. She said the only recent notation was that I spoke with a supervisor. I said I knew that wasn't true because I knew about a XX/XX/XXXX notation stating that they were waiting on the \" updated letter. '' So, she provided misinformation, but she said it was because she didn't know what \" recent '' meant. She said they should have already received the letter, so lets just wait. \n\nI asked about XXXX request from yesterday and whether there had been a response. She failed to answer my basic question, asked several times, about whether XXXX made a request like he had promised. I said, either XXXX lied or youre lying. \n\nAlso, she said that any letter from XXXX should not have gone to the compliance team and that only Customers Bank can contact XXXX. Also, I told her that previous reps. and supervisors have sent requests to XXXX. and reported a response. So she lied about that too. \n\nThen she confirmed, \" I see previous agents sent request to XXXX requesting whether they received a letter from your bank. The last response was XX/XX/XXXX confirming did not receive. '' After I asked several times whether XXXX sent the request to \" anybody '', noting I don't care if he said it to XXXX, the Compliance Team, or the moon XXXX, she then refused to speak and pretended not to hear me. Then she hung up the phone. \n\nXXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I called back and spoke with XXXX, Acct. Protection Services. \n\nXXXX Then on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX, XXXX, id XXXX, Acct. Protection Services. XXXX said with regard to the funds, we have not received anything from XXXX re the specific concern of documentation on the acct. \n\nXXXX said I will be notified at the same time if theres an update to the progress ; however, when I asked how I would be contacted, she did not know. She said they might contact you through email. If that's true, why haven't I received any communication? I have clear documentation that XXXX XXXX sent a second revised letter to American Express XXXX Serve at XXXX, because I was carbon copied on the email ; but you all inexplicably, outrageously refuse to respond, refuse to document it, and refuse to release my funds. \n\nXXXX admitted that there is no showing documentation that XXXX requested an update to my concern. She added that the agent shouldve kept their promise. \n\nXXXX agreed to send an email to XXXX, and said it will take XXXX business days for a response.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-05-14T18:06:25.000Z","issue":"Trouble using the card","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"30314","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4376945","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2021-05-14T15:29:53.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with direct deposit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Therefore, either I have been provided misinformation twice about whether all correspondence would be documented ; or American Express XXXX Serve did not follow its own policies and procedures by failing to document correspondence received on my account. XXXX Exhs. A, B, apparently also C ) XXXX. As of this date, Customers Bank has received no reply from American ExpressXXXXServe confirming receipt of the second revised letter. \n\nXXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, I called and spoke with XXXX, Acct."],"company":["AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY"]},"sort":[17.062405,"4376945"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9627963","_score":16.634846,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/2024, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and client of Bank of America registered as XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\n\nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than selfinterest. \nIndeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-26T19:34:38.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"18360","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9627963","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-26T18:39:16.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[16.634846,"9627963"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6531870","_score":16.634846,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, VA XXXX Consumer Protection Financial Bureau ( CFPB ) po box 27170 Washington, DC 20038 XX/XX/XXXX This is to complain against Bank of America URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by Metamasktrading which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to the fraudulent investment firm. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank XXXX Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. \n\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple chequebooks; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \n\nB ) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-02T22:16:45.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"234XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6531870","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-02-02T21:51:31.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[16.634846,"6531870"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9667434","_score":16.496643,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than selfinterest. \nIndeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-31T13:11:38.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"208XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9667434","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-31T13:05:58.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[16.496643,"9667434"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10147020","_score":14.565577,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"To : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This is to complain against the Bank of America URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - I sent my complaint letters to Bank of America, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically, and financially. \nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \" bureaucracy '' thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least ; and certainly, does not contribute to my overall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly ( could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation ) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank. \nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and practice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Bank of America never acknowledges my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold Page 2 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. \nPage 3 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple chequebooks; b. suddenly increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nPage 4 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX Conclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nBank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-27T14:13:16.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"91601","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10147020","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-09-17T20:09:27.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold Page 2 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[14.565577,"10147020"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4175290","_score":14.464222,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Discover Bank and it's affiliates ostensibly and according sworn declaration, on XX/XX/XXXX regarding attempted actions declared a male voice was heard. This barbarically insensitive & scurrilously sickening depiction and characterization of what this process server claims or thought they heard, is an outrageous violation of todays accepted sociological, legal, political and ideological standards of practice. Many transgender people suffer terrible discrimination from obtuse and small minded people who pigeon-hole them into compromising portrayals due to the sound, tone and/or inflection of their voices. Many are ostracized as outcasts because they have a male voice. Indeed, no one in todays world can make a statement such as a male voice was heard because there is no way to respectfully, correctly and irrefutably ascertain what gender someone is by the sound of a voice, particularly if they can not see, nor are in the presence of, the person that is being voice-labeled. \n\nThe president issued an Executive Order prohibiting this type of behavior, in pertinent part : Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or XXXX Orientation. XX/XX/XXXX Presidential Actions By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows : Section 1. Policy. Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes. People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to XXXX discrimination. All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or XXXX orientation. \nThese principles are reflected in the Constitution, which promises equal protection of the laws. These principles are also enshrined in our Nations anti-XXXX laws, among them Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ). In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. __XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Supreme Court held that Title VIIs prohibition on XXXX because of... XXXX covers XXXX on the basis of gender identity and XXXX orientation. Under XXXX reasoning, laws that prohibit XXXX XXXX including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended ( 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), the Fair Housing Act, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. ), and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended ( 8 U.S.C. 1522 ), along with their respective implementing regulations prohibit XXXX on the basis of gender identity or XXXX orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary. \nXXXX on the basis of gender identity or XXXX orientation manifests differently for different individuals, and it often overlaps with other forms of prohibited XXXX, including discrimination on the basis of race or XXXX. For example, XXXX XXXX XXXX face unconscionably high levels of workplace XXXX, homelessness, and violence, including fatal violence. \nIt is the policy of my Administration to prevent and combat XXXX on the basis of gender identity or XXXX orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit XXXX on the basis of gender identity or XXXX orientation. It is also the policy of my Administration to address overlapping forms of XXXX. \nSec. 2. Enforcing Prohibitions on XXXX XXXX on the Basis of Gender Identity or XXXX Orientation. ( a ) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable and in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, review all existing orders, regulations, guidance documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions XXXX agency actions ) that : ( i ) were promulgated or are administered by the agency under XXXX XXXX or any other statute or regulation that prohibits XXXX XXXX, including any that relate to the agencys own compliance with such statutes or regulations ; and XXXX ii ) are or XXXX be inconsistent with the policy set forth in section XXXX of this order. \n( b XXXX The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including the Administrative Procedure Act ( 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ), consider whether to revise, suspend, or rescind such agency actions, or promulgate new agency actions, as necessary to fully implement statutes that prohibit XXXX XXXX and the policy set forth in section XXXX of this order. \n( c XXXX The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable, also consider whether there are additional actions that the agency should take to ensure that it is fully implementing the policy set forth in section XXXX of this order. If an agency takes an action described in this subsection or subsection XXXX b ) of this section, it shall seek to ensure that it is accounting for, and taking appropriate steps to combat, overlapping forms of XXXX, such as XXXX on the basis of race or XXXX. \n( d ) Within 100 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall develop, in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, a plan to carry out actions that the agency has identified pursuant to subsections ( b ) and ( c ) of this section, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. \nJOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. THE WHITE HOUSE, XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAccording to this president, lack of gender or transgender identity sensitivity conclusively contributes to extreme prejudicial bias.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-03-01T22:25:32.000Z","issue":"Communication tactics","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"89110","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4175290","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2021-03-01T21:59:45.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Used obscene, profane, or other abusive language"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["to the agencys own compliance with such statutes or regulations ; and XXXX ii ) are or XXXX be inconsistent with the policy set forth in section XXXX of this order"]},"sort":[14.464222,"4175290"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18549671","_score":14.43822,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this formal complaint against Bank of America , N.A . for violations of federal banking law, constitutional due process, and North Carolina and Virginia statutes arising from the improper restraint and/or release of my funds without a valid writ of garnishment and without domestication of an out-of-state judgment. \n\nFinancial Institution : Bank of America, N.A./ Account opened in North Carolina Issue : Improper garnishment / unlawful release of funds Jurisdictional Defects : No valid writ ; no domesticated foreign judgment Statement of Facts Bank of America restrained and/or released funds from my account based on an alleged garnishment tied to an out-of-state judgment that was never domesticated in my state of residence and without a valid writ of garnishment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Despite these defects, Bank of America acted, depriving me of access to my funds. I was never served, as an out of state North Carolina resident. Without due diligence to locate my current address through many various means available to the creditor, they chose to post a notice on an old vacated apartment in Virginia, for almost XXXX years to maintain jurisdiction in Virginia, preventing any due process to include notifying me of the initial hearing. As a result only a default judgement was entered. A writ of garnishment hearing is still pending in Virginia XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. It has not been awarded. \n\nXXXX XXXX, North Carolina, and Virginia Law I. Federal Law Violations XXXX. Due Process U.S. Constitution U.S. Const. amend. XXXX Prohibits deprivation of property without due process of law. Bank of Americas compliance with invalid legal process resulted in the unlawful taking of my property. \n\nB. Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) 12 U.S.C. 5531 & 5536 ( Dodd-Frank Act ) Prohibits unfair acts causing substantial consumer injury that is not reasonably avoidable. \n\nHonoring a non-domesticated judgment and invalid garnishment constitutes an unfair banking practice. \n\nXXXX National Bank Safety and Soundness Obligations 12 C.F.R. 7.4000 et seq. \nRequires national banks to operate in a safe and sound manner and exercise due diligence in responding to legal process. \n\nXXXX Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( If Applicable ) 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( Regulation E ) Requires investigation and correction of unauthorized or erroneous transfers, including improper holds or debits. Bank of America, where my account was opened in North Carolina and reflects my residency in North Carolina, had due diligence to investigate whether a writ of garnishment had been ordered before releasing funds. \n\nXXXX. North Carolina Law Violations XXXX. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX through XXXX North Carolina law requires : Filing of a foreign judgment with the clerk of court Notice to the judgment debtor Opportunity to contest enforcement A foreign judgment has no force or effect in North Carolina until properly filed and notice requirements are met. Bank of America acted without verifying compliance with these statutory requirements. \n\nB. North Carolina Garnishment Restrictions XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \nLimits prejudgment attachment and requires strict statutory compliance. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX North Carolina does not permit general post-judgment wage garnishment, underscoring the necessity of strict adherence to lawful procedures for any account restraint. \n\nXXXX North Carolina Due Process Protections N.C. Const. art. I, XXXX Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property except by the law of the land. On XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America released to XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX the sum of {$1200.00} and put a hold for {$12000.00} in the hopes to release additional sums, without knowing the source of the money or allowing exemptions. \n\nXXXX. Virginia Law Violations XXXX. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX Virginia requires : Filing and docketing of the foreign judgment Notice to the debtor XXXX to contest domestication Absent domestication, a foreign judgment is unenforceable and can not support a writ of garnishment. \n\nXXXX Virginia Garnishment Statutes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX These statutes require : A valid underlying judgment Proper issuance of a writ of fieri facias or garnishment, which is pending at a writ of garnishment hearing on XX/XX/XXXX in Virginia District Court. \n\nStrict compliance with service and jurisdictional requirements Bank of America acted without confirming the existence of a valid, enforceable Virginia writ. \n\nXXXX Virginia Due Process Protections XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Protects against deprivation of property without due process of law. \n\nXXXX Failure to Verify Facial Validity of Legal Process Both federal guidance and state law require banks to ensure that : The issuing court had jurisdiction, in which personal jurisdiction is being contested with the Virginia District Court. \n\nThe judgment was enforceable in the relevant state A valid writ existed at the time of restraint or release Bank of America failed to independently verify these mandatory elements before acting. \n\nHarm to Consumer As a direct result of these violations : My funds were unlawfully restrained and/or released I was deprived of property without lawful authority I suffered financial harm and loss of access to protected funds Requested Relief I respectfully request that the CFPB : Investigate Bank of Americas compliance with federal, North Carolina XXXX and Virginia garnishment and judgment enforcement laws Require a full accounting of all funds restrained or released Order restitution of all improperly garnished funds Require corrective policy and procedural changes Impose supervisory or enforcement action as warranted I am prepared to provide all supporting documentation upon request. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-07T23:23:18.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"274XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18549671","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-01-07T22:17:23.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bank of America acted without verifying compliance with these statutory requirements. \n\nB. North Carolina Garnishment Restrictions XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \nLimits prejudgment attachment and requires strict statutory compliance. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX North Carolina does not permit general post-judgment wage garnishment, underscoring the necessity of strict adherence to lawful procedures for any account restraint. \n\nXXXX North Carolina Due Process Protections N.C. Const. art."