{"took":1735,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":203,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21907792","_score":20.550022,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint regarding my banks failure to properly handle a dispute under Regulation E.\n\nI rented a vehicle for {$450.00} with a {$250.00} security deposit. The merchant initially double charged me and later issued a credit. I contacted the merchant to extend the rental and was told the credit would be applied.\n\nShortly after, the vehicle was remotely disabled twice, leaving me stranded in 102-degree weather. This made the vehicle unusable and the service I paid for was not properly delivered.\n\nI attempted to contact the merchant multiple times via phone and text and received no response for several days. When I finally reached them, they refused to honor the agreement and are now attempting to charge me for a full week, including time when I did not have access to the vehicle.\n\nI disputed the transaction with my bank and requested provisional credit. It has been over 45 days, and the bank continues to state they do not know how long it will take and has not issued provisional credit.The total amount is {$720.00} Under Regulation E, financial institutions are required to complete an investigation within the required timeframe or issue provisional credit. The bank has failed to provide a clear timeline, has delayed issuing provisional credit, and has not properly handled this as an error involving services not rendered.\n\nI am requesting : Immediate provisional credit for the full disputed amount. The total amount is {$720.00} A full investigation in compliance with Regulation E A refund of all charges related to this transaction, including the security deposit This situation involves both billing error and failure to provide services, and the merchants actions created a safety issue when the vehicle was disabled.\n\nThe banks delay in handling this dispute is unacceptable.It has been over 45 days since I filed the dispute, and the bank has not issued provisional credit or completed a proper resolution. I am repeatedly told they do not know how long it will take.\n\nI have attached proof : Day 1 : Rental + double charge Day X : Called to extend ( approved ) Same day : Car shut off ( twice ) Next 4 days : No response Later : Merchant refuses refund","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-05T20:53:05.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30157","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21907792","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-05-05T20:09:24.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The total amount is {$720.00} A full investigation in <em>compliance</em> with <em>Regulation</em> E A <em>refund</em> of all <em>charges</em> <em>related</em> to this <em>transaction</em>, including the security deposit This situation involves both billing error and failure to provide services, and the merchants actions created a safety issue when the vehicle was disabled."]},"sort":[20.550022,"21907792"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5542076","_score":20.35237,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I have new information to report NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT ( TILA ) AND REGULATION Z NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT ( GM FINANCIAL ) may be in non-compliance with the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and its implementing regulation ( Regulation Z ). \nOn ( XX/XX/2020 ) consumer initiated a consumer credit transaction to obtain a ( vehicle ) for personal, family and household use. \nUpon recent review of the documents provided it has come to the consumers attention that ( GM FINANCIAL ) may be in violation of multiple provisions of TILA and Regulation Z. \nThe total balance your company claims to be due is ( XXXX ) which varies from the amount of the finance charge. \nThe finance charge in connection with any consumer credit transaction is the sum of all charges. It is also the cost of consumer credit in a dollar amount. \nDue to the inadvertent or accounting error consumer is requesting documentary evidence ( including but not limited to ) the following : Original consumer credit contract XXXX XXXX Assignments of all parties involved. \nAny XXXX filing and/or statements including any addendums. \nBooks of account ( G.A.A.P ) related to consumer credit transaction and account ( XXXX ) Financial and corporate records Any other lawful or verifiable proof of claim money for loan originated from ( GM FINANCIAL ) business bank account or stock. \n( GM FINANCIAL ) upon receipt of this notice has 15 days to provide the requested documentary evidence and proof of claim. \nIf ( GM FINANCIAL ) is unable to provide the requested documentary evidence and proof of claim I request ( GM FINANCIAL ) discharge account ( XXXX ), report account paid as agreed with no derogatory marks, remove any liens, send me my title and the XXXX. \nFurthermore, I was forced to make a cash payment ( down payment ) in a credit sale. There should be no cash in a credit sale. If ( GM FINANCIAL/XXXX XXXX XXXX ) wanted a down payment as a condition to the extension of credit it should have been included in the finance charge. \nI respectfully request a refund of my cash payment in the amount of ( {$3000.00} ) via money order or cashiers check sent to the location on file within 7 days upon receipt of this notice. \nBy sending you this notice I do not waive any rights to take legal action or to demand arbitration for ( GM FINANCIALXXXX XXXX XXXX  ) past or future violations of the law. \nI pray in good faith we can resolve this matter with honesty and integrity. \nThanks for your cooperation and compliance in advance. \nSincerely, ( SURNAME : GIVEN NAME- ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) All NATURAL AND CONSUMER RIGHTS RESERVED. WITHOUT RECOURSE","date_sent_to_company":"2022-05-05T01:00:47.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"91335","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5542076","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"General Motors Financial Company, Inc.","date_received":"2022-05-05T00:44:28.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have new information to report NON-<em>COMPLIANCE</em> WITH THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT ( TILA ) AND <em>REGULATION</em> Z NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT ( GM FINANCIAL ) may be in non-<em>compliance</em> with the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and its implementing <em>regulation</em> ( <em>Regulation</em> Z ). \nOn ( XX/XX/2020 ) consumer initiated a consumer credit <em>transaction</em> to obtain a ( vehicle ) for personal, family and household use."]},"sort":[20.35237,"5542076"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19967239","_score":20.248886,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Summary I am filing this complaint due to Currents repeated failure to properly investigate multiple dispute claims and their refusal to issue required provisional credits under federal law. \nThe disputes involve the following transactions : {$72.00} Movie ticket transaction ( service never rendered ; showing indicated location was closed ; order canceled immediately ) {$30.00} Related unresolved charge still not refunded {$150.00} XXXX XXXX  ( membership cancellation dispute ; merchant continued billing after cancellation ) {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( disputed charge ; goods/services not properly resolved ) {$1500.00} XXXX ( XXXX disputed transaction requiring full investigation ) Despite timely notice of these disputes, Current has either : Closed claims within days without meaningful investigation, Requested repetitive documentation without resolving the matter, Refused to issue provisional credits, or Failed to provide written findings explaining their determinations. \nRegulation E Violations ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), financial institutions must : Conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of an error.\n\nComplete the investigation within 10 business days XXXX XXXX credit the consumers account while the investigation continues ( up to 45 days in certain cases ). \nProvide written explanation of findings. \nCurrent has failed to provide provisional credit for these disputes despite exceeding the 10-business-day window. They have also refused to meaningfully investigate certain claims and have prematurely closed cases.\n\nFailure to follow these procedures constitutes noncompliance with federal consumer protection law. \nPattern of Improper Dispute Handling This is not an isolated incident. There appears to be a pattern of : Rapid claim closures without full review, Denial without detailed written explanation, Failure to issue provisional credits, Shifting the burden entirely onto the consumer.\n\nThese practices may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices ( UDAP ).\n\nFinancial Harm The total disputed amount exceeds {$1700.00}. The refusal to credit these funds has caused financial hardship and instability. One of the transactions alone ( {$1500.00} ) is substantial and should have triggered heightened investigative review.\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Current to : Immediately issue provisional credits for all disputed transactions.\n\nConduct full, documented investigations compliant with Regulation E.\n\nRefund the {$72.00} and {$30.00} charges related to the canceled movie service. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$150.00} XXXX XXXX dispute. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dispute. \nConduct a comprehensive review of the {$1500.00} XXXX transaction. \nProvide written documentation of all investigative findings. \nReview and correct their dispute-handling policies to ensure federal compliance. \nI am requesting regulatory intervention due to Currents repeated failure to follow federally mandated dispute resolution procedures.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T16:20:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77581","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19967239","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2026-03-04T16:03:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Conduct full, documented investigations compliant with <em>Regulation</em> E.\n\n<em>Refund</em> the {$72.00} and {$30.00} <em>charges</em> <em>related</em> to the canceled movie service. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$150.00} XXXX XXXX dispute. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dispute. \nConduct a comprehensive review of the {$1500.00} XXXX <em>transaction</em>. \nProvide written documentation of all investigative findings."],"sub_issue":["<em>Transaction</em> was not authorized"]},"sort":[20.248886,"19967239"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1995369","_score":19.84635,"_source":{"product":"Bank account or service","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint regarding collection of fraudulent charges by Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ). I am a XXXX citizen who is a victim of fraud. I was contacted by several merchants and charged for various services relating to educational materials. At the time, I did not know that these merchants were in any way related to each other as factoring companies. When I realized that I would never receive any services promised, I began vigorously contacting the merchants to get my money refunded. When that did n't work, I began contacting WFB to assist me in getting a refund of these fraudulent charges. WFB refused. I have taken them to court ; I have explained the situation to their attorneys, but still no resolve. Instead, I 'm met with a handful of Motions filed by their attorneys to the court. The case has now been pushed into federal court by WFB. WFB insists that the charges were authorized by me. However, the charges are unauthorized as the purchases were acquired with the intent to deceive me and I was misled to believe that I would actually receive the services I was promised. I received nothing. The whole refund process with WFB is exhausting ; I am not an attorney and I do not have the financial means to pay for an attorney. I am working with XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX who have provided me with regulations and statutes stating that I am entitled to get my money back for fraudulent charges. The merchants involved, XXXX and XXXX Now XXXX, have all been indicted and shut down by the FTC. They had hundreds of factoring companies between them and have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from consumers like myself. The FTC, CFPB, XXXX, FBI, XXXX and local law enforcement agencies have conducted in-depth research into the fraud scheme and concluded that not XXXX customer ever received what they were promised. WFB did not thoroughly investigate my fraud claim. I orally and in writing disputed all my charges well within the statute of limitations. WFB is making excuses for everything, and if they do n't have an excuse, they simply file a new Motion with the court. The laws I have used to maintain against WFB are : FTC Act, Section 5 ( a ) ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ) -Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive acts or practices which constitute fraud. FCBA XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX of billing errors : investigation concluding with documents showing services were provided, non-compliance is forfeiture of rights to collect on debt. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX of credit card customers : I have made a good faith effort to resolve issue with merchants, and amount of initial transaction exceeds {$50.00}, and the initial transaction occurred in my home. FDICXXXX Special Credit Card Provisions ; XXXX XXXX Operating Regulations, Reason Code XXXX : 1 ) The Chargeback is invalid for any of the following : General : \" A Transaction that the Cardholder states is fraudulent ''. 2 ) Chargeback Time Limits : \" If the merchandise or services were to be provided after the Transaction Processing Date, ... the date that the Cardholder was first made aware that the merchandise or services would not be provided, not to exceed 540 calendar days from the Transaction Processing Date ''. The schemes by these merchants were designed to be deceptive and are fraudulent. Fraudulent charges are prohibited by law and therefore illegal and should be refunded by WFB. I filed a complaint with the FTC and the local XXXX for the fraud. I should not be liable for the debt incurred with WFB and should be refunded the fraudulent transactions and all interest incurred. WFB did not provide proof to me that any goods or services were provided to me by the merchants. The Bank is clearly in violation, but because of my limited resources, it will be","date_sent_to_company":"2016-07-01T20:46:47.000Z","issue":"Making/receiving payments, sending money","sub_product":"Other bank product/service","zip_code":"967XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1995369","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2016-07-01T20:46:46.000Z","state":"HI","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":["FCBA XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX of billing errors : investigation concluding with documents showing services were provided, non-<em>compliance</em> is forfeiture of rights to collect on debt. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX of credit card customers : I have made a good faith effort to resolve issue with merchants, and amount of initial <em>transaction</em> exceeds {$50.00}, and the initial <em>transaction</em> occurred in my home."]},"sort":[19.84635,"1995369"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13724856","_score":19.631882,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding a series of disputes I submitted to Goldman Sachs related to deceptive charges made by an unregulated online social casino platform called XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI initially filed multiple disputes for charges tied to this merchant. These charges were made under the premise that the platform was free to play, but in reality, it aggressively pushed users into high-cost purchases to continue gameplay despite advertising no purchase necessary and free to play prominently. \n\nThe merchant later admitted, in writing, that I had been granted access to games that were not in compliance with my local regulations at the time of purchase. Despite that, they refused to issue refunds and pointed to non-negotiable final sale policies in their terms of service. \n\nGS initially sided with me and approved the majority of my disputes, clearly validating that the platforms practices were deceptive. However, the final charges ( each around {$300.00} ) were denied, despite being for the exact same activity and under the same conditions. The only difference was the transaction amount.\n\nI provided clear and consistent documentation for all disputes, including screenshots of : The free to play and no purchase necessary claims on the merchants website The merchants admission of regional non-compliance Public legal records showing ongoing class action lawsuits and settlements against social casino platforms for the same deceptive practices I believe these denials represent an unjust inconsistency in how GS handles consumer protections for digital purchases. The CFPB and courts have already recognized that social casinos are operating in legally gray areas and exploiting consumers, particularly through manipulative advertising.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate this issue and urge Goldman Sachs to resolve the remaining disputes fairly and in accordance with how they handled my initial claims. Thank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-26T12:45:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"41042","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13724856","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-05-26T12:22:43.000Z","state":"KY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing this complaint regarding a series of disputes I submitted to Goldman Sachs <em>related</em> to deceptive <em>charges</em> made by an unregulated online social casino platform called XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI initially filed multiple disputes for <em>charges</em> tied to this merchant."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[19.631882,"13724856"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17479709","_score":19.614992,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Financial Institution : Bank of America Merchant : XXXX  Issue : Unauthorized withdrawals, improper dispute denial, Regulation E violation, Stored Credential misuse Complaint Statement I am filing this complaint because Bank of America has repeatedly denied my valid dispute involving unauthorized charges made by XXXX. XXXX charged my Bank of America debit card multiple times without my permission, and the bank failed to follow Regulation E requirements when handling my claim. \n\nI only authorized ONE XXXX ride using this card. That transaction was legitimate. After that ride was completed and paid for, XXXX charged my card again on separate dates without my consent. I did NOT authorize XXXX  to store this card, did NOT set up recurring billing, and did NOT approve any additional charges for any outstanding balance. This card was not saved in the XXXX app, and XXXX did not present the required Settle Balance prompt, proving they had no authorization to use this card for debts or additional transactions. \nThese follow-up charges were unauthorized electronic fund transfers under 12 CFR 1005 ( Regulation E ). Bank of America denied my dispute even though merchants are prohibited from charging cards that the customer did not authorize or store. The bank did not request stored-credential authorization from XXXX, did not provide evidence that I approved these later charges, and did not perform a proper investigation within their legal obligations. \n\nBank of America continues to claim these transactions were valid simply because I used the card once. A single authorized charge does NOT grant a merchant permission to charge the card again later for unrelated debts. This is a violation of Regulation E and XXXX Stored Credential Rules.\n\nI am requesting CFPB assistance to : 1. Require Bank of America to properly investigate the unauthorized transactions 2. Require XXXX to provide proof of stored-credential authorization ( they can not ) 3. Reverse all unauthorized charges 4. Refund any overdraft or related fees caused by these transactions 5. Ensure compliance with federal consumer protection laws These charges were unauthorized, the bank failed to protect me, and I need CFPB intervention to resolve this.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-24T16:39:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"60637","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17479709","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-11-24T16:27:03.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A single authorized <em>charge</em> does NOT grant a merchant permission to <em>charge</em> the card again later for unrelated debts. This is a violation of <em>Regulation</em> E and XXXX Stored Credential Rules.\n\nI am requesting CFPB assistance to : 1. Require Bank of America to properly investigate the unauthorized transactions 2. Require XXXX to provide proof of stored-credential authorization ( they can not ) 3. Reverse all unauthorized <em>charges</em> 4. <em>Refund</em> any overdraft or <em>related</em> fees caused by these transactions 5."],"sub_issue":["<em>Transaction</em> was not authorized"]},"sort":[19.614992,"17479709"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18656507","_score":19.509777,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Financial Institution : Navy Federal Credit Union Related Case Number : XXXX I am filing a complaint regarding Navy Federal Credit Unions handling of a debit card error under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), specifically its refusal to issue provisional credit during an active investigation. \n\nI was charged {$500.00} by XXXX XXXX for alleged vehicle damage. XXXX later provided written confirmation that no damage was found and no fee applies, and that the charge should be refunded. Despite this, the {$500.00} debit remains fully posted to my account and no refund has been issued. \n\nI contacted Navy Federal and a new Regulation E claim was opened for this transaction. However, the supervising representative ( XXXX XXXX refused to issue provisional credit. She stated that she does not authorize provisional credit, that Regulation E is effectively no different from a previously closed dispute, and that there was no one in the disputes department above her that I could speak with regarding provisional credit. \n\nNavy Federal did not state that the investigation would be completed within 10 business days, did not identify any applicable Regulation E exception when asked, and did not require additional written confirmation from me. The refusal of provisional credit was not based on any of the exceptions permitted under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nRegulation E requires a financial institution to provide provisional credit when an investigation into a reported error is not completed within 10 business days, unless a specific regulatory exception applies. Navy Federal has refused provisional credit while the claim is open and under investigation, without citing any such exception. \n\nAdditionally, I was told there was no escalation path beyond this supervisor, effectively preventing review by disputes compliance or management. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require Navy Federal Credit Union to : Comply with Regulation Es provisional credit requirements during the pendency of this investigation, or Provide a written determination citing the specific Regulation E provision relied upon to deny provisional credit. \n\nNavy Federals refusal to provide provisional credit during an active Regulation E investigation appears to be a failure to comply with 12 CFR 1005.11.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-12T18:53:27.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"85035","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18656507","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-01-12T18:29:36.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite this, the {$500.00} debit remains fully posted to my account and no <em>refund</em> has been issued. \n\nI contacted Navy Federal and a new <em>Regulation</em> E claim was opened for this <em>transaction</em>. However, the supervising representative ( XXXX XXXX refused to issue provisional credit."]},"sort":[19.509777,"18656507"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17118637","_score":19.387093,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear XXXX XXXX and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Thank you for your XX/XX/year> letter regarding my complaint. While I appreciate the summary provided, I must formally dispute the findings and request that this case be reopened for full review. \n\n1. I Unenrolled from Overdraft in XX/XX/year> Yet Fees Continue According to Wells Fargos own records, a courtesy refund was issued on XX/XX/year>. Immediately thereafter, I unenrolled from Standard Overdraft Protection via online banking to prevent further overdrafts. Despite that explicit opt-out, Wells Fargo has continued to process transactions that overdraw my account, resulting in repeated overdraft fees. \n\nUnder 12 C.F.R. 1005.17 ( Regulation E ), a financial institution may not assess overdraft fees on ATM or debit-card transactions without the consumers affirmative opt-in. By continuing to honor transactions and charge fees after my documented unenrollment, Wells Fargo appears to have violated federal consumer-protection law and its own public disclosures. \n\n2. Declined Transactions Later Approved Without Consent I have verified that certain merchants most notably XXXX repeatedly submit the same payment authorization request after initial declines. For example, when a transaction is declined two times, XXXX will automatically resubmit the same charge across all cards on file until it finds an approval. \n\nWells Fargos systems have, on multiple occasions, approved these third-attempt submissions after issuing initial decline responses. This results in unauthorized posting of a previously declined charge and subsequent overdraft fees. \n\nOnce a transaction has been declined, it should not be processed again without explicit consumer re-authorization. Allowing resubmission and approval after a decline particularly for customers unenrolled from overdraft services undermines Regulation E protections and constitutes a failure of the banks authorization controls. \n\n3. Posting Order and Transparency Issues Wells Fargos own letter acknowledges that deposits and debits may post in unpredictable order depending on merchant submission. When combined with continued overdraft coverage after unenrollment, this creates systemic unpredictability that exposes consumers to fees they could not reasonably avoid. \n\nThe fact that these issues persist after my opt-out demonstrates that the banks systems are either not honoring customer selections or not properly synchronizing authorization and posting logic. \n\n4. Requested Actions I respectfully request that Wells Fargo and the CFPB : Reopen this case and investigate why overdraft fees continued after unenrollment. \n\nProvide a complete transaction audit ( including timestamps of authorization and settlement ) for all overdraft events from XX/XX/year> to XX/XX/year>, with the exception of the {$100.00} that Wells Fargo refunded in XXXX. They would only refund 3 overdraft charges, and I have had 57 ( fifty-seven ) overdraft fees deducted from my account ; 54 remaining. \n\nIdentify and correct any system defect that allowed declined transactions to be later approved and posted. \n\nRefund {$2000.00} in fees resulting from these improper overdraft events. \n\nConfirm in writing that my account is now fully excluded from all overdraft services and that no negative marks will be reported during the investigation. \n\n5. Regulatory and Compliance Concerns Given Wells Fargos history of enforcement actions related to overdraft practices, this matter raises broader questions about ongoing compliance with CFPB and OCC orders. I respectfully request that the CFPB review this case for potential systemic issues affecting other consumers who have opted out yet continue to experience similar overdraft activity. \n\nConclusion I appreciate your attention to this matter and request a written response confirming receipt and reopening of the case. I will provide additional transaction details or screenshots upon request. \n\nThank you for your commitment to transparency and consumer fairness. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-08T11:06:20.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"44102","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17118637","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-11-08T10:55:09.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Refund</em> {$2000.00} in fees resulting from these improper overdraft events. \n\nConfirm in writing that my account is now fully excluded from all overdraft services and that no negative marks will be reported during the investigation. \n\n5. Regulatory and <em>Compliance</em> Concerns Given Wells Fargos history of enforcement actions <em>related</em> to overdraft practices, this matter raises broader questions about ongoing <em>compliance</em> with CFPB and OCC orders."]},"sort":[19.387093,"17118637"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21731878","_score":18.35668,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Submission - Follow-Up / Related t o Prior Complaint No. XXXX Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, La XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX SS # XXXX Institution : Cash App ( Block, Inc. ) Issue Type : Electronic Fund Transfer Emor - Procedural Violations/ Failure t o Conduct Compliant Investigation Related Complaint : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I. Summary o f Complaint This complaint i s submitted as a follow-up to prior CFPB Complaint No. XXXX. \nWhile Cash App ultimately issued a {$35.00} refund o XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, that action does not resolve the substantive issues raised i n the original complaint. The refund was delayed approximately 60 days from the confirmed merchant issuance date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and was only provided after repeated escalation, including the initial CFPB complaint. \nThis complaint concers Cash App 's failure t o follow required dispute investigation procedures under Regulation E, independent o f the eventual monetary resolution.\n\n# # # II. Basis for Complaint The original issue involved a confirmed merchant-issued refund from Apple that was never received o r credited t o my account. Despite being provided with documentation confirming the refund, Cash App - Denied the dispute within approximately XXXX hours - Misclassified the issue a s an authorization/recurring charge dispute rather than a missing inbound refund - Failed to conduct a network-level trace to determine the status o f the refund - Provided inconsistent and contradictory statements regarding the status of the investigation - Failed t o provide any trace documentation, XXXX, o r settlement-level verification Cash App 's formal response to the CFPB did not address these failures and instead relied solely on the fact that the refund was eventually issued. \n# # # XXXX. Regulation E Concerns The handling of this dispute raises concerns under Regulation E, including : 1. Failure t o conduct a reasonable investigation o f an electronic fund transfer error 2. Investigation o f a n incorrect issue type ( authorization vs. missing refund ) 3. Failure t o verify whether the inbound refund was received, posted, or rejected 4. Failure t o provide provisional credit during a n extended investigation period 5. Failure to complete the investigation within required timeframes 6. Premature denial and closure o f the dispute without resolving the underlying error The eventual refund does not demonstrate that a compliant investigation was conducted. \nRather, it indicates that the issue remained unresolved until escalated. \n# # # IV. Inadequate Company Response In response t o Complaint No. XXXX, Cash App stated that the matter was \" resolved '' and that no further action was required. This response is incomplete and does not address : - The basis for the initial denial - The absence of a proper investigation at the time of denial - The failure t o conduct o r document a network-level trace - The delay between confirmed refund issuance and final resolution - The lack o f adherence to required procedural safeguards -- # # # V. Public Representations vs. Actual Practice Cash App has publicly stated, in connection with its agreement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , that it has improved its dispute resolution processes, customer support systems, and investigative procedures. \nMy experience in this matter-including misclassification of the dispute, lack of investigation, delayed resolution, and inconsistent communication -appears inconsistent with those representations. \n# # # VI. Requested Action XXXX requesting that this complaint b e reviewed independently o f the prior complaint closure, with focus o n procedural compliance rather than the ultimate refund outcome. \nSpecifically, I request : 1. A detailed explanation o f the investigation steps actually performed a t the time o f the initial denial 2. Confirmation o f whether a network-level trace was conducted, and i f so, the results 3. Clarification as t o why the dispute was misclassified and not properly investigated 4. Review o f Cash App 's dispute handling procedures for compliance with Regulation E requirements 5. Consideration o f appropriate remediation due t o the delay and improper handling o f this matter # # # VII. Final Statement This matter i s not solely about a refunded transaction. It concerns the failure t o properly investigate and resolve a documented error in accordance with required procedures.\n\nThe eventual refund does not cure the underlying deficiencies in how the dispute was handled. \n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-30T00:39:12.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"70785","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21731878","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-04-30T00:26:26.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Review o f Cash App 's dispute handling procedures for <em>compliance</em> with <em>Regulation</em> E requirements 5. Consideration o f appropriate remediation due t o the delay and improper handling o f this matter # # # VII. Final Statement This matter i s not solely about a <em>refunded</em> <em>transaction</em>. It concerns the failure t o properly investigate and resolve a documented error in accordance with required procedures.\n\nThe eventual <em>refund</em> does not cure the underlying deficiencies in how the dispute was handled."],"issue":["Unauthorized transactions or other <em>transaction</em> problem"]},"sort":[18.35668,"21731878"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19545752","_score":17.614487,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Regulation XXXX & XXXX Noncompliance - Failure XXXX  Investigate and Ongoing Violations This complaint concerns XXXX XXXX Banks failure XXXX  conduct a reasonable investigation, XXXX  its willful misconduct, willful negligence, reckless disregard, XXXX  willful noncompliance with Regulation XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX handling my credit card billing dispute. \n\nThis submission is not a duplicate of CFPB XXXX XXXX. That complaint addressed the underlying transaction. This complaint addresses the banks procedural XXXX  substantive violations during XXXX after the dispute process. \n\nFirst Interstate Bank denied a services-not-rendered dispute without identifying any evidence that the contracted service was delivered. No property was delivered, no listing launched, no revenue generated, XXXX  the merchant issued a partial refund acknowledging non-delivery. Despite this undisputed record, the bank denied the dispute and continues XXXX  charge interest. \n\nThe bank relied on unsigned, post-payment merchant terms, refused XXXX  provide the merchants rebuttal documentation, XXXX  refused to disclose the dates the rebuttal was received, processed, or reviewed, preventing verification of compliance with Regulation XXXX. \n\nThe bank gave the merchant approximately XXXX days to respond ( XX/XX/year> to XX/XX/year> ), while giving me fewer than XXXX  days, by physical mail only, despite knowing I was traveling and after I requested digital delivery. I have never received the alleged XX/XX/year> letter, yet the dispute was closed anyway. \n\nThe bank now claims it can not assist because internal timelines have passed. This is legally false. Regulation Z provides no safe harbor for denying a billing error based on procedure when the investigation is unreasonable or when the underlying facts establish non-delivery. A procedurally timely denial that ratifies merchant non-performance is not compliance - it is facilitation. XXXX access XXXX  : AirDNA, marketplaces, or consultation does not constitute delivery of the promised DFY merchant services with an abundance of proof provided on the subject in detail, directly from the merchant themselves. \n\nUnder XXXX Reason Code XXXX, the test is binary : Was the promised service delivered? Here, the answer is no. The promised service with provided proof explicitly states a XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX acquired property ; designed, furnished, & listed that profits $ XXXX $ XXXX after operational expenses. \n\nToken or preparatory activity can not cure total non-delivery. \nNo timeline argument can cure that defect. \n\nFirst Interstate Bank continues XXXX  demonstrate willful negligence, XXXX  routinely ignores action relating XXXX  directly addressed compliance with XXXX, XXXX XXXX, proper investigation, etc. They refuse XXXX  answer compliance related questions, and continue XXXX  violate consumer chargeback rights, XXXX  are abusing their powers as a bank, due XXXX  a lack of due diligence, XXXX  repeated documented willful misconduct. \n\nI am requesting immediate supervisory review and administrative correction. These Regulation XXXX  and XXXX  violations persist after notice and appeal, warranting CFPB XXXX. This must be escalated XXXX  all relevant enforcement agencies.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-17T03:08:56.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"554XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19545752","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC.","date_received":"2026-02-17T02:21:21.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["No property was delivered, no listing launched, no revenue generated, XXXX  the merchant issued a partial <em>refund</em> acknowledging non-delivery. Despite this undisputed record, the bank denied the dispute and continues XXXX  <em>charge</em> interest."