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[14.43822,"18549671"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8787147","_score":14.423052,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am sending this request myself to address the inaccuracies on my Credit Reports relating to an adverse account ( showing as a closed account with Bank Of America ) .I have contacted XXXX several times, I have submitted a dispute with them directly several times, however they did not fix the error on my account. \nThey have not complied with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15USC Section 1681i and are continuing to report unverified information, which now given all my attempts to address it directly, is willful negligence and non compliance with federal statutes. \nBank Of America was not given permission to report any personal information with any nonaffiliated third party. I opted out of that over the phone, that was the avenue I was told would suffice. The adverse item on the report should not be on there in the first place. \nSecondly, the report itself is not consistent and incorrect. XXXX consumer report of a few weeks ago show XXXX late payments and the adverse item being on my account until XXXX. However, the most recent report shows XXXX late payments and the adverse item being on my account until XXXX. This in itself already shows the inaccuracy. I have not received information XXXX has used to base all this on either, nor the verification method. \nAccording to the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 USC 1681 section 602 states There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. \nXXXX is a consumer reporting agency and I am the Consumer. \nI have the right to make sure my private information isn't shared, backed by 15 USC 6801 which states It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of those consumers nonpublic personal information. Bank of America is a financial institution by definition of that title. \n15 USC 1681 section 604 a section 2 states that \" In general Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : in accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. '' Bank Of America, the financial institution and the Consumer reporting agency XXXX do not have my consent to furnish this information and they surely do not have my written consent. Any and all consent to XXXX and Bank Of America, whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. \n15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) states that \" A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless- the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. '' Bank Of America never properly informed me of my right to exercise my nondisclosure option. Instead I instructed them over the phone that I opt out of any disclosures to third parties. I was told this would be sufficient to not disclose any information and was told my personal information would not be disclosed to any nonaffiliated third party. \nNot only that 15 USC 1681C ( a ) ( 5 ) states '' Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than XXXX years. '' This account is an adverse item they are reporting again without my permission which is against the law. \n15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( A ) ( 1 ) A states \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. 15 U.S. Code 1681e states '' Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. '' XXXX is not maintaining reasonable procedures.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-16T22:03:16.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32751","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8787147","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-04-16T22:03:15.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Any and all consent to XXXX and Bank Of America, whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. \n15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) states that \" A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless- the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. '' Bank Of America never properly informed me of my right to exercise my nondisclosure option."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[14.423052,"8787147"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4179544","_score":13.634776,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I sent a dispute to the credit reporting agencies on XX/XX/XXXX. According to the FCRA, credit reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, ( Turner v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , 2018 WL 3648282, at *3 ( 6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2018 ) ; Peart v. Shippie, 345 Fed. Appx. 384 ( 11th Cir. 2009 ) ). At this time, Ive provided the information to the credit reporting agency on XXXX and they have failed to conduct that reasonable investigation which indicates a violation of the act ( Andrews v. Equifax Info. Serv., 700 F. Supp. 2d 1276 ( W.D. Wash. 2010 ) ). \nIn my dispute to the credit reporting agency on XX/XX/XXXX, I explained my dispute in detail and requested for an investigation to be conducted regarding the information on my credit profile. In my research, one court noted : [ t ] he standard of conduct by which the agencys action is to be judged is deeply rooted in the law of negligence : what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. ( Poore v. Sterling Testing Sys., Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 557 ( E.D. Ky. 2006 ), citing Bryant v. TRW , Inc., 487 F. Supp. 1234, 1242 ( E.D. Mich. 1980 ), affd, 689 F.2d 72 ( 6th Cir. 1982 ) ). \nI want to see what that the credit reporting agencys procedures are reasonably designed to prevent inaccuracies, but also whether the agency actually followed its own procedures. ( Rothery v. Trans Union , L.L.C., 2006 WL 1720498 ( D. Or. Apr. 6, 2006 ) ). It is not enough that a CRA have procedures in place. The employees must follow those procedures in each and every report they prepare ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). See Williams v. First Advantage LNS Screening Sols., Inc. , 238 F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1346 ( N.D. Fla. 2017 ) ( CRAs failure to following its own procedures for matching consumers with common names was evidence of willfulness ) ). The CRA must not just have reasonable rules, but the employees must strictly follow those internal CRA rules. ( Carroll v. Exxon Co., 434 F. Supp. 557 ( E.D. La. 1977 ). Cf. Smith v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 2704719 ( D. Nev. July 7, 2008 ) ( fact that furnisher ignored its own policy and procedure manual could raise issue of fact as to whether it conducted reasonable investigation ) ). \nIn Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., the Eleventh Circuit explained that a consumer satisfies their initial burden by presenting evidence tending to show that the CRA published a consumer report containing inaccurate data. Ive done this on XX/XX/XXXX. \nPer the settlement with a multistate group of Attorneys General, ( Assurance of Voluntary Compliance/Assurance of Voluntary Discontinuance, In the Matter of Equifax Info. Serv. L.L.C., Experian Info. Sols., Inc. , and TransUnion L.L.C. , IV ( F ) ( 6 ) ( May 20, 2015 ) ), and supervision by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , the system was somewhat reformed, but serious deficiencies remain ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , Automated Injustice Redux : Ten Years after a Key Report, Consumers Are Still Frustrated Trying to Fix Credit Reporting Errors ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ). \nIn my research, according to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), the credit reporting agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file..... before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. Since I mailed the letter, Ive allowed 5 days for mail time to the credit reporting agency which would mean the credit reporting agency, according to my calculations, had until XX/XX/XXXX to provide their response to my investigation. \nThe problem that comes into play is that the bureau has never sent me proof that an actual investigation took place, nor did they show me their method of verification that I requested on XX/XX/XXXX. I also requested verification so that I can see what the credit reporting agency is reviewing before entering inaccurate information onto my credit report. Based on the lack of requested verification from Bank of America, how are 1 ) they allowed to verify the accuracy of what they are reporting to the credit reporting agencies, when what they are reporting are inconsistent with the other credit reporting agencies and 2 ) how are the credit reporting agencies actually conducting a reasonable investigation when they dont have all of the required information based on my dispute?","date_sent_to_company":"2021-03-03T15:49:15.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"94066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4179544","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2021-03-03T15:46:57.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["July 7, 2008 ) ( fact that furnisher ignored its own policy and procedure manual could raise issue of fact as to whether it conducted reasonable investigation ) ). \nIn Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., the Eleventh Circuit explained that a consumer satisfies their initial burden by presenting evidence tending to show that the CRA published a consumer report containing inaccurate data. Ive done this on XX/XX/XXXX."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[13.634776,"4179544"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7152798","_score":12.604359,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, am filing this complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to assure that the rights granted to me under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S. code XXXX are fully enforced. I assert that the creditor ( CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) ) and reporting agencies ( XXXX, XXXX ) have directly violated the provisions of the FCRA by the specifics of each instance of violation are outlined below, along with specific citations of Title 15 of USC Code, 1681 and 6802, as well as 12 CFR where I believe my rights have been violated. I will also provide a PDF file of this text, in the supporting documents section, for greater clarity and clearer formatting. \n\nAs a consumer, I have suffered from the negative, deleterious effects of these infractions and I hence request punitive damages and reparations be provided to me to remunerate my losses, which I will summarize in an attached PDF file, titled CFPB Consumer Finance Protection BureauXXXXCBNA_CITIBANK-NORTH AMERICA_XXXX-2023.pdf ( This Document ) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Chapter 41 > Subchapter III 1681 Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting ( 4 ) states : There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. \nMy assertion is that they have violated this by the detailed issues/violations set forth in the following : ISSUE VIOLATION ( 1 ) 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( b ) Reasonable procedures states : It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. \n\nMy assertion is that their process has in no way been fair and equitable to me, the consumer, specifically with regard to the confidentiality, for these items are now a matter of public record, without my prior knowledge or agreement. \n\n15 U.S. Code 1681 : This represents 1 violation per each of the 3 reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ( 3 total ) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ISSUE VIOLATION ( 2 ) XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are consumer reporting agencies and I am the Consumer. I assert that I have the right to have assurance that my private information is not shared- which is backed by : 15 USC 6801 ( a ) Privacy obligation policy which states : It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. \nIt is also backed by Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S. Code 552a ) Records maintained on individuals which states ( t ) ( 1 ) Effect of Other Laws.-No agency shall rely on any exemption contained in section 552 of this title to withhold from an individual any record which is otherwise accessible to such individual under the provisions of this section. \n\n( 4 ) the term record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph ; CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) is a financial institution by definition under Title 15 USC 6801 ( a ). \nMy assertion is that they have violated privacy obligation policy by making these reports, which are now publicly available, and have not protected my security and confidentiality. \n\nThis represents ( 4 ) violations : 1 with XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and 3 with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX of XXXX ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ISSUE VIOLATION ( 3 ) Further, under 15 USC 6802 Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements states : Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title. \nMy assertion is that CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) has reported to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX on XXXX of XXXX and have done so without my written consent. \nThis represents ( 4 ) violations by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ). \n\nISSUE VIOLATION ( 4 ) 15 USC 1681 section 604 ( a ) section 2 states that : In general Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : in accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. \nCBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) the financial institution and the Consumer reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX the Reporting Agencies do not have my consent to furnish this information and they surely do not have my written consent. \n\nCBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) has reported to XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX This represents ( 4 ) violations by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) Any and all consent to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. ( See attached Opt-out supporting documents ) Also 12 CFR 1016.7 states that A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time.\n\nI am opting out of reporting services from the 3 Credit Reporting Bureaus. See supporting documentation in the attachments. \n___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ISSUE VIOLATION ( 5 ) Further, 15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( 1 ) states that : A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. \nCBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) never informed me of my right to exercise my nondisclosure option under any of these XXXX preceding options. \nThis represents ( 1 ) violations by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ISSUE VIOLATION ( 6 ) Not only that, but also 15 USC 1681C ( a ) Information excluded from consumer reports ( 5 ) states Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : ( 5 ) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.\n\nThis reporting is an adverse item they are reporting again without my permission which is against the law. \nCBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) has reported these adverse items to XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX and to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : XXXX of XXXX This represents ( 4 ) violations by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ISSUE VIOLATION ( 7A ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( l ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors states A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \n\nI have reason to believe this information is innacurate, and CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) has not provided me the chance to rebut their assertions that the information is accurate. \n\nCBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) has reported these adverse items to XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX and to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX This represents ( 4 ) violations by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) ISSUE VIOLATION ( 7B ) CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) has clearly not done their diligence in communicating with me in writing to confirm the accuracy of their information. \nThis represents ( 1 ) violations by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ISSUE VIOLATION ( 8 ) 5 U.S. Code 1681e ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users states : Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. \n\nI assert that XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX are in fact not maintaining reasonable procedures. \nThis represents 1 violations each ( 3 total ) by each of these 3 reporting agencies.\n\n___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ISSUE VIOLATION ( 9 ) 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( b ) states : Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : ( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. \nThe consumer reporting agencies of XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX have never provided me with such written instructions. By violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title.\n\nThis represents 1 violations each ( 3 total ) by each of these 3 reporting agencies. \n___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ On the CFPB complaint next screen What would be a fair resolution to this issue? \nImmediate deletion of all account negative reporting and XXXXXXXX XXXX $ per violation of the FCRA and 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance My accounting of the totals follows in an attached PDF file called XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX_CBNA ( CITIBANK, NORTH AMERICA ) _ViolationAccounting_2023-06-22_15-57-58.pdf","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-22T22:25:52.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"811XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7152798","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-06-22T22:04:33.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) has reported to XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX This represents ( 4 ) violations by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) Any and all consent to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX by CBNA ( CITIBANK , NORTH AMERICA ) whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. ( See attached Opt-out supporting documents ) Also 12 CFR 1016.7 states that A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time."]},"sort":[12.604359,"7152798"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9561046","_score":12.430641,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I wish to practice my right as a customer of Bank of America to use your organisation's service, seeking a\nformal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Bank of America.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Bank of America\nrespecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by\ntaking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent\ncriminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof Bank of America to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They\nsell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains\na traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Bank of America, I found their communication ineffective, which\nfurther hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are\nstruggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is\npresenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and\nregulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or abouXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fell victim to a multi-layered scam\noperation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule,\nlaw, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct,\nthat may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of\nAmericas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me\nand if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in\nquestion despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America\nwas in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to\nmyself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi)\nwhether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power\nthe ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn\na blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other\nwords, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense\nin which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the\nevidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious\ndangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nBank of Americas Position:\nBank of America wrote in a letter The amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your\ncomplaint is an accumulation of several transactions that were sent to the three previously mentioned\nmerchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the transactions posted correctly\nto your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds.\nWe can only recommend that you contact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nRefuting Bank of Americas arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nBank of Americas position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation\nto protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches\nare doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Bank of Americas view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten\nlaws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight,\nwhen taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Bank of America morally obligated\nto do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Bank of America encounter\nthe suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the\ndegree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Bank of\nAmerica.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Bank of America carefully, and it unfortunately provides no\nresponse to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the\nresources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as\nmyself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had\na duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Bank of America, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some\nof the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything\nother than its own interests.\nIt is Bank of America here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that\nis to say, that Bank of America adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue\ngiven its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Bank of America that claims that the damages which\nI have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed\ndegree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX XXXX capacity, experience,\nexpertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Bank of Americas indisputable overriding\npurpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a\nbalance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect\nconsumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set\nup a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud\nmay be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam\nwith the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might\noccur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might\nbe at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent\nor minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets\nout systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point,\nit says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies\nthat are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised\npayments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions\nwhose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity\nof the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal\njustification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer\nto verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or\ndetected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nBank of America are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wideranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not\nsufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons\nby which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable\nand well-justified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence\nof such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers\nwho have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively\ncontributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Bank of America adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly\ndetailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,\nafter careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly\nunfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly\nmalevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nI would also like to highlight the stark difference in how complaints are handled between Bank of America\nand XXXX XXXX Bank of America's handling of the situation was notably inadequate. They failed to properly\nacknowledge the issues I faced and did not provide the necessary support to recover my funds. In contrast,\nPNC Bank managed the situation with exemplary care. They not only acknowledged everything I had been\nthrough but also took proactive steps to assist me in recovering my funds. This level of customer service\nand attention to detail speaks volumes about XXXX XXXX commitment to their clients and their ability to\neffectively address and resolve issues.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this\nconnection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Bank of Americas business conduct\nwas insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. Bank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice \nthat is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers\nis inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result\nof the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that Bank of America pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these\nthingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America\nBank of America Corporate Center, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE\nSubjectXXXX XXXX XXXX complaint to XXXX XXXX XXXX: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nI have now reviewed your response dated XXXX XXXX XXXX Based on my review, I do not believe you have acted fairly, let alone reasonably.\nThe investigatory processes appear to disfavour the victim, and there is a lack of knowledge of good industry practice as well as a lack of\ncare/compassion towards me as the customer.\nYour response is, to say the least, extremely inadequate. It is based on a blatantly incorrect understanding of what I have maintained.\nWhat amazes me is just how difficult it has been to find soundness in it. Your analysis, for instance, does not engage with the actual\nhistory of my account and a significant portion of related data that may contradict your position has been conveniently ignored.\nSeemingly, in arriving at a decision in relation to the issue I raised, no consideration was given to a) Duty of care in relation to the fact\nthat I am the victim of a financial crime and b) The responsibility that your institution hold to protect its clients from such crimes.\nI find your rejection incredibly offensive and perplexing. In all honesty, if you could provide me with any kind of a logical coherent\naccount that could reconcile the evident fact of the multiple warning signals as well as my susceptibility relating to this matter with the\nexistence of a sound anti-fraud program, then I would absolutely appreciate your point of view.\nGiven the variety of similar cases involving various types of scams, you should be acutely aware of this problem for society, but your\nsuperficial (and perhaps convenient) answer to it, simply put, is that blameless victims must be held accountable for their misfortune.\nBecause your argument presumably aims at self-protection rather than the truth, we can have no confidence that your rejection is\nultimately just, fair, or reasonable. It is time to adopt a more realistic, long-term attitude towards unavoidable scenarios of this kind,\nstarting from the justifiable assumption that such injured parties did not in the least contribute to (and thus certainly should not bear\nresponsibility for) their own victimisation.\nMisplaced Accountability:\nScam victims have relatively little freedom of reactivity; under such circumstances, they respond immediately, instinctively, and\ninvariably to the specific demands of the perpetrator. Being able to consciously refrain from reacting in such a way is extremely difficult\nand sometimes impossible. Unwittingly giving off signals that mark us as easy targets, is by no means the same as being grossly\nnegligent, in view of the increasingly sophisticated scams, which continue to be a pervasive problem in society.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimisation period; I was also relatively financially illiterate\nand very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nSince this time, having lost all of my savings to these fraudulent companies, I have learnt an enormous amount about the scope of these\ncriminal endeavours and also about how the financial services sector operates internationally.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast,\nmostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are\npeople who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping\nthe uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been\nlost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a perpetrator who grooms his victim whilst at the same time assaults him/her and\nprevents them from escaping.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must\ntherefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as\nthe one described herein.\nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim:\nScrutiny shows that your claims are defective as an endeavour to thoroughly investigate the accessible facts; let alone as an attempt to\nportray an accurate image respecting the role of banks in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organisations scope of services, and\nvarious other details in connection with the duties that emerge out of our relationship, particularly in the context of the broader historical\ncircumstances. The emphasis that you have placed on the incredibly insufficient diligence checks as well as the inconsequential\nreferences and the unidimensional thinking, not only gives a skewed picture of my fundamental rights as your customer, but also\npresents a poor blueprint for understanding the issue discussed in a well-reasoned and objective manner, and an even poorer guide to\ndictate whether there has been, as suggested, wrongdoing on your part.\nThe amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your complaint is an accumulation of several transactions that\nwere sent to the three previously mentioned merchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the\ntransactions posted correctly to your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds. We can only recommend that you\ncontact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nConcerning the \"authorisation\" argument, it can be cast as an incompatibility between statements such as \"the transaction has been\nauthorised\" and \"the duty of care has been breached\". However, you have not shown that both statements are logically incompatible or\nimprobable with respect to each other. They are not mutually exclusive in the broader context.\nThe view that I have authorised the transaction and therefore fully liable is dangerously reductive--various aspects relating to the breach\nof the duty of care have been marginalised. Clearly there are more facts to be taken into account than at first appears.\nI notice that your account of the subject matter depends crucially on the supposed lack of obligation which is perhaps the most obscure\npoint in your argument. But regardless, your views give us reason to contemplate as well whether your societal role (which arguably\nrenders you capable of preventing plausibly foreseeable damages such as the one set forth herein) should trigger the appropriate moral\nobligations rather than unscrupulous beliefs which are inherently unjust, flagrantly unfair and merely conducive to your own self-interest\nand welfare. Likewise, you unknowingly oppose the emergent notion that I was no luckier in blindly placing faith in your\nestablishments competence than I would have been in not doing so.\nYou have blithely ruled out your obligation herein by undermining reasoning strategies aimed at justice and fairness; remarkably, you\nhave deliberately avoided the uncomfortable yet inevitable conclusion that in this instance you are to be held accountable, by narrowly\nholding that a financial institution's role in society is merely to \"act upon the customer's instruction.\" This sort of reductionist view has\nlong since been exposed as inadequate among world-leading, key financial regulatory authorities.\nIt is intuitively clear that you have not reckoned with the remarkable range of indispensable functions, which your organisation should\nperform for the community in a manner that is both stable and sustainable. It is moreover blatantly apparent, that, instead of being\nattuned more than ever to the importance of apprehending the pernicious influences of your idleness and non-intervention amidst an\ninexorable rise of financial fraud, you are unwarrantably hiding behind specious arguments based on thin assumptions, inadequate\nresearch, poor evidence, and sloppy reasoning. It is a whole lot better and far more effective to do the right thing, rather than the most\nprofitable one thereby compromising the integrity of your enterprise. I suggest that by following adequate protocols aimed at mutual\nbenefits (rather than satisfaction of personal goals), disadvantaged consumers will thrive rather than suffer, with a plethora of positive\nfeedback propagating far and wide as a result.\nI demand an investigation to bring to light additional relevant evidence that I am persuaded will support my view. It is hereby proposed\nthat your motivations may adversely affect reasoning through overreliance on a biased set of processes. As a substitute for sub-optimally\nrelying on a set of gross oversimplifications (which frustratingly and inexorably lead us to draw erroneous conclusions), we should,\ninstead, systematically account for the totality of the evidence howsoever unpalatable by even-handedly relying on complex and\nmultifactorial reasoning. The demand for sound reasoning is essentially a demand for ultimate explanation, and is linked with a complete\nunderstanding of the pronounced role that you played in permitting my injuries herein\nIn light of the above, it is patently clear that your train of thought is fatally flawed and totally unsupported. You have failed to come up\nwith positive evidence to support your claims, that is, to show beyond any reasonable doubt that irrespective of your conduct, my\nvictimization was an inevitable outcome. On the other hand, I have provided substantial evidence to support the claim that you could\nhave done more to safeguard my funds. Not only have you let me down, but you have also failed to admit that you could and should\nhave done better.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). Your\nresponse has limited the discussion narrowly to highly technical terms, and insufficient attention has been given to your organizational\ndysfunctions from a common-sense point of view. It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various riskbased\nexamination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous\noutcome. It is wildly incorrect to assume that you have exercised your duties by doing the minimum necessary. You have not exercised\nyour duties at all, rather, many of your underlying assumptions have simply gone unquestioned. Instead of being receptive to\nconstructive criticism and improving yourself, you ultimately seek to blame your customers thus absolving yourself of any\nresponsibility.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus\nviolate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. To the extent to\nwhich you were inconsistent therewith, you are liable for damages. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me as a customer and other entities\nassociated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including vulnerability, identification and research\nof high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of unusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud programs, and other associated policies\nand procedures.\nIt is incumbent upon financial institutions to carefully assess all information available about their customers, including vulnerability,\nneeds and customer type. There is a wide range of transactions which, although legitimate, should raise a red flag simply because they\nare inconsistent with the customers typical and ordinary activity. What constitutes reasonable grounds to flag transactions varies\naccording to the facts and circumstances of the particular matter being investigated and the effectiveness of the anti-fraud processes.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organisation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If\nyou don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable\nif the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or\nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the\nindividual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm, these recommendations are established as a\ngeneral principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for\nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems\nare developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through\nauthorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that\nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount,\ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal\nmarket parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial\nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-19T23:38:35.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"08807","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9561046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-19T23:25:30.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["duty to the me\nand if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in\nquestion despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America\nwas in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to\nmyself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi)\nwhether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[12.430641,"9561046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9010315","_score":11.934,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX United States The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Washington , DC XXXX XX/XX/year> WITHOUT PREJUDICE Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to CFPB. \nCase Reference : XXXX Upon examining the response from BoA on XX/XX/year>, I have concluded that it is inadequate and unjust. \nThe investigation process appears to be biased against me as the victim, and lacks knowledge of good industry practices and compassion towards me as a customer. \nYour response seems to be based on a flawed understanding of my situation, and crucial information that contradicts your position. The decision made in relation to the issue I raised did not consider my vulnerability as a victim of financial crime and BoA 's responsibility to protect its clients from such crimes. \nFinancial institutions have a duty to conduct business with due skill, care, and diligence, and BoA 's subpar intervention in my case clearly falls short of reasonable business conduct. \nI am not looking for a debate about what could have been done, but rather a transparent, evidence-based investigation that considers my vulnerability, the sophistication of the scam, the shortcomings of XXXX to identify fraudulent companies, and BoA 's failure to identify suspicious transactions in a timely manner. \nWhen determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether BoA neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties to me, the scope of those duties, and whether they failed to uphold them ; whether their conduct was unfair ; and whether they have the ability and should compensate me for the harm that has occurred. \nFurthermore, it is completely preposterous that Bank of America stated in their statement that they would be happy to provide me with a provisional credit for the transactions of {$6.00} and {$11.00}. If I had known about the risks, which Bank of America never informed me about, I never would have sent the money. \n\nBank of America would have seen that this is a fraud if they had questioned me further at the time and asked how I had originally gotten in touch with this fraudster. \nThese kinds of frauds, in my opinion, happen on a daily basis, and financial institutions are more aware than their clients that this might happen to them. \nI hope that you will take these key points into account to reach a fair outcome. \n\nBoA had sufficient information available to justify and had the capability of stopping these payments altogether, but chose not to. \nXXXX. Educate clients : Banks can provide educational resources to their clients to help them identify and avoid scams. \nThis can include tips on how to recognize phishing emails, how to protect personal information, and how to avoid fraudulent investment schemes. \nXXXX. Implement security measures : Banks should have robust security measures in place, such as multi-factor authentication, to prevent unauthorized access to client accounts. They should also regularly monitor client accounts for any suspicious activity and notify clients immediately if any suspicious activity is detected. \nXXXX. Increase fraud detection : Banks should invest in advanced fraud detection systems to detect and prevent scams. This can include using artificial intelligence and machine learning to identify patterns of fraudulent activity. \nXXXX. Collaborate with law enforcement : Banks can work with law enforcement agencies to identify and prosecute scammers. They can also share information about scams to help prevent future incidents. \nXXXX. Provide immediate assistance : In the event that a client falls victim to a scam, banks should provide immediate assistance to help mitigate the impact. This can include freezing accounts, cancelling transactions, and providing financial support to clients. \nMisplaced Accountability : Victims of scams are often limited in their ability to react, as they instinctively and immediately respond to the demands of the perpetrator. It can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consciously refrain from such reactions. Giving off signals that make us vulnerable to these schemes is not the same as being grossly negligent, given the increasingly sophisticated nature of scams that are pervasive in society. \nIn my case, personal circumstances made me particularly vulnerable during the victimization period, as I was financially illiterate and inexperienced in the finance sector. This made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field. Since then, I have gained a greater understanding of the scope and nature of these crimes and the operations of the financial