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[17.614487,"19545752"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17132075","_score":17.58792,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) for what I believe are unfair and deceptive banking practices related to overdraft fees, delayed posting of peer-to-peer ( XXXX ) transactions, and undisclosed processing timelines. \n\nDespite maintaining sufficient available balances and closely monitoring account activity, I have been charged multiple overdraft fees due to delayed processing of peer-to-peer transfers ( such as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX internal Navy Federal transfers ) . The timing of these transactions appears inconsistent, non-transparent, and in violation of fair disclosure requirements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E. \n\n\n\nDetailed Description XXXX. Delayed Peer-to-Peer Payment Processing : Peer-to-peer transactions sent or received via Navy Federals online or mobile app are often delayeXXXX for hours or days without clear disclosure. \nThe funds are sometimes held in pending status long after the sending institution confirms completion, causing artificial account shortages. \nThese unexplained holds result in unnecessary overdraft fees even when the account had sufficient funds at the time of transaction initiation. \nXXXX. Lack of Transparent Disclosure : Navy Federal does not clearly disclose processing times or cut-off windows for XXXX transactions within its account agreement or electronic transfer policies. \nThe lack of upfront information misleads consumers into believing transactions settle in real time, consistent with industry standards. \nThis practice unfairly disadvantages consumers who rely on prompt crediting of electronic funds. \nXXXX. Manipulative Posting Order and Fee Assessment : In several instances, transactions were reordered or posted at different times than initiated, resulting in multiple overdraft charges on the same day. \nThis practice contradicts fair banking principles and may constitute a violation of the CFPBs guidance on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). \nXXXX. Failure to Provide Reasonable Resolution : When I contacted Navy Federals customer service, representatives provided inconsistent explanations for the delayed processing and refused to refund overdraft fees resulting from these delays. \nTheir responses failed to address the core issue : Navy Federals undisclosed and inconsistent transaction posting times directly caused the overdrafts. \n\n\n\nImpact on Consumer These actions have caused repeated and avoidable financial harm, loss of funds through unfair overdraft charges, and emotional distress due to unpredictable account behavior. The institutions lack of transparency prevents informed consumer decision-making and undermines confidence in digital banking reliability. \n\n\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : XXXX. Investigate Navy Federal Credit Unions overdraft and transaction posting practices for compliance with Regulation E and UDAAP provisions. \nXXXX. Require clear disclosure of XXXX payment processing timelines in all account materials and digital banking interfaces. \nXXXX. Mandate refunds of all overdraft fees caused by delayed or undisclosed transaction posting. \nXXXX. Issue guidance to ensure peer-to-peer transactions are credited promptly and that overdraft fees are not assessed due to Navy Federals internal processing delays .\n\nSupporting Evidence ( Attach if Available ) Account statements showing overdraft fees following delayed transactions Screenshots of XXXX pending status timestamps Correspondence with Navy Federal representatives regarding the delays and denials of refunds Certification : I certify that the information above is true to the best of my knowledge and request that the CFPB review this matter under its authority to protect consumers from unfair financial practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-11T05:10:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"44121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17132075","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-11T05:02:34.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Investigate Navy Federal Credit Unions overdraft and <em>transaction</em> posting practices for <em>compliance</em> with <em>Regulation</em> E and UDAAP provisions. \nXXXX. Require clear disclosure of XXXX payment processing timelines in all account materials and digital banking interfaces. \nXXXX. Mandate <em>refunds</em> of all overdraft fees caused by delayed or undisclosed <em>transaction</em> posting. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[17.58792,"17132075"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17866558","_score":17.477604,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Description of Complaint : I am filing a complaint regarding a final denial by my credit card issuer, Chase, of a billing dispute for a {$440.00} transaction with the merchant XXXX. The dispute was filed on the grounds of Non-Receipt of Credit/Refund for Returned Merchandise . \n\nTimeline of Events and Actions Taken XX/XX/year> : A transaction of {$440.00} posted to my credit card account, ending in [ Omit last XXXX digits, but this is for reference ] XXXX, for an order ( Order Number : XXXX ) from the merchant XXXXXXXX XX/XX/year> : The merchandise purchased was returned to the merchant using their provided prepaid return label. \n\nXX/XX/year> : The returned merchandise was confirmed delivered to the merchant 's facility via XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I possess documentation verifying this delivery. \n\nXX/XX/year>- XX/XX/year> : I repeatedly contacted the merchant ( XXXX ) regarding the overdue refund. The merchant continuously delayed the process, asking me to wait, but ultimately failed to issue the credit. \n\nLate XX/XX/year> ( e.g., XX/XX/year> ) : I formally filed a dispute with Chase Dispute Services. The initial case/reference number was XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I submitted a Formal Appeal and Request for Reversal to Chase, providing comprehensive evidence, including the specific XXXX  tracking number and confirmation of delivery on XX/XX/year>. This letter detailed the merchant 's failure to credit my account after physically receiving the returned items. \n\nXX/XX/year> : I received a final decision letter from Chase stating that, despite the evidence of the returned merchandise, they confirmed \" the transaction is valid and no billing error occurred on your account. '' The letter acknowledges that I \" may have a valid complaint with the merchant '' but denies the claim.\n\nBasis for Complaint Against the Card Issuer ( Chase ) The credit card issuer 's denial is contradictory to the documentation provided. The dispute is based on the merchant 's failure to issue a credit after verifiably receiving the returned merchandise, which is a fundamental reason for a billing dispute under credit card regulations. The issuer 's statement that the transaction is \" valid '' because \" no billing error occurred on your account '' is an incorrect application of consumer protection for disputes related to a merchant 's non-performance ( failure to issue a refund ).\n\nI have provided irrefutable proof ( third-party carrier tracking confirmation ) that the merchandise for which I was charged {$440.00} was returned and successfully delivered to the merchant on XX/XX/year>. The card issuer failed to reverse the charge despite this clear evidence of the merchant 's non-compliance with their refund obligation. \n\nI request that the CFPB investigate Chase 's handling of this dispute ( Case/Reference Number XXXX ) and require them to issue a permanent credit for the full disputed amount of {$440.00}.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-09T11:07:34.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94085","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17866558","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-12-09T11:02:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The card issuer failed to reverse the <em>charge</em> despite this clear evidence of the merchant 's non-<em>compliance</em> with their <em>refund</em> obligation. \n\nI request that the CFPB investigate Chase 's handling of this dispute ( Case/Reference Number XXXX ) and require them to issue a permanent credit for the full disputed amount of {$440.00}."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[17.477604,"17866558"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13374608","_score":16.665987,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Supplemental Complaint Against Chase Bank To Whom It May Concern, This formal supplemental complaint is submitted in support and continuation of my previously filed complaint concerning Chase Banks repeated pattern of misconduct, noncompliance, and deceptive behavior surrounding the fraudulent transaction of {$83.00} and other documented issues. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I called to initiate a claim regarding the fraudulent charge of {$83.00}. During this call, my debit card and checking account ending in XXXX were both in a locked state. Despite this, Chase permitted an unauthorized debit of {$83.00}, in direct violation of Regulation E, and its own stated policies and consumer protections. I was informed by the representative that a claim would be filed and a temporary credit would be issued. I later witnessed this credit reflected in my balance, confirming the representation. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/year>, the credit mysteriously disappeared. My checking account was overdrawn and Chases flawed overdraft protection then triggered a transfer of {$42.00} from my savings account ending in XXXX proper notice or justification. Despite the clear presence of this charge and the representatives earlier assurances, when I contacted Chase again on XX/XX/XXXX, the first representative falsely claimed that no such call had occurred, no claim had been filed, and no credit was ever applied. These statements were blatantly false. \n\nAfter being placed on multiple holds and transferred, the next representative acknowledged that the credit had in fact existed but claimed it was pending and would disappear upon the transaction postinga complete reversal of what I had been told. I was further informed that the temporary credit could not be applied until the charge was fully settled, requiring 12 hours to 1 business day. This explanation was misleading and contradictory to what had already taken place. \n\nAt the end of the call, the representative placed me on yet another hold to escalate the matter. When she returned, she claimed escalation was denied on the grounds that further time was required. Almost immediately after the call ended, the pending credit reappearedbut instead of being deposited fully into checking account XXXX as a proper temporary credit, it was artificially split to mirror the overdraft that had impacted both my checking and savings accounts. This manipulation appears to be an intentional attempt to obscure Chases wrongdoing and limit visibility of the refund process. \n\nAt no point during this period was the claim ever made visible in the Track Claims section of Chases digital platformfurther supporting the fact that Chase is engaged in an effort to obscure and conceal its regulatory failures. \n\nTherefore, I am formally demanding : - That the full call recordings for XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year>, between myself and Chase representatives be turned over to an independent regulatory authority ; - That the full transaction audit history, including the status of my accounts and debit cards at all relevant times, be produced ; - That each complaint I have submitted through the CFPB, especially those related to fraudulent transactions, illegal money order holds, and refusal to honor arbitration clauses, be independently reviewed by a regulatory agency ; - That Chase provide a written report of all communications, transactions, and internal determinations related to the XXXX charge and all related claim activity ; - That this complaint not be treated as duplicate, similar, or previously addressed, as it is a distinct and new issue. \n\nAdditionally, in accordance with federal banking law and constitutional protections, I assert that : - Notice to agent is notice to principal ; - Any further obstruction, manipulation, or false statement by Chase or its representatives will result in immediate escalation to appropriate regulatory and legal authorities. \n\nI am reserving all rights and remedies under UCC 1-308 and demand full compliance, good faith, and due diligence as required under applicable federal regulations and consumer protection statutes. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX All Rights Reserved UCC 1-308","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-07T00:17:30.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13374608","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-05-07T00:09:40.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am reserving all rights and remedies under UCC 1-308 and demand full <em>compliance</em>, good faith, and due diligence as required under applicable federal <em>regulations</em> and consumer protection statutes. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX All Rights Reserved UCC 1-308"]},"sort":[16.665987,"13374608"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12564547","_score":16.389471,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for unfair and deceptive acts and practices related to force-placed insurance, loan mismanagement, and wrongful repossession under my retail installment sales contract ( RISC ) ( Form 553 CA with arbitration clause ). The actions of the lender/dealer violate federal and state consumer protection laws, including : 1. 12 CFR Part 1024 ( Regulation X - RESPA ) ( Force-Placed Insurance & Loan Mismanagement ) 2. 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z - Truth in Lending Act - TILA ) ( Failure to Disclose Fees ) 3. 12 CFR Part 1006 ( Regulation F - FDCPA ) ( Unfair Debt Collection & Repossession ) 4. California Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ) - Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 ( Deceptive Business Practices ) 5. California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( CLRA ) ( Unfair Repossession & Financing Fraud ) I request an investigation and immediate relief for the financial harm I have suffered.\n\nII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Force-Placed Insurance Without Proper Notice : - On XX/XX/XXXX, I financed a vehicle through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX using a retail installment sales contract ( Form 553 CA ) ; which was transferd to Green Road Finance Inc XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n- On XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX/XXXX Despite having valid auto insurance, Green Road Finance Inc unilaterally added force-placed insurance without verifying my coverage, increasing my monthly payments. \n- Green Road Finance Inc failed to provide proper disclosures under 12 CFR 1024.37, and I was never given an opportunity to opt out or prove existing coverage. \n- The force-placed insurance led to excessive fees, interest accumulation, and late payments, affecting my credit. \nB. Mismanagement of Insurance & Fees : - My monthly loan payment included additional charges for insurance and fees that were never properly disclosed. \n- I repeatedly requested an itemized breakdown of these charges but was denied, violating Regulation X ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and TILA ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \n- XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to apply payments properly, leading to unjustified late fees and a reported loan default. \nXXXX Wrongful Repossession Based on Forced Insurance Charges : - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX declared my loan in default based on unpaid insurance charges and initiated repossession without proper notice and documents required after reposession. \n- This action violates Californias Fair Debt Collection Laws and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA, XXXX XXXX XXXX ) by using unfair collection practices. \n- I was never provided a valid XXXX to Cure notice under California law before repossession. \n\nXXXX. LEGAL VIOLATIONS : XXXX. Violation of 12 CFR 1024 ( Regulation X - RESPA ) -- 1024.37 - Force-Placed Insurance ( Failure to provide proper notices before charging for insurance ) -- 1024.17 - Escrow Accounting ( Failure to properly disclose and manage insurance charges ) 2. Violation of 12 CFR 1026 ( Regulation Z - Truth in Lending Act - TILA ) -- 1026.18 - Disclosures ( Failure to disclose all finance charges ) -- 1026.22 - Miscalculation of APR ( Overstating insurance charges as loan costs ) 3. Violation of 12 CFR 1006 ( Regulation F - FDCPA ) -- 1006.14 - Harassment & Abusive Practices ( Unfair repossession threats based on forced charges ) -- 1006.18 - False or Deceptive Practices ( Misrepresenting insurance charges as valid debts ) 4. Violation of California State Laws -- California Unfair Competition Law ( Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 ) ( Unfair and deceptive auto financing practices ) -- California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( CLRA ) ( Failure to disclose material terms in a financial transaction ) -- California Repossession Law ( Cal. Civ. Code 2983.2 ) ( Failure to issue a Right to Cure notice before repossession and proper notices after reposession ) IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF : I request that CFPBXXXX Attorney General investigate Green Road finance Inc and grant the following relief : 1. Refund all force-placed insurance charges and overpaid fees.\n\n2. Remove negative credit reporting related to insurance charges and wrongful repossession.\n\n3. Reimburse out-of-pocket costs related to repossession ( tow fees, storage fees, lost wages ).\n\n4. Issue penalties and fines against the lender for unfair and deceptive business practices.\n\n5. Require full compliance with Regulation X, Regulation Z, and FDCPA for future loans.\n\nV. CONCLUSION '' The actions of Green Road Finance Inc have caused me significant financial harm, including unauthorized charges, credit damage, and wrongful repossession. Their violations of federal and state laws warrant an immediate investigation and enforcement action. \nI request confirmation that this complaint has been received and an update on the status of any investigation or corrective action.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-19T11:50:57.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"91306","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12564547","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GREEN ROAD FINANCE INC.","date_received":"2025-03-19T10:51:12.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Billing problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Refund</em> all force-placed insurance <em>charges</em> and overpaid fees.\n\n2. Remove negative credit reporting <em>related</em> to insurance <em>charges</em> and wrongful repossession.\n\n3. Reimburse out-of-pocket costs <em>related</em> to repossession ( tow fees, storage fees, lost wages ).\n\n4. Issue penalties and fines against the lender for unfair and deceptive business practices.\n\n5. Require full <em>compliance</em> with <em>Regulation</em> X, <em>Regulation</em> Z, and FDCPA for future loans.\n\nV."]},"sort":[16.389471,"12564547"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12025637","_score":16.373022,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Against Cash App for Failing to Investigate Fraudulent Charges and Denying Account Access Issue Type : Money Transfer, Mobile Wallets, or Payment Apps Complaint Details I am filing this complaint against Cash App ( Block , Inc. ) due to their failure to properly address unauthorized transactions on my account and for blocking my access to the account after I reported the issue. Their actions violate consumer protection laws, including the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and associated regulations. \n\nKey Issues : Fraudulent Transactions on My Account : My Cash App account was hacked, and several unauthorized transactions occurred. I promptly reported these fraudulent transactions to Cash App, as required under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6, which limits consumer liability for unauthorized transactions if reported timely. \n\nFailure to Investigate and Resolve Dispute : Cash App failed to investigate the fraudulent charges adequately or provide a resolution. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, Cash App is required to : Investigate disputes within 10 business days of notification. \nProvide provisional credit if the investigation takes l\n\nonger than 10 business days. Notify me of their findings within 3 business days a\nfter completing the investigation. \nNone of these steps were followed in my case. Instead, they dismissed my claims without providing any supporting documentation or explanation. \n\nDenial of Account Access : After reporting the fraudulent activity, Cash App restricted or permanently closed my account without explanation. This action is unjust and may constitute a retaliatory and unfair practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( UDAAP ). Furthermore, by locking me out of my account, Cash App has prevented me from accessing transaction records, funds, and evidence related to my dispute. \n\nLack of Communication : Despite my efforts to communicate with Cash Apps customer service team, I have been unable to obtain a clear explanation or resolution. Their lack of transparency and responsiveness has exacerbated my financial and emotional distress. \n\nRelevant Consumer Protection Laws Violated Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ) : Protects consumers from unauthorized electronic transactions and ensures proper investigation of disputes. \nRegulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 & 1005.11 ) : Requires financial institutions to investigate disputes promptly, provide provisional credit when necessary, and notify consumers of investigation results. \nUnfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) : Denying access to my account and failing to investigate my dispute may constitute an unfair or abusive practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. \nRequest for CFPB Assistance I respectfully request the CFPB to take the following actions : Require Cash App to Investigate the Fraudulent Transactions : Cash App should conduct a thorough investigation of the fraudulent charges on my account and provide documentation of their findings. \n\nProvide Refund for Unauthorized Charges : I request that Cash App refund the full amount of all unauthorized transactions as required under the EFTA. \n\nRestore Access to My Account or Provide Full Documentation : If my account can not be reinstated, I request access to all account statements, transaction records, and related documentation. \n\nReview Cash Apps Practices : I urge the CFPB to investigate Cash Apps dispute resolution and account handling practices to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws. \n\nSupporting Details I no longer have access to that Cash App account due to the restrictions they imposed. However, I can provide the following details to assist with verification : The email or phone number associated with the account. XXXX XXXX Approximate dates and amounts of the fraudulent transactions. XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX  Cash App Tag- XXXX XXXXXXXX Despite the lack of access to my account, I am confident that Cash Apps mishandling of this situation has violated my rights under federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-10T05:37:27.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"362XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12025637","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-02-10T05:30:28.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Request for CFPB Assistance I respectfully request the CFPB to take the following actions : Require Cash App to Investigate the Fraudulent Transactions : Cash App should conduct a thorough investigation of the fraudulent <em>charges</em> on my account and provide documentation of their findings. \n\nProvide <em>Refund</em> for Unauthorized <em>Charges</em> : I request that Cash App <em>refund</em> the full amount of all unauthorized transactions as required under the EFTA."],"issue":["Unauthorized transactions or other <em>transaction</em> problem"]},"sort":[16.373022,"12025637"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8265912","_score":15.98722,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB. This letter serves as a formal request for CashApp compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$800.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX, XXXX And XXXX, in the amount of {$800.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. I appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX  representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \n\nCash App decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation.\n\n2. Financial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \n\nXXXX. Ethical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. \n\nThese regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \n\nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of XXXX, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \n\nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Cash App to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Cash App commitment to ethical banking standards. \n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Cash App to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. A prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \n\nXXXX. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. Under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \n\nXXXX. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T02:59:21.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8265912","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-02T02:18:30.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please be advised that non-<em>compliance</em> with my <em>refund</em> request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking <em>regulations</em> and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions <em>related</em> to these services, continued refusal to process the <em>refund</em> might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. \n\nThese <em>regulations</em> and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md."]},"sort":[15.98722,"8265912"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8261432","_score":15.98722,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Bank of America. Bank of America correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Closed. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. \nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nBank of America denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E. \nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX commitment to ethical banking standards. \nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. \nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:49:12.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8261432","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-01-31T16:36:24.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please be advised that non-<em>compliance</em> with my <em>refund</em> request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking <em>regulations</em> and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions <em>related</em> to these services, continued refusal to process the <em>refund</em> might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These <em>regulations</em> and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md."]},"sort":[15.98722,"8261432"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8255451","_score":15.932152,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Navy Federal Credit Union Denial of Claims. Navy Federal Credit Union emails dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Resolved. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern Navy Federal Credit Unions compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice.\n\nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ).\n\nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms.\n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX XXXX services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX XXXX billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances.\n\nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX XXXX representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful.\n\nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship.\n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place Navy Federal Credit Union in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions.\n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning XXXX XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. XXXX XXXX XXXX  actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Navy Federal Credit Union to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Navy Federal Credit Unions commitment to ethical banking standards.\n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Navy Federal Credit Union to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer.\n\nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance.\n\nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards.\n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request.\n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery.\n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings.\n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit.\n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality.\n\nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:27:16.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8255451","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-01-31T15:52:22.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please be advised that non-<em>compliance</em> with my <em>refund</em> request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place Navy Federal Credit Union in violation of specific Maryland banking <em>regulations</em> and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions <em>related</em> to these services, continued refusal to process the <em>refund</em> might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These <em>regulations</em> and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md."]},"sort":[15.932152,"8255451"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18136063","_score":15.782745,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint regarding American Expresss failure to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act and Regulation Z in the handling of billing disputes and the issuance of credits for invalid charges. \nI disputed XXXX charges that were installments of a larger transaction for services that were not provided as promised. I submitted documentation supporting my claim, including a written rebuttal to the merchants response with screenshots showing what actually occurred. The merchant did not submit evidence that negated my claim. American Express credited XXXX installment but denied the other, which further indicates that the dispute handling was not based on a consistent or reasonable evaluation of the evidence.\n\nAmerican Express later refused to reopen the dispute, despite previously stating in writing that the investigation could be reopened if additional documentation indicating a potential change in outcome was provided. I submitted additional documentation and contacted American Express within that timeframe.\n\nOn subsequent recorded calls, American Express representatives made statements indicating that dispute outcomes were predetermined and that customer-submitted documentation would not be meaningfully reviewed. On\n\none recorded call, a representative stated that American Express didnt really look into many disputes, especially the small ones, which were described as transactions of {$25.00} or less, explaining that such disputes are written off because when a customer files a claim, the bank costs {$25.00} to investigate. When I asked whether I could re-upload documentation supporting my dispute, a representative stated there was no\npoint in submitting additional evidence. Representatives further stated that the dispute could not be reopened because it had been reopened too many times. However, this refusal was not based on a completed, evidence-based investigation. Instead, representatives stated that reopening the claim again would result in the same outcome regardless of any additional documentation.\n\nDuring a recorded call, an American Express representative explicitly confirmed that even if American Express determined the charge was invalid, it would not issue a credit, explaining that American Express can not make the merchant pay.\n\nThis position directly contradicts Regulation Z, which requires an issuer to conduct a reasonable investigation and to credit the consumers account if a charge is found invalid, regardless of whether the merchant reimburses the issuer.\n\nContradictory Written Representations American Expresss refusal to reopen the dispute contradicts its own prior written communication, in which it stated : If you further question the charge and in case you have documentation indicating that a change in the outcome, please contact us within 30 days and we will be glad to reopen the investigation for you.\n\nDespite submitting additional documentation and contacting American Express within this timeframe, representatives later stated that the claim could not be reopened and that the outcome would not change regardless of evidence. These contradictory statements demonstrate a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and raise concerns regarding deceptive or unfair practices.\n\nSystemic Compliance Concerns This issue appears to be systemic rather than isolated. On multiple occasions, American Express representatives provided statements that contradict federal law, including : That small-dollar disputes are not meaningfully reviewed because investigation costs exceed the transaction amount ; That a consumer refund depends on whether the merchant reimburses American Express ; and That dispute outcomes are predetermined and would not change even with additional evidence.\n\nThese statements indicate a failure to conduct reasonable investigations as required by Regulation Z and suggest internal policies or training that are non-compliant with federal consumer prot\n\nection law. Account Closure After Escalation My accounts were closed following a period of dispute activity related to the charges described above. After the accounts were closed, I contacted American Express to ask why the closures occurred. Initially, representatives stated they could not provide an explanation. On a subsequent recorded call, an American Express representative explained, in substance, that the accounts were closed due to the volume and nature of disputes I had filed, including what were described as small-dollar disputes, and referenced the cost to American Express of investigating such disputes. The accounts were therefore closed after dispute activity and discussions regarding dispute volume, and before I raised formal compliance concerns with American Express executive leadership. This sequence raises serious concerns regarding the treatment of good-faith dispute activity and whether account-closure decisions were influenced by cost-based or non-compliant dispute handling practices.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-18T09:32:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27513","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18136063","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-12-18T09:19:39.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Complaint Narrative I am filing this complaint regarding American Expresss failure to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act and <em>Regulation</em> Z in the handling of billing disputes and the issuance of credits for invalid <em>charges</em>. \nI disputed XXXX <em>charges</em> that were installments of a larger <em>transaction</em> for services that were not provided as promised."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[15.782745,"18136063"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20366548","_score":15.6966915,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this follow-up complaint regarding the handling of my prior dispute against Oriental Bank concerning two electronic fund transfers totaling {$230.00} that I reported as unauthorized. In my original complaint, I explained that one transaction in the amount of {$34.00} occurred through an online merchant using what appears to be a misleading and extremely rapid one-click checkout mechanism that processed a charge without any meaningful confirmation step or opportunity to review the transaction details before completion. As a result, the charge was processed even though the transaction was not made with the intention of purchasing the product or service. Immediately after noticing the charge, I contacted the merchant by email requesting cancellation and explaining the accidental nature of the transaction. I subsequently provided the bank with copies of those email communications as evidence of my prompt attempt to resolve the matter with the merchant. Those communications were sent directly to XXXX XXXX ( on XX/XX/year> ) as part of the dispute process. Despite providing the only documentation available to me demonstrating that the transaction was unintended and that I acted promptly to address the issue with the merchant, the bank never acknowledged receipt of this evidence and nevertheless treated the transaction as valid. The second transaction, in the amount of {$200.00}, remains entirely unknown to me and was never authorized. I reported both transactions to the bank immediately and initiated a dispute under the error-resolution procedures established by Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ), which implements the consumer protections provided by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ). Appears that the bank treated both disputed transactions as a single consolidated amount rather than evaluating each transaction independently. Both transactions were resolved under the same determination and causal explanation, which raises concerns that the bank did not conduct a separate or individualized investigation for each amount. The bank initially credited the total combined amount and later reversed it in the same consolidated manner, without providing any documentation or evidence supporting how each transaction was evaluated. This approach suggests that the bank may not have performed a thorough investigation, particularly since I formally requested the documentation and evidence relied upon in the investigation and, to date, nothing has been provided to me. \n\nIn its previous response to the complaint submitted to the CFPB, Oriental Bank asserted that the account qualified as a new account under Regulation E and therefore the bank was permitted additional time to investigate the dispute pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ). While the bank relied on this explanation regarding regulatory timelines, its subsequent conduct has raised additional concerns regarding its compliance with the procedural safeguards required during the investigation process. During the course of the dispute, the bank issued a provisional credit for the disputed transactions ; however, the bank later reversed that credit and allowed the account balance to become negative while the disputed charges remained posted. The reversal of the provisional credit occurred WITHOUT providing a CLEAR written EXPLANATION of the investigative FINDINGS or IDENTIFYING the factual basis or EVIDENCE relied upon to DETERMINE that the transactions were valid. This sequence of actions appears inconsistent with the banks prior representations regarding the status of the investigation and raises serious concerns regarding whether the investigation required under Regulation E was conducted in a reasonable, thorough, and transparent manner as required under the error-resolution provisions of 12 C.F.R. 1005.11. \n\nAdditionally, after the provisional credit was reversed, I requested that the bank provide copies of the documentation and evidence relied upon in reaching its determination regarding the disputed electronic fund transfers. To date, the bank has not provided any documentation demonstrating that the transactions were authorized or otherwise valid, including authentication records, merchant verification, card-not-present, authorization data, or any investigative materials supporting its conclusion. The absence of such documentation is particularly concerning given that I had already provided the bank with evidence demonstrating that one of the transactions was unintended and that I had immediately attempted to cancel it with the merchant. Under the error-resolution provisions of Regulation E, when a financial institution determines that no error occurred, the institution must provide the consumer with an explanation of its findings and must provide copies of the documents relied upon in making that determination upon the consumers request ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ). Without access to the materials relied upon in the banks investigation, I have no way to understand how the bank concluded that the transactions were valid or whether the dispute was evaluated in accordance with the requirements of federal consumer protection law. \n\nFinally, the reversal of the provisional credit caused the account to become overdrawn while the legitimacy of the disputed transactions remained unresolved and while I was actively requesting clarification and documentation from the bank. As a result, I have experienced additional financial harm directly related to the banks handling of this dispute. I intentionally did not re-fund the account during the investigation process because I wanted to preserve the integrity of the dispute and avoid creating confusion about the source of funds or the status of the transactions while the banks review was pending. In fact, during one of my calls with the bank I clearly informed a representative that I would not deposit additional funds into the account until the investigation was completed. Now overdraft! These circumstances raise significant concerns regarding whether the bank conducted the reasonable investigation required under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) and whether the bank adequately considered the evidence provided by the consumer during the dispute process. Furthermore, the handling of this dispute raises concerns regarding potentially unfair practices in the administration of consumer account protections under federal law, particularly when a consumer has made a timely report of disputed transactions and has attempted in good faith to provide supporting evidence. Such practices may also implicate the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-18T10:34:05.