services sector on an international level. \nFinancial institutions are well aware of the risks posed by these crimes to their clients, who may have limited knowledge of these dangers. It is important to note that victims of scams are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions, but rather individuals who have been tricked, lied to, deceived, and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated and aggressive sales techniques can trap unsuspecting victims who are unable to escape until most or all of their funds have been lost or stolen by the scammers. A good comparison is to a perpetrator who \" grooms '' their victim while also assaulting them and preventing them from escaping. \nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim : Upon scrutiny, it is evident that your claims are flawed in attempting to thoroughly investigate the available facts, let alone provide an accurate portrayal of the role of Financial Institutions in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organization 's services, and other pertinent details regarding our relationship and its historical context. By focusing on inadequate due diligence checks, inconsequential references, and one-dimensional thinking, you present a distorted view of my fundamental rights as a customer, and offer a poor model for comprehending the issue in a well-reasoned and objective manner. \nThis approach also serves as a deficient guide to determining whether any wrongdoing occurred on your part. \nRegarding the \" authorization '' argument, you argue that statements such as \" the transaction has been authorized '' and \" the duty of care has been breached '' are incompatible. However, you have not demonstrated that these statements are logically contradictory or improbable with regard to each other. \nThey are not mutually exclusive when considered in the broader context. \nThe view that my authorization of the transaction renders me fully liable oversimplifies the situation and overlooks other relevant factors related to the breach of duty of care. Clearly, there are additional facts that must be taken into account beyond what initially appears. \nConclusion : Finally, as the foregoing analysis shows, BoAs grossly negligent failure to stop the fraud in question played a key role in causing my damages. BoA compounded such failures by making improper factual determinations and wrongfully rejecting the allegations made. BoAs failure to propose remedial action to achieve a just outcome in my case, as well as their ineffective assistance has resulted in my incurring staggering losses and runs contrary to their purported longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity and fairness of the market against any abuses. \nI formally request, in the name of justice as well as the points made above, that my case proceed with mediation/arbitration so that no party ends up suffering as a result of unjust actions and the refusal of anyone to take the basic responsibilities for enabling this to happen/doing nothing to set things right. \nThe information provided should meet the criteria for these reconsiderations. \nIf despite these objections, my concerns are not appropriately taken into consideration and are instead simply dismissed, you can be assured that alternative action will be taken, and I will make it a point to share our exchanges with the public so that at least pre-emptive action can be taken by other potential clients to avoid any dealings with organizations where customer security is not a priority. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-16T16:12:57.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"339XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9010315","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-05-14T19:35:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether BoA neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties to me,"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[11.934,"9010315"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22596398","_score":11.66707,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America , N.A .\n\nAttention : Notice of Error and Request for Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Counsels - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX .\n\nBank of Americas XX/XX/XXXX letter is a DOE and legally deficient, factually incomplete, and deliberately evasive. Bank of America, can not simultaneously claim that their response is provided under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, while also arguing that the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence forwarded by XXXX XXXX was not a proper Notice of Error or Request for Information because it was not sent to your designated address. Regulation X does not permit a servicer to invoke its protections when convenient and disclaim its obligations when inconvenient.\n\nYour letter repeatedly states that no errors were identified and no corrections are required. These conclusory assertions are insufficient. You fail to describe the scope of any investigation performed, the systems or custodians searched, the retention policies applied, or the specific documents relied upon for each determination.\n\nA bare conclusion does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X.\n\nError 1 HOA Payment Misapplication Your claim that all payments were applied correctly and that you have no record of any HOA payment misapplication is not credible. Bank of America has no authority to decide whether HOA payment errors occurred in this account. The U.S. government, via XXXX XXXX and other federal agencies, hired a third party who determined who has already conducted an audit and identified errors in the handling of the HOA and on this loan. That finding alone is supersedes Bank of America and it is sufficient to establish that servicing errors took place. Bank of America, with all their law firms, is not a regulatory agency and can not simply override or ignore a government audit by issuing a self-serving statement that it found no error.\n\nMoreover, the Loan History Statement you attached does not address the critical period when the property was under the control of your preservation contractors, ( Who admitted the locks were changed without authorization, and when the property was severely damaged.\n\nBank of America generated an AI letter as the HOA matter does not pertain to Bank of America. Furthermore, Bank of America, does not have access to accounting information nevertheless any ledger, accounting statement, or distribution record showing the actual amounts paid to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from the foreclosure sale proceeds, or how those amounts were credited against the loan or judgment and if Bank of America does have HOA information, it will be interesting to know how it was obtained.\n\nIt is now well documented that during this period, major banks, including through their relationship with XXXX XXXX, colluded with homeowners associations to drive foreclosures and extract payments from distressed homeowners. \nBank of America blanket denial, combined with the refusal to produce the actual HOA distribution records from the sale, raises serious questions about whether Bank of America is attempting to conceal the full extent of the payment misapplication and the improper benefit the Association received from the defective foreclosure process.\n\nA bare assertion that all payments were applied correctly without producing the underlying HOA ledgers, sale proceeds distribution records, or any explanation of how the government audit findings were considered does not constitute a reasonable investigation under Regulation X and the sole mentioned of it, means that an audit is merited. Error 2 Property Preservation Damage and Insurance Proceeds Bank of America state that property preservation activities were conducted in accordance with standard servicing practices and that Bank of America have no record of any insurance claims or proceeds. This response is inadequate. Your own preservation contractors caused damage to the property. One of your agents changed the locks and installed a lock-box without authorization, after which appliances and personal property were removed. The XXXX XXXX Police Department documented this incident. Your claim that you have no record of insurance claims does not address the damage caused by your own agents while the property remained legally mine. You have also failed to identify the systems searched or provide any preservation vendor records, invoices, or communications.\n\nError 3 Foreclosure Sale Based on Depressed Valuation You claim the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with applicable law and that the valuation was based on the condition of the property at the time of appraisal. You do not address the XX/XX/XXXX court order that specifically noted PROPERTY DAMAGE and directed Bank of America to repair the property within thirty days. You also ignore contemporaneous appraisals showing the damaged property was valued at approximately {$100000.00} less than half the judgment amount. You can not damage the property, ignore a court repair order, sell it in that condition, and then claim the valuation was accurate. You have provided no valuation analysis, property-condition evidence, or preservation records tied to the valuation.\n\nError 4 DOJ Enforcement Action Review and Exclusion from Settlements Bank of America state that the loan was not identified for review under any DOJ enforcement action or settlement. Bank of America response is not only disingenuous, but it also misleading.\n\nIn addition to the 2012 California-specific robo-signing case ( Case No. XXXX ), there were several major nationwide settlements involving Bank of America and its predecessor, XXXX. \nIn XXXX, the Department of Justice entered into its largest residential fair lending settlement in history against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( then owned by Bank of America ) in the Central District of XXXX. The {$330.00} XXXX settlement addressed systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. Plaintiff was excluded from any relief under this settlement despite extensive prior communications with Bank of America. \nIn XXXX, Bank of America, along with other major servicers, entered into the {$25.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement resolving widespread foreclosure and servicing abuses, including robo-signing. Bank of America paid the largest share of this settlement. Plaintiff was again excluded from any borrower relief.\n\nBetween XXXX and XXXX, Bank of America paid approximately {$16.00} XXXX to resolve Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities claims. Plaintiff received no compensation or remediation under any of these agreements, despite the clear overlap between the misconduct addressed in those settlements and the facts of her foreclosure, property damage, confirmation defects, and post-sale accounting issues.\n\nBank of America statement that the loan was not identified for review does not change the fact that Plaintiff was systematically excluded from relief programs designed to address the very categories of harm she suffered.\n\nIncomplete Foreclosure Accounting and Record Destruction Bank of America state that records concerning the distribution of foreclosure proceeds and the VA net-value acquisition calculation are no longer retained in your archival system. You provide only a partial Loan History Statement. You have not demonstrated that you conducted a reasonable search of all servicer files, foreclosure files, legal files, guaranty-claim files, or vendor files. Simply claiming records are purged or may be with the VA does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X or in active litigation. Bank of America have also failed to provide document retention policy, purge dates, or an affidavit from a records custodian.\n\nCredit Reporting Response You state that the loan is no longer being reported to consumer reporting agencies and that prior reporting was accurate when made. This is insufficient. You have not identified what was actually reported, when it was reported, to which agencies, or what documents you reviewed to conclude the reporting was accurate and how negatively impacted and impacts my credit- despite that U. S. Federal agencies found these errors. A conclusory statement does not constitute a reasonable investigation.\n\nDemand for Supplemental Response Bank of America must supplement its response within ten ( 10 ) business days and provide the following : All documents reviewed or relied upon for each no error determination.\n\nThe complete foreclosure sale accounting, including distribution of proceeds and any VA net-value calculations.\n\nAll property preservation vendor records, invoices, work orders, and communications.\n\nAll HOA ledgers and records showing amounts paid from sale proceeds and how they were credited.\n\nAll insurance claim and proceeds records ( or a sworn explanation if none exist ) .All credit reporting history for this loan.\n\nA request-by-request explanation, tied to a specific Regulation X exception, for every document withheld as over-broad, burdensome, irrelevant, privileged, or outside your possession.\n\nFailure to provide a complete and compliant supplemental response will be treated as continued noncompliance with Regulation X and as evidence of bad faith.\n\nNothing in this letter waives any rights, claims, objections, remedies, or damages. All prior reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Notice of Fiduciary and Ethical Obligations to XXXX XXXX XXXX This addemdum is directed to you in your capacity as counsel for Bank of America , N.A . in connection with the above-referenced loan and property. You are hereby placed on formal notice of your fiduciary duties and ethical obligations as an officer of the court. It appears that AI drafted a letter with matters that do not pertain to Bank of America.\n\nAs an attorney representing a client in matters involving federal statutes, ongoing litigation, and regulatory compliance, you owe duties that extend beyond mere advocacy for your client. These include : Duty of Candor to the Tribunal Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, and the corresponding rules adopted by the jurisdictions in which you practice, you have an affirmative duty to be candid with courts and to correct false or misleading statements made to any tribunal.\n\nThis duty continues even after a representation has concluded if you later learn that false evidence or statements were presented.\n\nDuty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud or Misrepresentation You may not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third party, nor may you assist a client in conduct that you know is criminal or fraudulent. This includes responses to formal regulatory requests under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X.\n\nDuty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation When responding to a borrowers Notice of Error or Request for Information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, counsel has an obligation to ensure that the servicer has conducted a reasonable search and that the response is accurate and complete. A response that relies on conclusory statements while withholding material records does not satisfy this duty. \n\nDuty as an XXXX of the XXXX You are not merely a private advocate. You are an XXXX of the legal system with a special responsibility for the quality of justice. This includes the obligation to refrain from conduct that undermines the integrity of judicial or administrative processes, including the concealment of material information or the making of representations that are inconsistent with known facts in the record. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations. These include contradictory positions regarding the applicability of Regulation X, conclusory no error findings unsupported by identified records, failure to produce critical accounting and distribution documents from the foreclosure sale, and incomplete or evasive responses regarding property preservation, HOA payments, and credit reporting.\n\nYou are further advised that continued reliance on prior responses, blanket assertions that records have been purged, or deflection of responsibility to other entities ( such as the VA ) without a demonstrated reasonable search of all relevant files may constitute a violation of your ethical duties, particularly in light of the government audit findings and the documented internal concerns regarding the foreclosure and title issues.\n\nThis letter serves as formal notice that any further deficient or misleading responses may be used as evidence of bad faith and may be brought to the attention of the appropriate courts, regulatory bodies, and disciplinary authorities.\n\nNothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies available to me. All prior objections, demands, and reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nI expect a complete and compliant supplemental response within the timeframe previously demanded. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Issue in XXXX Letter, Why Its an Error, Regulation/ Legal Problem 1 ) Contradictory position on Regulation X, '' They claim the response is under 1024.35 & 1024.36, but then say your XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter ( forwarded by XXXX ) was not a proper RESPA request because it wasnt sent to the designated address. '' You can not invoke the protections of Regulation X while simultaneously disclaiming its obligations. This is a classic bad-faith tactic.\n\n2 ) Conclusory no error findings, '' They repeatedly say no errors were identified without describing what investigation was done, which systems were searched, or which documents were reviewed. \", Regulation X requires a reasonable investigation. A bare conclusion is insufficient ( see XXXX XXXX Bank of America ). \n\n3 ) Failure to identify relied-upon documents, They never clearly list what records they actually reviewed for each no error determination., Required under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) and 1024.36 ( d ).\n\n4 ) Global / blanket objections, '' They make a broad statement that some requests are overbroad, burdensome, or not in their possession without tying each objection to specific requests. \", Regulation X requires them to respond to the reasonably identifiable portion and explain each withholding specifically.\n\n5 ) Incomplete foreclosure accounting, '' They only gave a partial Loan History Statement and claimed records of foreclosure proceeds distribution and VA net-value calculation are no longer retained. They did not prove they searched all relevant files ( servicing, legal, foreclosure, vendor ). \", This is not a reasonable search. They also failed to provide retention policy or custodian affidavit.\n\n6 ) VA record deflection, They say VA net-value records may have been maintained by the VA without showing they searched their own guaranty-claim files or vendor files., XXXX ( as servicer ) had obligations to maintain and produce these records.\n\n7 ) Weak valuation response ( Error 3 ), '' They claim the sale was proper and valuation was accurate, but completely ignore the XX/XX/XXXX court order ( PROPERTY DAMAGE ) and the XX/XX/XXXX appraisals showing ~ $ XXXX value. \", They must address the specific evidence you raised.\n\n8 ) Misleading settlement response ( Error 4 ), They say the loan was not identified for any settlement. This is misleading because you were excluded from the XXXX XXXX Fair Lending Settlement and the XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement despite the nature of your claims., They are downplaying the pattern of exclusion.\n\n9 ) Credit reporting response is conclusory, '' They say the loan is no longer reported and prior reporting was accurate when made without identifying what was reported, when, or to which bureaus. \", This does not constitute a proper investigation or correction under FCRA or RESPA.\n\n10 ) Record destruction without justification, \" They admit BPOs and old escrow statements were purged but provide no retention policy, purge dates, or proof of reasonable search before destruction ( especially after litigation was foreseeable ). \", This can support spoliation arguments.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-27T00:09:47.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"21209","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22596398","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-26T23:46:12.