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"00921","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20366548","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"OFG BANCORP","date_received":"2026-03-18T09:26:44.000Z","state":"PR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In my original complaint, I explained that one <em>transaction</em> in the amount of {$34.00} occurred through an online merchant using what appears to be a misleading and extremely rapid one-click checkout mechanism that processed a <em>charge</em> without any meaningful confirmation step or opportunity to review the <em>transaction</em> details before completion. As a result, the <em>charge</em> was processed even though the <em>transaction</em> was not made with the intention of purchasing the product or service."]},"sort":[15.6966915,"20366548"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12421524","_score":15.607394,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"THE COMPANY SENT A FRIVOLOUS LETTER TO ME THIS IS MY THIRD COMPLAINT AS I PREPARE FOR LEGAL CONSIDERATION. \n\nFORMAL NOTICE OF DEMAND TO CEASE UNAUTHORIZED ACH TRANSACTIONS, BREACH OF CONTRACT VIOLATION, AND NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LEGAL ACTION** XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> Capital One Bank ( USA ) , N.A.\n\nAttn : Corporate Compliance & Legal Disputes 1680 Capital One XXXX XXXX, VA XXXX Capital One Bank ( USA ), N.A. \nAttn : Corporate Compliance & Legal Disputes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Account # XXXX Subject : FORMAL DEMAND TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE UNAUTHORIZED ACH TRANSACTIONS & REFUND ALL IMPROPER CHARGES BREACH OF CONTRACT NOTICE & WARNING OF LEGAL LIABILITY** To Whom It May Concern, This is a **formal legal demand** requiring Capital One to **cease and desist all unauthorized ACH withdrawals**, **immediately refund all unauthorized charges**, and **provide written justification** for restricting my account while continuing to collect payments. \n\nThis letter serves as **official notice** that Capital One is engaging in **breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unauthorized debiting**, all of which violate **federal law, banking regulations, and UCC contract principles. ** If this matter is not resolved immediately, I will initiate formal legal action, file complaints with regulatory agencies, and pursue all available remedies under federal and state law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX*LEGAL VIOLATIONS & CONTRACT BREACH IDENTIFIED** XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  **1. Capital One Has Voided Its Own Contract by Restricting My Credit Access** - Under **UCC 1-308 and UCC 3-305**, a contract is only valid if both parties uphold their obligations.\n\n- By **restricting my ability to use the credit card**, Capital One has **failed to provide the agreed-upon credit extension**, meaning the contract is now **unenforceable** under banking law. \n- Capital One can not legally demand payment on a financial instrument that **it has unilaterally restricted without cause**.\n\n# # # # **2. Unauthorized ACH Transactions Are a Violation of Federal Law** - Under **15 U.S.C. 1693e ( Electronic Funds Transfer Act - EFTA ) **, any ACH transaction that occurs after the **consumer has revoked authorization** is considered **an unauthorized transfer. ** - I have formally revoked **all ACH authorizations** related to this account, meaning **any further\nwithdrawals are fraudulent. ** - Continuing to debit my account after restricting my ability to use my credit line is an **intentional violation of EFTA** , subject to **civil and criminal penalties. ** # # # # **3. Capital One is Engaging in Unjust Enrichment and Predatory Financial Practices** - If Capital One **has received full repayment through insurance claims, charge-offs, or tax write-offs**, then any continued collections violate **UCC 3-501 ( Holder in Due Course Defense ). ** - Under **FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 45**, deceptive financial practices, including misleading contract enforcement, are **grounds for regulatory enforcement and consumer lawsuits. ** - **Demanding payment while restricting access to the credit line constitutes unjust enrichment** because Capital One is **receiving a financial benefit without providing the agreed-upon service**. \n\n# # # # **4. Potential Banking Fraud & IRS Tax Fraud Exposure** - Under **IRS Code 26 U.S.C. 6050P**, Capital One is required to **report all charged-off debts** as taxable events. \n- If Capital One has **written off this debt for tax purposes** but continues to collect payments, this constitutes **federal tax fraud and misrepresentation. ** - If a **1099-C Cancellation of Debt form was not issued**, Capital One may be illegally reporting income to the IRS while simultaneously treating it as a collectible debt.\n\n# # # **FORMAL DEMANDS & REQUIRED ACTIONS** 1. **IMMEDIATE CESSATION OF ALL ACH TRANSACTIONS**- You are hereby **ordered to stop all further withdrawals from my account. ** - Any further ACH deductions will be considered **unauthorized transactions subject to federal banking fraud complaints. ** 2. **FULL REFUND OF ALL PAYMENTS MADE AFTER THE ACCOUNT RESTRICTION** - Any payments debited **after my credit line was restricted** must be **immediately refunded. ** 3. **PROVIDE WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THE ACCOUNT RESTRICTION** - Capital One must provide **a legally binding explanation** for why my account was restricted, including : - The **specific terms of the agreement that allow Capital One to restrict my account but still demand payment. ** - The **full transactional history of all payments received, including any insurance claims or charge-offs. ** - **A copy of any IRS 1099-C filings related to this account. ** 4. **REMOVE ALL NEGATIVE CREDIT REPORTING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ACCOUNT** - Capital One must **immediately remove** all **negative reporting** related to this account from XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX**. \n- Failure to do so will be considered **willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n**, exposing Capital One to **statutory damages. ** # # # **LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE** If these demands are not met within **10 business days**, I will take the following actions : 1. **File a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ** under **Regulation E of the EFTA**.\n\n2. **File a fraud report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) for deceptive financial practices. ** 3. **Submit an IRS Form 3949-A ( Tax Fraud Complaint ) against Capital One for improper charge-off reporting. ** 4. **Report Capital Ones actions to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) for violations of federal banking laws. ** 5. **Pursue legal action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unauthorized ACH debiting. ** # # # **FINAL NOTICE** This letter serves as **a formal legal notice of dispute** under **the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ), and Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). ** Capital One must respond in writing within **10 business days**. \n\nFailure to respond will be considered **willful noncompliance** and may result in regulatory penalties, legal action, and full enforcement of my rights under **UCC 1-308 ( Reservation of Rights ). ** Sincerely, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-11T12:54:01.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12421524","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-03-11T12:47:17.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[". ** - The **full <em>transactional</em> history of all payments received, including any insurance claims or <em>charge</em>-offs. ** - **A copy of any IRS 1099-C filings <em>related</em> to this account. ** 4. **REMOVE ALL NEGATIVE CREDIT REPORTING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ACCOUNT** - Capital One must **immediately remove** all **negative reporting** <em>related</em> to this account from XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX**."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[15.607394,"12421524"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18930180","_score":15.561893,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Regarding Discover Banks Failure to Comply With Federal BillingError and Electronic Transfer Regulations Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Discover Bank Account Type : Discover Credit & Debit Accounts Merchant in Question : XXXX Credit Recurring Charge : {$69.00} Date Range : Early XXXX Present -- - Summary of Complaint I contacted Discover on XX/XX/XXXX of XXXX to dispute a recurring transaction. \n\nI am filing this complaint because Discover Bank has repeatedly refused to investigate or resolve a valid billing error involving recurring charges from XXXX Credit for goods/services that were never received, despite my repeated attempts to resolve the matter directly with both the merchant and Discover. Discover has incorrectly stated that they are governed by different regulations that prevent them from filing claims for nonreceipt of goods or services. This is factually and legally incorrect under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Regulation Z, which explicitly protect consumers in cases where goods or services were not delivered as agreed. \n\nIn addition, Discover has demonstrated ongoing service failures related to debitcard functionality, online account access, XXXX registration, and prior dispute handling. These failures collectively indicate a pattern of noncompliance with federal consumerprotection standards and a failure to provide reliable access to my own funds. \n\n-- - XXXX. Failure to Investigate a Valid Billing Error ( FCBA / Regulation Z ) Since early XXXX, my Discover account has been charged {$69.00} monthly by TOMO Credit. I have never received any product, service, or benefit from these charges. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Credit informed me directly that the product I ordered had been discontinued, yet they continued to charge my account. The merchant has not responded to my refund requests.\n\nWhen I contacted Discover Bank : I informed them that the merchant confirmed the product was discontinued.\n\nI stated clearly that I never received goods or services.\n\nI requested a dispute under the FCBA.\n\nDiscover refused, stating they are governed by different regulations that prevent disputes for nonreceipt of goods/services. This is incorrect. Under the FCBA and Regulation Z, nonreceipt of goods/services is a protected billingerror category, and Discover is required to : Accept and acknowledge my dispute in writing within 30 days Conduct a reasonable investigation within 90 days Provide a written explanation of findings Discover did none of these.\n\nThey also failed to offer : A dispute A stoppayment on the recurring charge A replacement card/device to prevent further unauthorized debits This constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 12 CFR 1026.13.\n\n-- - 2. Failure to Provide Required Protections for Electronic Transfers ( EFTA / Regulation E ) Discovers refusal to stop recurring charges and their failure to provide dispute rights also implicate the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, which require : Investigation of unauthorized or erroneous electronic fund transfers Ability to stop recurring transfers upon request Timely resolution of consumer error notices Discover did not comply with these obligations.\n\n-- - 3. Systemic Service Failures Affecting My Ability to Use My Account A. Debit Card Inoperability and Lack of Support On multiple occasions, I have been unable to use my Discover debit card for routine transactions. When I contacted Discover for assistance, the only options provided were : Try again later, or Use a different card not associated with your Discover account.\n\nThis is unacceptable and demonstrates a failure to provide reliable access to my own funds. Discover did not offer : A replacement card A device reset A fraudcheck override Any meaningful troubleshooting This pattern of nonfunctioning debitcard access materially impacted my ability to conduct everyday transactions and raises concerns about Discovers compliance with EFTA, which requires financial institutions to ensure consumers can access their accounts and report errors effectively.\n\n-- - B. Online Access Failures There have been multiple periods where I could not access my Discover account online. When I contacted Discover, I was told the only option was to wait. No alternative access method or remediation was offered.