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[11.66707,"22596398"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2465993","_score":11.554585,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have contacted Ba nk of America and requested FCRA required docs to report the account to the CRA 's and they have claimed to investigate and are claiming they are reporting accurately and in compliance to FCRA credit reporting laws. THIS IS UNTRUE AND ILLEGAL. The procedures to report ANY account have NOT been abided by or done in accordance to ALL credit reporting laws! See the letter I sent them and they continue to knowingly and willfully reporting ILLEGALLY. I am making official writ notice to you today, even right now and right here in a civilly recognized certified declaration of composed challenge as I, in my rights to do such, compel or even adamantly demand for your requisite check to ensure you are performing complaint reporting, the compliance of what you are reporting and the compliance of how these allegations are being mysteriously reported by whom you transferred this certain injurious or even illegal damning allegations that are to date severely deficient of adequate proof to be fully all : ( 1 ) true, ( 2 ) fully correct, ( 3 ) fully complete, ( 4 ) within federal timeliness, and ( 5 ) to be of my lawful ownership of responsibility ( 6 ) as well as in agreement to every and one even each any and or all of the mandates/ obligations/regulations/and laws of my state as well as any and all pertinent federal laws, whether noted here or not regardless of your willful disregard of or the ignorance thereof. This letter is in part due to possibly even an response to the likely infringing communications I received from a collector representing your agency very recently, beit a phone call/fax/mail or otherwise matters not since the requisite laws were not obliged by.In this horrendous communication, your collector attempted, illegally mind you, to forcibly informed me that I insanely owed YOU an alleged debt ( see enclosed ). Upon reaching out to your collector in reply guardedly mind you, within my legal rights to do so, I questioned the collector regarding your rights to pursue this unproven and infringing accusation, I was stubbornly and overbearingly yet curtly informed that YOUR FIRM 'S policy DID NOT permit any validation of the information regarding this or any alleged debt and it was your firm 's policy to NOT provide detailed account records to ANY debtor.I AM IN MY RIGHTS TO ABSOLUTELY REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE VERIFY AND VALIDATE PHYSICALLY EVERY AND ONE E VEN EACH ANY AND OR ALL OF THE CLAIMS OF THIS ALLEGED YET UNPROVEN TO BE MY RESPONSIBILITY OR FAULT.DEMONSTRATE READILY AND TIMELY THE PRECISE CONFIRMING FACTS OF THE ALLEGED ACCOUNT INCLUDING EVERY SING LE ONE EVEN EACH ANY AND OR ALL OF ITS ARTICLE ASPECTS.BY FEDERAL LAWS, YOU MUST WILLFULLY AND PROMPTLY DELETE TODAY EVEN RIGHT NOW THIS DEFICIENT REPORTING OR ELSE PRESENT TO ME TRUE DOCUMENTED CERTIFICATE PROOF OF ALL DATA, EVERY NOTATION, DATE, BALANCE, CALCULATION, AUDIT, PERSONAL IDENTIFIER, EACH OF THE REQUISITE 426-CHARACTERS OF THE EXACT AND FULLY COMPLIANT P6 STATEMENT, ANY ALPHA-/ NUMERIC-/ AND OR ALPHANUMERIC SOURCE CODE DECIDING THE LEFTNESS OR RIGHTNESS STATES, AND EVEN EVERY ASPECT OF THE MANDATED 386 PIECES OF CONFIRMATION TO COLLECTION. I have clearly indicated or even demanded to correspond to someone with appropriate authority, should it be a phone call the with a supervisor.YET I HAVE NOT been allowed such communication. I take that, as would anyone in my circumstance I assume, that your collector is trying to make me convinced that a person or adequate authority or even a lowly supervisor is or was unavailable .Worse, without satisfying any of the mandated requirements, it seems as if you are continuing efforts in non-compliance to make me believe I should or must pay the unproven debt or if in defiance I might face being sued by your firm. In past and I am certain should I do such with your firm as well, whenever I informed or do conversationally inform YOUR collector that I was or am in process to start a recording of the totally eradicate of common standards and mis behavioristic, at best descriptions, conversation I was or your collector will hang up or hung up on me. Infringing claims that are not testimonial in its indubitable certificate to be adequately true, accurate, complete, timely and or compliant to every an d one even each any and or all of the requisite and obligatory State ( mine ) and or Federal laws that are applicable, regardless if claimant alleges ignorance or is willful in their derelict of the mandates violated.Per my RIGHTS to do so, I demand that you adequately ATTEST in lawful composition to every single and one even each any and or all of the data, every notation, the dates and balances, calculations and audits, accounting records and assure even the documented identities, the required CRSA enacted Metro-2 426-character format fielded P6 statement ( s ), at least the minimal five ( 5 ) portioned personal identifiers, authentic unabbreviated alpha-/ numeric-/ and or alphanumeric source code ( s ), respective corresponding and specific 386 pieces of confirmation to collect, any and every particular status code and description, as well as every single and one even each any and or all of the facets demanded by my State and or Federal, mentioned or not.Take note that the Ignorance of laws is not lawfully vindication nor exoneration from delusive chicanery, acted in ignorance or otherwise matters not.To return to or retain required compliance, delete every and one even each any and or all of the derogatory remarks today, even now! I tell you the truth, to this I have made myself aware of my rights and what actions I might seek in reactions to being treated as a lame duck and or threatened with scandalously deplorable legal actions by your representative or any others, I know to know ensure I have quickly a need to contact the United States CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ; I know I am in need to ensure that I speak or make notice to understanding of the laws and my rights representative who will make certain that I am or have always been forwarded to an appropriate leveled authority figure, maybe even just a supervisor who will or each time in the previous made clear as it is or was being pointed out that, indeed, YOUR Firm IS REQUIRED BY THE FDCPA and the Credit Reporting Bureau Settlement agreement to PROVIDE every single one even each any and or all of the FOLLOWING information to any debtor, including myself, that your firm is pursuing, whether rightfully so or in denial of laws. Additionally, my extensive researches into this matter have detailed to me very assertively that literally any good attorney knowledgeable on credit, finance, and or every and one even each any and or all of the consumer rights laws has confirmed to me that most definitely your FIRM is compelled by ethics, morality, and even TORT laws precedent to provide this information or face a lawsuit to deliver to me adequate monetary justice and satisfaction of remedying annulment of every and one even each any and or allof your untruths, inaccuracies, untimely claims, incomplete allegations, and or all other unproven mine or not fully compliant reportings : XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , PLLC, -- - F. 3d -- - ( 6th Cir. 2014 ), 2014 WL 3440174 ( 6th Cir. Mich. 2014 BANK OF AMERICA IS IN THE WRONG AND HAS TO REMOVE THE ACCOUNT IMMEDIATLY PER FCRA CREDIT REPORTING LAWS!!!!!","date_sent_to_company":"2017-04-26T16:54:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33326","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2465993","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-04-25T17:14:44.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have contacted Ba nk of America and requested FCRA required docs to report the account to the CRA 's and they have claimed to investigate and are claiming they are reporting accurately and in compliance to FCRA credit reporting laws. THIS IS UNTRUE AND ILLEGAL. The procedures to report ANY account have NOT been abided by or done in accordance to ALL credit reporting laws! See the letter I sent them and they continue to knowingly and willfully reporting ILLEGALLY."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[11.554585,"2465993"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7989619","_score":11.4530945,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Re : Breach of Contract-Failure to Arbitrate under the Claims & Resolution Agreement; Violations of Privacy Act of XXXX ; 15 USC 6802 OPT Out Notice and Disclosures Failure ; Subject : Notice of Multiple FCRA Violations Dear Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), I am writing to formally file a complaint regarding multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Regulation Z, Privacy Act of 1974 ( 15 U.S.C.6805 ; 16 CFR 313 ) and for failure to arbitrate according to Terms and Conditions agreement provided by AMERICAN EXPRESS. \n\nDescription of the Error : Failure to Arbitrate, Acceleration of Debt, Breach of Contract AMERICAN EXPRESS, failed to follow The Claims Resolution and Billing Error resolutions included in the terms and conditions received resulting in subsequent U.S.C and 12 CFR Regulation Z violations. \n\nAmerican Express Representative Third Party Contracted Representative, XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX, Terminated XXXX Federal Judge for the XXXX XXXX, Illinois XXXX, engaged in misconduct during her management of the complaint filed against American Express Company on XX/XX/XXXX. This misconduct included untimely response, acceleration of debt, intentional failure to arbitrate, and breach of agreement. \n\nSpecifically : XXXX ignored written notices sent to her on XX/XX/XXXX, regarding violations of Regulation Z,12 CFR 1026.13, which occurred after the initiation of the arbitration and failed to follow up on her own requests. ( See attached ) XXXX, as American Express failed to ensure compliance with relevant federal regulations designed to protect consumers and ensure fair lending practices in violation of XXXX XXXX XXXX. This conduct raises serious ethical concerns and warrants further investigation. \n\nDescription of the Error : PRIVACY ACT OF XXXX VIOLATIONS After careful reviewed of the Terms and Conditions in the under credit card agreement, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY failed to follow their own agreement under The Privacy Act of XXXX : 5 U.S.Code 522a Violations ; per the Privacy Notice in the Terms and Conditions of the American Express agreement XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX are all third party companies and non-affiliate companies by the definition included in the Terms and Conditions received from American Express ; Important Definitions ( 4 ) the term record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph ; This includes consumer reports ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be ( 12 ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 ( e ) of title 31. \nAgain they need prior written instruction of the individual to whom it relates Failure to provide reasonable means to Opt Out Opt Out Laws 12 CFR 1016.1-PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION ( REGULATION P ) iii ) Unreasonable opt out means. You do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if : ( A ) The only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt out right; or ( B ) The only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is to use a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice. \n15 USC 6801 Violation ; Not Included or Provided-AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY failed to provide reasonable means to opt out, neither-no initial opt out notice under 12 CFR 1016.4 Initial privacy notice to consumers as required and has never been received.\n\n12 CFR 1016.7 Violation-Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods were never given to me resulting in violation of 15 USC 6805 backed by 16 CFR 313 for Opt Out Disclosures violations. American Express Company issued Over, 25 reporting records ; statements in violation of these Federal Rules and Regulations.\n\nINACCURACIES IN MAIL ADDRESS Additionally, the current mailing address has been reported to AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, however, in violation of the Terms and Conditions of the Privacy Act of XXXX, AMERICAN EXPRESS is continuing to provide inaccurate, false and misinformation regarding my address to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX who are all non-affiliate, third parties. \n\nRequest for Action : These violations are of significant concern and represent a serious breach of the regulatory requirements set forth by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). \n\nPursuant to 15USC 6802 ; 16 CFR 313, 16 CFR 433.1 ; 15 USC 1681 ; I respectfully request that American Express Company take immediate action to correct these violations and to compensate the harm caused, I the consumer states : According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 USC 1681 section 602 ( a ) states \" There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. '' XXXX, XXXX and XXXX are consumer reporting agencies and as the consumer, I have the right to make sure my private information isn't shared which is backed by 15 USC 6801 which states \" It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. '' AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY is a financial institution by definition under that title. 15 USC 1681 604 ( a ) section 2 states that \" In general Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : in accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. '' AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY the financial institution and the Consumer reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX and XXXX do not have my consent to furnish this information and they surely do not have my written consent. Any and all consent to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. 15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) states that \" A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. '' AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY Never informed me of my right to exercise my nondisclosure option. Not only that 15 USC 1681C ( a ) ( 5 ) states '' Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. '' This account is an adverse item they are reporting again without my permission which is against the law. 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( A ) ( 1 ) A states \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. 15 U.S.Code 1681e states '' Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under 1681b of this title. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX are not maintaining reasonable procedures. Also 12 CFR 1016.7 states that \" A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. '' I am opting out of your reporting services.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-12T17:54:09.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70461","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7989619","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2023-12-12T17:42:38.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Any and all consent to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. 15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) states that \" A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. '' AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY Never informed me of my right to exercise my nondisclosure option."],"company":["AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY"]},"sort":[11.4530945,"7989619"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8675533","_score":11.320768,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 USC 1681 section 602 a ), it is emphasized that consumer reporting agencies must uphold their responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a regard for consumer privacy rights. Both XXXX and XXXX fall under the umbrella of consumer reporting agencies, while I, as the Consumer, retain the right to safeguard my private information, as reinforced by 15 USC 6801. This statute stipulates that financial institutions, including American Express, are obliged to respect customer privacy and maintain the security of their nonpublic personal information. \nAs per 15 USC 1681 section 604 a section 2, consumer reporting agencies like XXXX and XXXX can only furnish a consumer report with the explicit written instructions of the concerned consumer, which, in this case, has not been provided to American Express or the aforementioned agencies. Therefore, any form of consent, whether verbal, non-verbal, written, or implied, is hereby revoked.\n\nMoreover, 15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) mandates that a financial institution can not disclose nonpublic personal information to third parties without informing the consumer about their right to opt out of such disclosures. However, American Express failed to provide me with information regarding my right to opt out.\n\nAdditionally, according to 15 USC 1681C ( a ) ( 5 ), consumer reporting agencies are prohibited from including adverse items of information in a consumer report without authorization, particularly if they antedate the report by more than XXXX years. The accounts in question are adverse items being reported without my consent, thus violating the law. \nFurthermore, under 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( A ) ( 1 ), it is unlawful to furnish inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies, and every consumer reporting agency is required to implement reasonable procedures to prevent violations of reporting restrictions. However, XXXX and XXXX are not adhering to these standards. \nLastly, 12 CFR 1016.7 grants consumers the right to opt out of reporting services at any time, a right I am exercising now.\n\nAmerican Express, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of several federal consumer laws including the PRIVACY ACT OF 1974. I REPEAT, Effective immediately and indefinitely, as a federally protected consumer under the FCRA, I am hereby opting out of any and all authorization, whether written, unwritten, verbal, or non-verbal, pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 6802.\n\nReporting transaction history is ILLEGAL. I AM DEMANDING AMERICAN EXPRESS, XXXX AND XXXX TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL DEROGATORY REMARKS REPORTING TO MY CREDIT PROFILE TO ALL CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES IMMEDIATELY AND MARK PAID AS AGREED. AMERICAN EXPRESS, XXXX AND XXXX HAVE SHARED MY PRIVATE INFORMATION AND TRANSACTION HISTORY WITHOUT MY CONSENT. \nBelow I will communicate in full detail the violations that have been committed against me while citing the laws as they are written. \nAmerican Express, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n15 U.S. Code 6802 ( b ) opt out states, ( 1 ) In general, A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) that the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. \n\nI WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPT OUT NOTICE FOR ANYTHING THAT WAS TO BE UPDATED TO MY CREDIT REPORTS FROM ANY XXXX OF THESE AGENCIES AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENSURE THAT MY PRIVATE INFORMATION AND TRANSACTION HISTORY IS NOT SHARED! \nPer 15 U.S. Code 6801 It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers information. I have the right to ensure that my private information is NOT SHARED and American Express, XXXX and XXXX are sharing my financial information in my name and is in direct violation. \nCongress also states in subsection ( 3 ) of 15 U.S. Code 6801 that these institutions must : protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.\n\nAmerican Express, XXXX, and XXXX are in absolute violation of this law because they have caused me extreme harm and many inconveniences by unlawfully sharing derogatory information in my name with third parties without my knowledge and/or consent! \n\nAmerican Express, XXXX and XXXX are in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S. Code 552a ) ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be ( 12 ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 ( e ) of title 31.\n\nSection 3711 ( e ) of title 31 States ( 1 ) When trying to collect a claim of the Government under a law except the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ), the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall disclose to a consumer reporting agency information from a system of records that a person is responsible for a claim if ( E ) the head of the agency has established procedures to ( iii ) get satisfactory assurances from each consumer reporting agency that the agency is complying with all laws of the United States related to providing consumer credit information ; American Express, XXXX and XXXX have not only violated the FCRA but also the Privacy Act of 1974. American Express, XXXX and XXXX need prior written consent and instruction from me, and I do not consent. \nAmerican Express, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of 12 CFR PART 1016 - PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION ( REGULATION P ) 12 CFR 1016.1 Purpose and scope. \n( a ) Purpose. This part governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by the financial institutions listed in paragraph ( b ) of this section. This part : ( 1 ) Requires a financial institution to provide notice to customers about its privacy policies and practices ; ( 2 ) Describes the conditions under which a financial institution may disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties ; and ( 3 ) Provides a method for consumers to prevent a financial institution from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure, subject to the exceptions in 1016.13, 1016.14, and 1016.15.\n\nAmerican Express is in violation of 12 CFR 1016.4 Initial privacy notice to consumers required. \n( a ) Initial notice requirement. You must provide a clear and conspicuous notice that accurately reflects your privacy policies and practices to : ( 1 ) Customer. An individual who becomes your customer, not later than when you establish a customer relationship, except as provided in paragraph ( e ) of this section; and ( 2 ) Consumer. A consumer, before you disclose any nonpublic personal information about the consumer to any nonaffiliated third party, American Express is in violation of 12 CFR 1016.7 Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. Section ( a ) ( 1 ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 1016.10 ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the opt out right. ( 2 ) Examples ( ii ) Reasonable opt out means. You provide a reasonable means to exercise an opt out right if you : ( A ) Designate check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms with the opt out notice ; ( B ) Include a reply form together with the opt out notice that, in the case of financial institutions described in 1016.3 ( l ) ( 3 ) of this part, includes the address to which the form should be mailed ; ( C ) Provide an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be sent via electronic mail or a process at your Web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information ; or ( D ) Provide a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out. ( iii ) Unreasonable opt out means. You do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if : ( A ) The only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt out right; or ( B ) The only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is to use a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice. ( g ) Time to comply with opt out. You must comply with a consumer 's opt out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it. ( h ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. ( i ) Duration of consumer 's opt out direction. A consumer 's direction to opt out under this section is effective until the consumer revokes it in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically.\n\nAmerican Express is also in direct violation of 16 CFR 313.7 - Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods ( a ) ( 1 ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 313.10 ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the opt out right.\n\n( 2 ) Examples ( i ) Adequate opt out notice. You provide adequate notice that the consumer can opt out of the disclosure of nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party if you : ( A ) Identify all of the categories of nonpublic personal information that you disclose or reserve the right to disclose, and all of the categories of nonaffiliated third parties to which you disclose the information, as described in 313.6 ( a ) ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) and state that the consumer can opt out of the disclosure of that information; and ( B ) Identify the financial products or services that the consumer obtains from you, either singly or jointly, to which the opt out direction would apply. ( ii ) Reasonable opt out means. You provide a reasonable means to exercise an opt out right if you : ( A ) Designate check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms with the opt out notice ; ( B ) Include a reply form that includes the address to which the form should be mailed ; or ( C ) Provide an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be sent via electronic mail or a process at your web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information ; or ( D ) Provide a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out.\n\n( iii ) Unreasonable opt out means. You do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if : ( A ) The only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt out right; or ( B ) The only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is to use a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice. ( iv ) Specific opt out means. You may require each consumer to opt out through a specific means, as long as that means is reasonable for that consumer. ( b ) Same form as initial notice permitted. You may provide the opt out notice together with or on the same written or electronic form as the initial notice you provide in accordance with 313.4. ( c ) Initial notice required when opt out notice delivered subsequent to initial notice. If you provide the opt out notice later than required for the initial notice in accordance with 313.4, you must also include a copy of the initial notice with the opt out notice in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically.\n\n( e ) Time to comply with opt out. You must comply with a consumer 's opt out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it. ( f ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. ( g ) Duration of consumer 's opt out direction. ( 1 ) A consumer 's direction to opt out under this section is effective until the consumer revokes it in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. ( 2 ) When a customer relationship terminates, the customers opt out direction continues to apply to the nonpublic personal information that you collected during or related to that relationship. If the individual subsequently establishes a new customer relationship with you, the opt out direction that applied to the former relationship does not apply to the new relationship. ( h ) Delivery. When you are required to deliver an opt out notice by this section, you must deliver it according to 313.9.\n\nAmerican Express is also in direct violation of 16 CFR 313.8 - Revised privacy notices.\n\n( a ) General rule. Except as otherwise authorized in this part, you must not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose any nonpublic personal information about a consumer to a nonaffiliated third party other than as described in the initial notice that you provided to that consumer under 313.4, unless : ( 1 ) You have provided to the consumer a clear and conspicuous revised notice that accurately describes your policies and practices ; ( 2 ) You have provided to the consumer a new opt out notice ; ( 3 ) You have given the consumer a reasonable opportunity, before you disclose the information to the nonaffiliated third party, to opt out of the disclosure; and ( 4 ) the consumer does not opt out.\n\n( b ) Examples ( 1 ) Except as otherwise permitted by 313.13, 313.14, and 313.15, you must provide a revised notice before you : ( i ) Disclose a new category of nonpublic personal information to any nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) Disclose nonpublic personal information to a new category of nonaffiliated third party; or ( iii ) Disclose nonpublic personal information about a former customer to a nonaffiliated third party if that former customer has not had the opportunity to exercise an opt out right regarding that disclosure. ( 2 ) A revised notice is not required if you disclose nonpublic personal information to a new nonaffiliated third party that you adequately described in your prior notice.\n\nAmerican Express, XXXX and XXXX are also in violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. \n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. \nAs you can see there is a need to protect your right to privacy. Important Definitions from 15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. \nThe term consumer means an individual. \nThe term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living. \n( 2 ) Exclusions ( A ) ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; Reporting Transaction history is illegal!!!!\n\nAmerican Express, XXXX, and XXXX are in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports American. Express, XXXX, and XXXX are in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681c which clearly outlines the requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports. 1681c ( a ) states this : Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : Subsection ( 5 ) states that : Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than XXXX years. \nYet another violation, because XXXX, XXXX and American Express are reporting adverse items, and it is being reported without my permission. \n\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report ; Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nBy violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general, Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; American Express, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of several federal consumer protected laws. I would like to settle this amicably and invoice American Express, XXXX and XXXX for violations committed instead of actual damages I have incurred that if pursued would amount to a much greater amount. \n\nThese laws must be enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as stated in : 15 U.S. Code 6805 ( a ) Subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ], this subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-02T08:22:53.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90043","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8675533","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2024-04-02T06:26:28.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Yet another violation, because XXXX, XXXX and American Express are reporting adverse items, and it is being reported without my permission. \n\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title."],"company":["AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY"]},"sort":[11.320768,"8675533"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8676101","_score":11.29589,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 USC 1681 section 602 a ), it is emphasized that consumer reporting agencies must uphold their responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a regard for consumer privacy rights. Both XXXX and XXXX fall under the umbrella of consumer reporting agencies, while I, as the Consumer, retain the right to safeguard my private information, as reinforced by 15 USC 6801. This statute stipulates that financial institutions, including BANK OF AMERICA, are obliged to respect customer privacy and maintain the security of their nonpublic personal information. As per 15 USC 1681 section 604 a section 2, consumer reporting agencies like XXXX and XXXX can only furnish a consumer report with the explicit written instructions of the concerned consumer, which, in this case, has not been provided to BANK OF AMERICA or the aforementioned agencies. Therefore, any form of consent, whether verbal, non-verbal, written, or implied, is hereby revoked. Moreover, 15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) mandates that a financial institution can not disclose nonpublic personal information to third parties without informing the consumer about their right to opt out of such disclosures. However, BANK OF AMERICA failed to provide me with information regarding my right to opt out. Additionally, according to 15 USC 1681C ( a ) ( 5 ), consumer reporting agencies are prohibited from including adverse items of information in a consumer report without authorization, particularly if they antedate the report by more than seven years. The accounts in question are adverse items being reported without my consent, thus violating the law. Furthermore, under 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( A ) ( 1 ), it is unlawful to furnish inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies, and every consumer reporting agency is required to implement reasonable procedures to prevent violations of reporting restrictions. However, XXXX and XXXX are not adhering to these standards. Lastly, 12 CFR 1016.7 grants consumers the right to opt out of reporting services at any time, a right I am exercising now. BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of several federal consumer laws including the PRIVACY ACT OF XXXX. I REPEAT, Effective immediately and indefinitely, as a federally protected consumer under the FCRA, I am hereby opting out of any and all authorization, whether written, unwritten, verbal, or non-verbal, pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 6802. Reporting transaction history is ILLEGAL. I AM DEMANDING BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX AND XXXX TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL DEROGATORY REMARKS REPORTING TO MY CREDIT PROFILE TO ALL CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES IMMEDIATELY AND MARK PAID AS AGREED. BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX AND XXXX HAVE SHARED MY PRIVATE INFORMATION AND TRANSACTION HISTORY WITHOUT MY CONSENT. Below I will communicate in full detail the violations that have been committed against me while citing the laws as they are written. BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title. 15 U.S. Code 6802 ( b ) opt out states, ( 1 ) In general, A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) that the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. I WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPT OUT NOTICE FOR ANYTHING THAT WAS TO BE UPDATED TO MY CREDIT REPORTS FROM ANY ONE OF THESE AGENCIES AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENSURE THAT MY PRIVATE INFORMATION AND TRANSACTION HISTORY IS NOT SHARED! Per 15 U.S. Code 6801 It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers information. I have the right to ensure that my private information is NOT SHARED and BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX and XXXX are sharing my financial information in my name and is in direct violation. Congress also states in subsection ( 3 ) of 15 U.S. Code 6801 that these institutions must : protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX, and XXXX are in absolute violation of this law because they have caused me extreme harm and many inconveniences by unlawfully sharing derogatory information in my name with third parties without my knowledge and/or consent! BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX and XXXX are in violation of the Privacy Act of XXXX ( 5 U.S. Code 552a ) ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be ( 12 ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 ( e ) of title 31. Section 3711 ( e ) of title 31 States ( 1 ) When trying to collect a claim of the Government under a law except the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ), the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall disclose to a consumer reporting agency information from a system of records that a person is responsible for a claim if ( E ) the head of the agency has established procedures to ( iii ) get satisfactory assurances from each consumer reporting agency that the agency is complying with all laws of the United States related to providing consumer credit information ; BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX and XXXX have not only violated the FCRA but also the Privacy Act of XXXX. BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX and XXXX need prior written consent and instruction from me, and I do not consent. BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of 12 CFR PART 1016 - PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION ( REGULATION P ) 12 CFR 1016.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) Purpose. This part governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by the financial institutions listed in paragraph ( b ) of this section. This part : ( 1 ) Requires a financial institution to provide notice to customers about its privacy policies and practices ; ( 2 ) Describes the conditions under which a financial institution may disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties ; and ( 3 ) Provides a method for consumers to prevent a financial institution from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure, subject to the exceptions in 1016.13, 1016.14, and 1016.15. BANK OF AMERICA is in violation of 12 CFR 1016.4 Initial privacy notice to consumers required. ( a ) Initial notice requirement. You must provide a clear and conspicuous notice that accurately reflects your privacy policies and practices to : ( 1 ) Customer. An individual who becomes your customer, not later than when you establish a customer relationship, except as provided in paragraph ( e ) of this section; and ( 2 ) Consumer. A consumer, before you disclose any nonpublic personal information about the consumer to any nonaffiliated third party, BANK OF AMERICA is in violation of 12 CFR 1016.7 Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. Section ( a ) ( 1 ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 1016.10 ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the opt out right. ( 2 ) Examples ( ii ) Reasonable opt out means. You provide a reasonable means to exercise an opt out right if you : ( A ) Designate check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms with the opt out notice ; ( B ) Include a reply form together with the opt out notice that, in the case of financial institutions described in 1016.3 ( l ) ( 3 ) of this part, includes the address to which the form should be mailed ; ( C ) Provide an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be sent via electronic mail or a process at your Web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information ; or ( D ) Provide a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out. ( iii ) Unreasonable opt out means. You do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if : ( A ) The only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt out right; or ( B ) The only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is to use a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice. ( g ) Time to comply with opt out. You must comply with a consumer 's opt out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it. ( h ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. ( i ) Duration of consumer 's opt out direction. A consumer 's direction to opt out under this section is effective until the consumer revokes it in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. BANK OF AMERICA is also in direct violation of 16 CFR 313.7 - Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods ( a ) ( 1 ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 313.10 ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the opt out right. ( 2 ) Examples ( i ) Adequate opt out notice. You provide adequate notice that the consumer can opt out of the disclosure of nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party if you : ( A ) Identify all of the categories of nonpublic personal information that you disclose or reserve the right to disclose, and all of the categories of nonaffiliated third parties to which you disclose the information, as described in 313.6 ( a ) ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) and state that the consumer can opt out of the disclosure of that information; and ( B ) Identify the financial products or services that the consumer obtains from you, either singly or jointly, to which the opt out direction would apply. ( ii ) Reasonable opt out means. You provide a reasonable means to exercise an opt out right if you : ( A ) Designate check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms with the opt out notice ; ( B ) Include a reply form that includes the address to which the form should be mailed ; or ( C ) Provide an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be sent via electronic mail or a process at your web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information ; or ( D ) Provide a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out. ( iii ) Unreasonable opt out means. You do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if : ( A ) The only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt out right; or ( B ) The only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is to use a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice. ( iv ) Specific opt out means. You may require each consumer to opt out through a specific means, as long as that means is reasonable for that consumer. ( b ) Same form as initial notice permitted. You may provide the opt out notice together with or on the same written or electronic form as the initial notice you provide in accordance with 313.4. ( c ) Initial notice required when opt out notice delivered subsequent to initial notice. If you provide the opt out notice later than required for the initial notice in accordance with 313.4, you must also include a copy of the initial notice with the opt out notice in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. ( e ) Time to comply with opt out. You must comply with a consumer 's opt out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it. ( f ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. ( g ) Duration of consumer 's opt out direction. ( 1 ) A consumer 's direction to opt out under this section is effective until the consumer revokes it in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. ( 2 ) When a customer relationship terminates, the customers opt out direction continues to apply to the nonpublic personal information that you collected during or related to that relationship. If the individual subsequently establishes a new customer relationship with you, the opt out direction that applied to the former relationship does not apply to the new relationship. ( h ) Delivery. When you are required to deliver an opt out notice by this section, you must deliver it according to 313.9. BANK OF AMERICA is also in direct violation of 16 CFR 313.8 - Revised privacy notices. ( a ) General rule. Except as otherwise authorized in this part, you must not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose any nonpublic personal information about a consumer to a nonaffiliated third party other than as described in the initial notice that you provided to that consumer under 313.4, unless : ( 1 ) You have provided to the consumer a clear and conspicuous revised notice that accurately describes your policies and practices ; ( 2 ) You have provided to the consumer a new opt out notice ; ( 3 ) You have given the consumer a reasonable opportunity, before you disclose the information to the nonaffiliated third party, to opt out of the disclosure; and ( 4 ) the consumer does not opt out. ( b ) Examples ( 1 ) Except as otherwise permitted by 313.13, 313.14, and 313.15, you must provide a revised notice before you : ( i ) Disclose a new category of nonpublic personal information to any nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) Disclose nonpublic personal information to a new category of nonaffiliated third party; or ( iii ) Disclose nonpublic personal information about a former customer to a nonaffiliated third party if that former customer has not had the opportunity to exercise an opt out right regarding that disclosure. ( 2 ) A revised notice is not required if you disclose nonpublic personal information to a new nonaffiliated third party that you adequately described in your prior notice. BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX and XXXX are also in violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. ( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. As you can see there is a need to protect your right to privacy. Important Definitions from 15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. The term consumer means an individual. The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living. ( 2 ) Exclusions ( A ) ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; Reporting Transaction history is illegal!!!! BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX, and XXXX are in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX, and XXXX are in direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681c which clearly outlines the requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports. 1681c ( a ) states this : Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : Subsection ( 5 ) states that : Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. Yet another violation, because XXXX, XXXX and BANK OF AMERICA are reporting adverse items, and it is being reported without my permission. 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. ( b ) Accuracy of report ; Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. By violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general, Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX, and XXXX are in violation of several federal consumer protected laws. I would like to settle this amicably and invoice BANK OF AMERICA, XXXX and XXXX for violations committed instead of actual damages I have incurred that if pursued would amount to a much greater amount. These laws must be enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as stated in : 15 U.S. Code 6805 ( a ) Subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ], this subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-02T09:07:36.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90043","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8676101","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-04-02T08:46:14.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["By violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title. 15 U.S."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[11.29589,"8676101"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8611370","_score":11.029539,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I have recently received correspondence from XXXX XXXX of American Express Customer Advocate Services Team regarding a recent complaint lodged with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). In the communication, XXXX asserted that American Express is incapable of retracting my application due to its submission status. However, it is imperative to clarify that this assertion is incorrect. The true reason for American Express 's inability to retract my application lies in the fact that it has already been transmitted in accordance with the Electronic Transfer Act, subsequently transformed into a receivable, and deposited, as explicitly detailed in my previous correspondence. Attached herewith is the transaction history from American Express, delineating the precise movement of funds. \n\nMoreover, it is concerning that American Express purports to be \" committed to treating all customers fairly '' and its representatives pledge to \" adhere to all laws and regulations '' while simultaneously engaging in actions that directly contravene this commitment. It is evident that American Express 's actions are in blatant violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 ) and a host of other statutory provisions. \n\nAllow me to elucidate the specific legal infractions perpetrated by American Express in denying my entitlement to unlimited consumer credit. It is imperative that these violations be addressed promptly and rectified to ensure compliance with the law and uphold the principles of fairness and equity. \n\nAmerican Express 's assertion regarding the initial denial of my application being attributed to a XXXX score is deeply concerning. Despite my explicit inquiry in a prior complaint regarding the factors considered by American Express 's underwriting department in determining this denial, my question remains unanswered. Specifically, I requested clarification on the criteria utilized by the Treasury Underwriting department of American Express to assess the application 's outcome. \n\nIt is disconcerting that American Express attributes the denial solely to a XXXX score, especially considering the utilization of a computerized system for processing applications. This system, as disclosed in your XXXX XXXX filing dated XX/XX/XXXX, has been acknowledged by American Express itself as unreliable. Therefore, it is imperative that American Express provide transparent and accurate information regarding the comprehensive factors influencing application decisions, ensuring accountability and fairness in its processes. \n\nWe rely principally on the customers creditworthiness for repayment of loans or receivables and therefore often have no other recourse for collection. Our ability to assess creditworthiness may be impaired as a result of changes in our underwriting practices or if the criteria or models we use to manage our credit risk prove inaccurate in predicting future losses, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations. This may be exacerbated to the extent information we have historically relied upon to make credit decisions does not accurately portray a customers creditworthiness, including as a result of the current high rates of inflation and economic slowdown. ( XXXX Filing, dated XX/XX/XXXX, Pg XXXX ) Our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning is subject to various risks including the use of personal information, flaws in our models or datasets that may result in biased or inaccurate results, ethical considerations regarding artificial intelligence, and our ability to safely deploy and implement governance and controls for artificial intelligence systems. ( XXXX Filing, dated XX/XX/XXXX, Pg XXXX ) Once more, I must insist on clarity regarding the factors underlying the initial denial of my application. Given the acknowledgment of potential biases and inaccuracies within American Express 's computerized systems, it is imperative to understand the precise criteria influencing such decisions. The reliance on these systems, as previously noted in American Express 's own disclosures, raises concerns regarding discriminatory practices directed towards me as a consumer. This further substantiates my previous assertion regarding American Express 's violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 ). \n\nFurthermore, I find it necessary to address American Express 's request for my social security number during the application process. Despite the assertion of using it for identity verification, it is crucial to highlight that this request was made under false pretenses. The Social Security Administration 's clarification unequivocally states that the social security number is not intended as a personal identifier for verification purposes. Therefore, by providing my social security number and signature, I inadvertently engaged in a barter transaction. \n\nAmerican Express 's insistence on the necessity of providing my social security number under the guise of identity verification is not only misleading but also inaccurate. This practice warrants scrutiny and rectification to ensure compliance with applicable laws and to uphold the integrity of consumer rights. \n\nThe social security administration even states that The SSN is the single most widely used record identifier for both government and the private sector, exerting a broad influence on the lives of most Americans. However, by itself, it is not a personal identifier because it lacks systematic assignment to every person and the means to authenticate a person 's identity. You can see this for yourself by visiting their website, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nUpon signing and submitting the application, I assumed the role of an investor in American Express. The application, also denoted as a note in accordance with the company 's prospectus, is slated for transfer by American Express Receivables Financing Corporation. Following this transfer, the funds will be deposited into the American Express Credit Account Master Trust, in accordance with the specifications outlined in the American Express Prospectus, dated XX/XX/XXXX, specifically on Page XXXX, Section Sale of Receivables. \n\nThe act of providing my social security number during the application process to American Express gave Power of Attorney and fiduciary status upon them.The duties of a fiduciary, as outlined in 29 U.S. Code 1104, mandate acting solely in the best interest of the beneficiary. It appears that American Express is not fulfilling this duty, and as a result, I will revoke your status as fiduciary and notify the appropriate authorities. \n\nThe inclusion of my social security number in the application effectively transformed the transaction into a barter exchange. By providing this information, I conferred something of monetary value to American Express. Subsequently, American Express will leverage this data to generate receivables, converting them into cash before transferring and depositing the funds into the American Express Credit Account Master Trust. This application, in essence, serves as a security. American Express has already transferred and continues to profit from its securitization, alongside card member loans and receivables, as disclosed in the 'Asset Securitization ' section of the American Express XXXX filing on page XXXX. \n\nThe occurrence of a barter transaction in the securitization process mandates American Express to complete an IRS 1099B form for this transaction. This action underscores American Express 's divergence from its publicly filed SEC filings, particularly the XXXX form, where American Express explicitly states \" We are subject to significant supervision and regulation, and an increasingly stringent enforcement environment, with respect to compliance with anti-money laundering ( AML ), countering the financing of terrorism ( CFT ), sanctions and anti-corruption laws and regulations. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs and policies and procedures for AML/CFT , sanctions and anti-corruption compliance could have material financial, legal and reputational consequences Filing an IRS form 1099B for this barter transaction would not only be erroneous but could also be construed as facilitating tax evasion and engaging in money laundering practices. A legitimate barter transaction entails a fair exchange of goods or services. In this case, I provided American Express with a security, yet they have retained it without providing any reciprocal benefit. Instead, American Express continues to trade the security and retain the proceeds for their own gain. This behavior contradicts the principle of fair trade and can not be equated with a lawful exchange. Therefore, submitting a 1099B form would be misleading and potentially fraudulent. I am fully committed to informing the IRS of this discrepancy and ensuring that appropriate action is taken. \n\nI have also pulled American Express Charter report dated XX/XX/XXXX, and in this report it states The OCC has not identified that this institution or any affiliate whose loans have been considered as part of the institutions lending performance has engaged in discriminatory or other illegal credit practices that require consideration in this evaluation. Now with that being said the OCC also states that in the same charter report The OCC will consider any information that this institution engaged in discriminatory or other illegal credit practices, identified by or provided to the OCC before the end of the institutions next performance evaluation in that subsequent evaluation, even if the information concerns activities that occurred during the evaluation period addressed in this performance evaluation. I am fully prepared to report American Express to the Office Of the Comptroller.\n\nUnder FINRA regulations, American Express is engaging in securities fraud by retaining my security and withholding all proceeds and interest associated with it. This conduct directly contravenes the Securities Act of 1933, The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, The Trust Indenture Act of 1934, and numerous other statutes. It is imperative for American Express to comprehend that I am fully prepared to pursue legal recourse. I am poised to lodge formal complaints with regulatory bodies including the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, FINRA, SEC, IRS, Civil Penalty Complaint, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, among others, to ensure accountability for defrauding consumers. American Express must promptly either approve my consumer credit request or retract my application, bearing my original signature and containing non-public information that I do not authorize for sale or transfer to third parties. Failure to retract my application, containing sensitive information, will also breach the privacy act as per the FTC 's guidelines. \n\nBelow, I have provided a comprehensive list of laws and definitions for American Express to carefully review and consider in relation to the current situation. Please take the time to thoroughly assess these regulations and definitions. I must emphasize that this will be my final communication regarding this matter. Any outcome other than the immediate approval of my application or the retraction of my original application will necessitate further legal action. This complaint serves as formal notice of my intentions moving forward. \n___________________________ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act TITLE X Subtitle A Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( c ) OVERALL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.Except to the extent that enforcement of the requirements imposed under this title is specifically committed to some other Government agency under any of paragraphs ( 1 ) through ( 8 ) of subsection ( a ), and subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, the Federal Trade Commission shall be authorized to enforce such requirements. For the purpose of the exercise by the Federal Trade Commission of its functions and powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. ), a violation of any requirement imposed under this subchapter shall be deemed a violation of a requirement imposed under that Act. All of the functions and powers of the Federal Trade Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act are available to the Federal Trade Commission to enforce compliance by any person with the requirements imposed under this title, irrespective of whether that person is engaged in commerce or meets any other jurisdictional tests under the Federal Trade Commission Act, including the power to enforce any rule prescribed by the Bureau under this title in the same manner as if the violation had been a violation of a Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule. ; and FAIR LENDING.The term fair lending means fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for consumers.\n\nH. R. 4173603 ( d ) ( 1 ) PENALTIES AND FINES. ( 1 ) ESTABLISHMENT OF VICTIMS RELIEF FUND.There is established in the Federal Reserve a separate fund, to be known as the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund ( referred to in this section as the Civil Penalty Fund ). The Civil Penalty Fund shall be maintained and established at a Federal reserve bank, in accordance with such requirements as the Board of Governors may impose. If the Bureau obtains a civil penalty against any person in any judicial or administrative action under Federal consumer financial laws, the Bureau shall deposit into the Civil Penalty Fund, the amount of the penalty collected.\n\nH. R. 4173604 ( 2 ) PAYMENT TO VICTIMS.Amounts in the Civil Penalty Fund shall be available to the Bureau, without fiscal year limitation, for payments to the victims of activities for which civil penalties have been imposed under the Federal consumer financial laws.\n\nSubtitle BGeneral Powers of the Bureau H. R. 4173605 SEC. 1021. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND FUNCTIONS. ( a ) PURPOSE.The Bureau shall seek to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive. ( b ) OBJECTIVES.The Bureau is authorized to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services ( 1 ) consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions ; ( 2 ) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination ; ( 3 ) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens ; ( 4 ) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and ( 5 ) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation. ( c ) FUNCTIONS.The primary functions of the Bureau are ( 1 ) conducting financial education programs ; ( 2 ) collecting, investigating, and responding to consumer complaints ; ( 3 ) collecting, researching, monitoring, and publishing information relevant to the functioning of markets for consumer financial products and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper functioning of such markets ; ( 4 ) subject to sections 1024 through 1026, supervising covered persons for compliance with Federal consumer financial law, and taking appropriate enforcement action to address violations of Federal consumer financial law ; ( 5 ) issuing rules, orders, and guidance implementing Federal consumer financial law ; and ( 6 ) performing such support activities as may be necessary or useful to facilitate the other functions of the Bureau.\n\nIN GENERAL.The Bureau may take any action authorized under subtitle E to prevent a covered person or service provider from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice under Federal law in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service.\n\nFTC Guidelines on Non Public Infomation The Privacy Rule protects a consumer 's \" nonpublic personal information '' ( NPI ). NPI is any \" personally identifiable financial information '' that a financial institution collects about an individual in connection with providing a financial product or service, unless that information is otherwise \" publicly available. '' NPI is : any information an individual gives you to get a financial product or service ( for example, name, address, income, Social Security number, or other information on an application ) ; any information you get about an individual from a transaction involving your financial product ( s ) or service ( s ) ( for example, the fact that an individual is your consumer or customer, account numbers, payment history, loan or deposit balances, and credit or debit card purchases ) ; or any information you get about an individual in connection with providing a financial product or service ( for example, information from court records or from a consumer report ).","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-23T06:53:39.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33407","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8611370","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2024-03-23T06:08:17.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs and policies and procedures for AML/CFT , sanctions and anti-corruption compliance could have material financial, legal and reputational consequences Filing an IRS form 1099B for this barter transaction would not only be erroneous but could also be construed as facilitating tax evasion and engaging in money laundering practices. A legitimate barter transaction entails a fair exchange of goods or services."],"company":["AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY"]},"sort":[11.029539,"8611370"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8663764","_score":11.028572,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I have recently received correspondence from American Express Customer Advocate Services Team regarding a recent complaint lodged with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). In the communication, it was asserted that American Express is incapable of retracting my application due to its submission status. However, it is imperative to clarify that this assertion is incorrect. The true reason for American Express 's inability to retract my application lies in the fact that it has already been transmitted in accordance with the Electronic Transfer Act, subsequently transformed into a receivable, and deposited, as explicitly detailed in my previous correspondence. Attached herewith is the transaction history from American Express, delineating the precise movement of funds. Moreover, it is concerning that American Express purports to be \" committed to treating all customers fairly '' and its representatives pledge to \" adhere to all laws and regulations '' while simultaneously engaging in actions that directly contravene this commitment. It is evident that American Express 's actions are in blatant violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 ) and a host of other statutory provisions. Allow me to elucidate the specific legal infractions perpetrated by American Express in denying my entitlement to unlimited consumer credit. It is imperative that these violations be addressed promptly and rectified to ensure compliance with the law and uphold the principles of fairness and equity. American Express 's assertion regarding the initial denial of my application being attributed to a XXXX score is deeply concerning. Despite my explicit inquiry in a prior complaint regarding the factors considered by American Express 's underwriting department in determining this denial, my question remains unanswered. Specifically, I requested clarification on the criteria utilized by the Treasury Underwriting department of American Express to assess the application 's outcome. It is disconcerting that American Express attributes the denial solely to a XXXX score, especially considering the utilization of a computerized system for processing applications. This system, as disclosed in your SEC XXXX filing dated XX/XX/XXXX, has been acknowledged by American Express itself as unreliable. Therefore, it is imperative that American Express provide transparent and accurate information regarding the comprehensive factors influencing application decisions, ensuring accountability and fairness in its processes. We rely principally on the customers creditworthiness for repayment of loans or receivables and therefore often have no other recourse for collection. Our ability to assess creditworthiness may be impaired as a result of changes in our underwriting practices or if the criteria or models we use to manage our credit risk prove inaccurate in predicting future losses, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations. This may be exacerbated to the extent information we have historically relied upon to make credit decisions does not accurately portray a customers creditworthiness, including as a result of the current high rates of inflation and economic slowdown. ( XXXX Filing, dated XX/XX/XXXX, Pg 34 ) Our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning is subject to various risks including the use of personal information, flaws in our models or datasets that may result in biased or inaccurate results, ethical considerations regarding artificial intelligence, and our ability to safely deploy and implement governance and controls for artificial intelligence systems. ( XXXX Filing, dated XX/XX/XXXX, Pg 27 ) Once more, I must insist on clarity regarding the factors underlying the initial denial of my application. Given the acknowledgment of potential biases and inaccuracies within American Express 's computerized systems, it is imperative to understand the precise criteria influencing such decisions. The reliance on these systems, as previously noted in American Express 's own disclosures, raises concerns regarding discriminatory practices directed towards me as a consumer. This further substantiates my previous assertion regarding American Express 's violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 ). Furthermore, I find it necessary to address American Express 's request for my social security number during the application process. Despite the assertion of using it for identity verification, it is crucial to highlight that this request was made under false pretenses. The Social Security Administration 's clarification unequivocally states that the social security number is not intended as a personal identifier for verification purposes. Therefore, by providing my social security number and signature, I inadvertently engaged in a barter transaction. American Express 's insistence on the necessity of providing my social security number under the guise of identity verification is not only misleading but also inaccurate. This practice warrants scrutiny and rectification to ensure compliance with applicable laws and to uphold the integrity of consumer rights. The social security administration even states that The SSN is the single most widely used record identifier for both government and the private sector, exerting a broad influence on the lives of most Americans. However, by itself, it is not a personal identifier because it lacks systematic assignment to every person and the means to authenticate a person 's identity. You can see this for yourself by visiting their website, 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 Upon signing and submitting the application, I assumed the role of an investor in American Express. The application, also denoted as a note in accordance with the company 's prospectus, is slated for transfer by American Express Receivables Financing Corporation. Following this transfer, the funds will be deposited into the American Express Credit Account XXXX XXXX, in accordance with the specifications outlined in the American Express Prospectus, dated XX/XX/XXXX, specifically on Page 104, Section Sale of Receivables. The act of providing my social security number during the application process to American Express gave Power of Attorney and fiduciary status upon them.The duties of a fiduciary, as outlined in 29 U.S. Code 1104, mandate acting solely in the best interest of the beneficiary. It appears that American Express is not fulfilling this duty, and as a result, I will revoke your status as fiduciary and notify the appropriate authorities. The inclusion of my social security number in the application effectively transformed the transaction into a barter exchange. By providing this information, I conferred something of monetary value to American Express. Subsequently, American Express will leverage this data to generate receivables, converting them into cash before transferring and depositing the funds into the American Express Credit Account XXXX XXXX. This application, in essence, serves as a security. American Express has already transferred and continues to profit from its securitization, alongside card member loans and receivables, as disclosed in the 'Asset Securitization ' section of the American Express XXXX filing on page 118. The occurrence of a barter transaction in the securitization process mandates American Express to complete an IRS 1099B form for this transaction. This action underscores American Express 's divergence from its publicly filed SEC filings, particularly the XXXX form, where American Express explicitly states \" We are subject to significant supervision and regulation, and an increasingly stringent enforcement environment, with respect to compliance with anti-money laundering ( AML ), countering the financing of terrorism ( CFT ), sanctions and anti-corruption laws and regulations. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs and policies and procedures for AML/CFT , sanctions and anti-corruption compliance could have material financial, legal and reputational consequences Filing an IRS form 1099B for this barter transaction would not only be erroneous but could also be construed as facilitating tax evasion and engaging in money laundering practices. A legitimate barter transaction entails a fair exchange of goods or services. In this case, I provided American Express with a security, yet they have retained it without providing any reciprocal benefit. Instead, American Express continues to trade the security and retain the proceeds for their own gain. This behavior contradicts the principle of fair trade and can not be equated with a lawful exchange. Therefore, submitting a 1099B form would be misleading and potentially fraudulent. I am fully committed to informing the IRS of this discrepancy and ensuring that appropriate action is taken. I have also pulled American Express Charter report dated XX/XX/XXXX, and in this report it states The OCC has not identified that this institution or any affiliate whose loans have been considered as part of the institutions lending performance has engaged in discriminatory or other illegal credit practices that require consideration in this evaluation. Now with that being said the OCC also states that in the same charter report The OCC will consider any information that this institution engaged in discriminatory or other illegal credit practices, identified by or provided to the OCC before the end of the institutions next performance evaluation in that subsequent evaluation, even if the information concerns activities that occurred during the evaluation period addressed in this performance evaluation. I am fully prepared to report American Express to the Office Of the Comptroller. Under FINRA regulations, American Express is engaging in securities fraud by retaining my security and withholding all proceeds and interest associated with it. This conduct directly contravenes the Securities Act of 1933, The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, The Trust Indenture Act of 1934, and numerous other statutes. It is imperative for American Express to comprehend that I am fully prepared to pursue legal recourse. I am poised to lodge formal complaints with regulatory bodies including the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, FINRA, SEC, IRS, Civil Penalty Complaint, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, among others, to ensure accountability for defrauding consumers. American Express must promptly either approve my consumer credit request or retract my application, bearing my original signature and containing non-public information that I do not authorize for sale or transfer to third parties. Failure to retract my application, containing sensitive information, will also breach the privacy act as per the FTC 's guidelines. Below, I have provided a comprehensive list of laws and definitions for American Express to carefully review and consider in relation to the current situation. Please take the time to thoroughly assess these regulations and definitions. I must emphasize that this will be my final communication regarding this matter. Any outcome other than the immediate approval of my application or the retraction of my original application will necessitate further legal action. This complaint serves as formal notice of my intentions moving forward. ___________________________ Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act TITLE X Subtitle A Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( c ) OVERALL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.Except to the extent that enforcement of the requirements imposed under this title is specifically committed to some other Government agency under any of paragraphs ( 1 ) through ( 8 ) of subsection ( a ), and subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, the Federal Trade Commission shall be authorized to enforce such requirements. For the purpose of the exercise by the Federal Trade Commission of its functions and powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. ), a violation of any requirement imposed under this subchapter shall be deemed a violation of a requirement imposed under that Act. All of the functions and powers of the Federal Trade Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act are available to the Federal Trade Commission to enforce compliance by any person with the requirements imposed under this title, irrespective of whether that person is engaged in commerce or meets any other jurisdictional tests under the Federal Trade Commission Act, including the power to enforce any rule prescribed by the Bureau under this title in the same manner as if the violation had been a violation of a Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule. ; and FAIR LENDING.The term fair lending means fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for consumers. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ) PENALTIES AND FINES. ( XXXX ) ESTABLISHMENT OF VICTIMS RELIEF FUND.There is established in the Federal Reserve a separate fund, to be known as the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund ( referred to in this section as the Civil Penalty Fund ). The Civil Penalty Fund shall be maintained and established at a Federal reserve bank, in accordance with such requirements as the Board of Governors may impose. If the Bureau obtains a civil penalty against any person in any judicial or administrative action under Federal consumer financial laws, the Bureau shall deposit into the Civil Penalty Fund, the amount of the penalty collected. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) PAYMENT TO VICTIMS.Amounts in the Civil Penalty Fund shall be available to the Bureau, without fiscal year limitation, for payments to the victims of activities for which civil penalties have been imposed under the Federal consumer financial laws. Subtitle BGeneral Powers of the Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX SEC. XXXX. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND FUNCTIONS. ( a ) PURPOSE.The Bureau shall seek to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive. ( b ) OBJECTIVES.The Bureau is authorized to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services ( 1 ) consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions ; ( 2 ) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination ; ( 3 ) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens ; ( 4 ) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and ( 5 ) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation. ( c ) FUNCTIONS.The primary functions of the Bureau are ( 1 ) conducting financial education programs ; ( 2 ) collecting, investigating, and responding to consumer complaints ; ( 3 ) collecting, researching, monitoring, and publishing information relevant to the functioning of markets for consumer financial products and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper functioning of such markets ; ( 4 ) subject to sections XXXX through XXXX, supervising covered persons for compliance with Federal consumer financial law, and taking appropriate enforcement action to address violations of Federal consumer financial law ; ( 5 ) issuing rules, orders, and guidance implementing Federal consumer financial law ; and ( 6 ) performing such support activities as may be necessary or useful to facilitate the other functions of the Bureau. IN GENERAL.The Bureau may take any action authorized under subtitle E to prevent a covered person or service provider from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice under Federal law in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. FTC Guidelines on Non Public Infomation The Privacy Rule protects a consumer 's \" nonpublic personal information '' ( NPI ). NPI is any \" personally identifiable financial information '' that a financial institution collects about an individual in connection with providing a financial product or service, unless that information is otherwise \" publicly available. '' NPI is : any information an individual gives you to get a financial product or service ( for example, name, address, income, Social Security number, or other information on an application ) ; any information you get about an individual from a transaction involving your financial product ( s ) or service ( s ) ( for example, the fact that an individual is your consumer or customer, account numbers, payment history, loan or deposit balances, and credit or debit card purchases ) ; or any information you get about an individual in connection with providing a financial product or service ( for example, information from court records or from a consumer report ).","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-01T03:14:54.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33407","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8663764","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2024-04-01T02:46:41.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs and policies and procedures for AML/CFT , sanctions and anti-corruption compliance could have material financial, legal and reputational consequences Filing an IRS form 1099B for this barter transaction would not only be erroneous but could also be construed as facilitating tax evasion and engaging in money laundering practices. A legitimate barter transaction entails a fair exchange of goods or services."],"company":["AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY"]},"sort":[11.028572,"8663764"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":125,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":125}]}},"product":{"doc_count":125,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":44,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":44}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":41,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":41}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":11},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":3},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":5},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1},{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":125,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":42,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":24},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":9},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":9}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":34,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":31},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":13,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":9,"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":7},{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":6},{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Changes in loan terms during the application process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Communication tactics","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Used obscene, profane, or other abusive language","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using the card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with direct deposit","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":125,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":125}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":125,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":87},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":36},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":125,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":125}]}},"company":{"doc_count":125,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":30},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":23},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":18},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":17},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":7},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":2},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AES/PHEAA","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Convergent Resources, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"GUARANTEED RATE INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Harris & Harris, Ltd.","doc_count":1},{"key":"I.C. System, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"K. HOVNANIAN AMERICAN MORTGAGE, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Lennar Financial Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"LoanCare, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Phoenix Financial Services LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"United Military Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":125,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MD","doc_count":36},{"key":"FL","doc_count":17},{"key":"NC","doc_count":16},{"key":"NY","doc_count":9},{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"DC","doc_count":5},{"key":"IL","doc_count":5},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"CT","doc_count":3},{"key":"CO","doc_count":2},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"ID","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"HI","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"MS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":125,"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":67},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":4}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":125,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":26},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":4}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[11.026354,"8611370"],"3":[6.486151,"7978063"],"4":[5.6038027,"4664453"],"5":[5.336567,"8191434"]}}}