\n\n-- - C. Zelle Registration Issues For nearly XXXX years, I was unable to register for XXXX through Discover. When I reported this, Discover repeatedly told me to keep trying, despite the issue being on their end. Only after Discovers merger with XXXX XXXX did XXXX suddenly appear as an available option. \n\nThis prolonged inability to use a standard moneymovement service is a service failure that materially impacted my ability to manage my account.\n\n-- - D. Prior Disputes for NonReceipt of Goods In previous instances where goods/services were not received, Discover again stated they were subject to different regulations and could not file claims. This appears to be a pattern of misrepresenting federal law and denying consumers their dispute rights. \n\n-- - XXXX. Requested XXXX I respectfully request that regulators require Discover Bank to : XXXX. Reopen and properly investigate the XXXX Credit charges under FCBA and Regulation Z.\n\n2. Issue a full refund for all XXXX XXXX charges where no goods/services were received. \nXXXX. Cease all future recurring charges from XXXX Credit.\n\n4. Provide written confirmation of the investigation and findings as required by law.\n\n5. Review and correct internal policies that misstate federal regulations to consumers.\n\n6. Address systemic service failures, including debitcard inoperability, online access issues, and XXXX registration problems.\n\n7. Ensure compliance with FCBA, EFTA, Regulation Z, and Regulation E going forward.\n\nStatement Regarding Retaliatory Conduct by Discover Bank After I notified Discover Bank that their refusal to process my dispute appeared to violate the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Regulation Z, Discover took adverse action against me by disabling my online account access shortly thereafter. This sudden loss of access occurred only after I raised concerns about potential regulatory violations. As a result, I was unable to view my account, monitor transactions, or manage my finances, which caused additional stress, confusion, and negative financial impact. This sequence of events gives the appearance of retaliation for asserting my federally protected dispute rights and further demonstrates Discovers failure to provide reliable, uninterrupted access to my account. \n\n-- -","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-22T20:13:00.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"75134","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18930180","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2026-01-22T18:17:30.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to Investigate a Valid Billing Error ( FCBA / <em>Regulation</em> Z ) Since early XXXX, my Discover account has been charged {$69.00} monthly by TOMO Credit. I have never received any product, service, or benefit from these <em>charges</em>. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Credit informed me directly that the product I ordered had been discontinued, yet they continued to <em>charge</em> my account. The merchant has not responded to my <em>refund</em> requests."]},"sort":[15.561893,"18930180"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17812994","_score":15.487659,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Cash App ( XXXX XXXX  ) for improper handling of multiple debit card disputes related to a rental car transaction involving XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I rented a XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX. During the rental period I was involved in a hit-and-run accident that resulted in a blown tire. Despite repeated requests for assistance, the rental car companys manager refused to provide any help for nearly ten hours, leaving me stranded in an unsafe situation. Additionally, I was misled into making large payments after being told those payments could be applied toward ownership of the vehicle. This representation later turned out to be false. \nI ultimately paid approximately {$14000.00} in charges that should not have been collected under these circumstances. After these payments were made, the vehicle was repossessed with no remedy offered. \nI filed disputes through Cash App within the allowable timeframe for services not provided, misrepresentation, and unsafe business practices. \nSince filing : My disputes have remained unresolved for an excessive length of time. \nI have not received provisional credit for the disputed amounts. \nI have not received meaningful investigation updates or a clear resolution timeline. \nI have repeatedly had to follow up with support without progress. \nDue to the seriousness of the situation involving safety neglect and financial misrepresentation, I believe my case warrants expedited review. Cash App has failed to comply with its obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E ) by not properly investigating and by delaying resolution while withholding provisional credit.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB require Cash App to : Conduct a full and immediate review of my disputes based on all provided evidence.\n\nIssue provisional credit while the investigation is finalized.\n\nProvide a written explanation of findings and decision for each disputed charge.\n\nRefund disputed amounts confirmed to be unauthorized or collected through misrepresentation. \nImplement improved customer protections for complex disputes involving safety violations. \nThis ongoing delay has caused significant financial hardship and emotional distress, and I request regulatory intervention to compel fair treatment and statutory compliance.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-07T19:35:18.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"19140","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17812994","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-07T19:25:31.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing a complaint against Cash App ( XXXX XXXX  ) for improper handling of multiple debit card disputes <em>related</em> to a rental car <em>transaction</em> involving XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I rented a XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX. During the rental period I was involved in a hit-and-run accident that resulted in a blown tire."],"issue":["Unauthorized transactions or other <em>transaction</em> problem"]},"sort":[15.487659,"17812994"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20801176","_score":15.340295,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX  the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Department XXXX Bank of America, XXXX is a formal escalation of my prior notice, with conclusive, irrefutable evidence of your institution 's willful violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX  unlawful XXXX  charging of my account ending in XXXX. \n\n# # # XXXX. Conclusive Facts & XXXX ( Fully Supported by Attached Evidence ) XXXX. XX/XX/year> : I made a purchase of {$320.00} from XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX Glasses ( Transaction Reference No. XXXX ), posted XXXX  my account ending in XXXX. \nXXXX. XX/XX/year> : I initiated a formal billing dispute for this transaction, Claim ID : XXXX, for the full amount of {$320.00}. \nXXXX. XX/XX/year> : Bank of America issued a temporary credit of {$320.00} XXXX  my account ending in XXXX, in compliance with XXXX  dispute requirements. \nXXXX. * * XX/XX/year> : XXXX officially issued a full refund of {$320.00} for this order * *, as confirmed by the attached XXXX XXXX XXXX screenshot. Per standard XXXX processing timelines XXXX  XXXX 's explicit refund policy, this refund should have cleared XXXX  posted to my Bank of America account no later than XX/XX/year>. \nXXXX. XX/XX/year> : Out of good faith, XXXX  avoid duplicate refunds, I contacted Bank of America XXXX  cancel the pending dispute. Your institution confirmed the claim was canceled via official automated email the same day. \nXXXX. Immediately after the dispute cancellation, Bank of America wrongfully reversed the {$320.00} dispute credit XXXX  re-billed my account ending in XXXX, * * WITH NO VERIFICATION THAT THE XXXX REFUND HAD BEEN RECEIVED XXXX  APPLIED XXXX  MY ACCOUNT * *. \nXXXX. As of XX/XX/year>, I have received NO credit for the XXXX refund on my account, XXXX  the original {$320.00} charge remains active XXXX  due on my statement. This is unlawful XXXX  charging : I am being held liable for a XXXX  purchase XXXX, while Bank of America has failed XXXX  credit the merchant refund funds that were issued XXXX  days prior XXXX  the dispute cancellation. \n\n# # # XXXX. Willful Legal Violations Your actions constitute deliberate, intentional violations of federal XXXX  state banking regulations : XXXX. * * Direct Violation of XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) * * : The XXXX mandates that you conduct a reasonable investigation before reversing a dispute credit, including mandatory verification of whether a merchant refund has been received XXXX  applied XXXX the consumer 's account. Your complete failure XXXX  perform this verification, XXXX  your decision XXXX  re-bill me despite the XXXX  's confirmed, issued refund, is a blatant, willful violation of federal consumer protection law. \nXXXX. * * Unfair & Deceptive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) * * : Under the XXXX XXXX your intentional failure XXXX  credit a merchant refund XXXX  my account, while simultaneously reversing a dispute credit XXXX  XXXX  charge a consumer acting in good faith, is a deceptive XXXX  unfair practice that causes substantial financial harm XXXX  credit risk XXXX  the consumer. \nXXXX. * * Failure XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX Requirements * * : You provided no prior written notice of the credit reversal, no formal explanation of the re-billing, XXXX  no accounting of the merchant refund funds that were issued but never credited XXXX  my account, in violation of XXXX disclosure rules. \n\n# # # XXXX. Non-Negotiable Demands ( Must Be Fulfilled Within XXXX HOURS ) Given the conclusive evidence of your willful regulatory violations, you must fulfill all of the following demands within XXXX HOURS of receiving this notice : XXXX. * * XXXX XXXX of XXXX * * : Restore the {$320.00} dispute credit XXXX  my account ending in XXXX, XXXX  apply the XXXX {$320.00} refund to my account, with a full, written explanation of why the merchant refund was not credited XXXX  my account after it was issued on XX/XX/year>. \nXXXX. * * Full Waiver of All Fees & Interest * * : Waive any XXXX  all interest, late fees, penalties, or charges that have accrued, or may accrue in the future, related XXXX  this {$320.00} transaction. Provide written confirmation that this transaction will NOT be reported as late, delinquent, or otherwise negative XXXX  any of the XXXX major credit bureaus ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), with no negative impact to my XXXX profile or XXXX \nXXXX. * * Formal Written Apology * * : Provide a signed, written apology from your XXXX Department, acknowledging the willful XXXX violation and confirming all corrective actions have been taken XXXX  prevent this from recurring. \nXXXX. * * Goodwill Compensation * * : XXXX a {$1000.00} non-recoverable goodwill credit XXXX  my account ending in XXXX, as compensation for the willful misconduct, time, labor, financial risk, XXXX  credit exposure caused by your institution 's unlawful XXXX  charging XXXX  regulatory violations. \n\n# # # XXXX. Final Notice If I do not receive written confirmation that all of the above demands have been fully fulfilled within XXXX HOURS, I will immediately file formal, evidence-backed complaints with : - The Office of the Comptroller XXXX  the Currency ( XXXX ) XXXX your primary federal regulator ) - The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX CFPB ) - The Texas Department XXXX Banking XXXX XXXX also retain legal counsel XXXX  pursue all available civil remedies, including statutory damages under the XXXX ( up to {$1000.00} per individual violation ), all incurred legal fees, XXXX  court costs. \n\nI have irrefutable, conclusive evidence for every claim in this notice, and will not entertain any delays, excuses, or attempts XXXX  shift blame XXXX  the merchant. \n\nAttached Evidence : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX screenshot confirming {$320.00} refund issued on XX/XX/year> XXXX. XXXX order page screenshot confirming refund status XXXX  XXXX posting timeline XXXX. Full transaction history screenshots from XXXX Bank of America account ending in XXXX ( original purchase, dispute credit, wrongful re-billing ) XXXX. XXXX Bank of America XXXX confirming dispute Claim ID XXXX has been canceled XXXX. Prior communication with Bank of America regarding this dispute Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Account Number Ending in : XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> Contact Phone : XXXX Contact Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-31T10:17:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"78626","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20801176","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-03-31T10:14:30.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[". * * XXXX XXXX of XXXX * * : Restore the {$320.00} dispute credit XXXX  my account ending in XXXX, XXXX  apply the XXXX {$320.00} <em>refund</em> to my account, with a full, written explanation of why the merchant <em>refund</em> was not credited XXXX  my account after it was issued on XX/XX/year>. \nXXXX. * * Full Waiver of All Fees & Interest * * : Waive any XXXX  all interest, late fees, penalties, or <em>charges</em> that have accrued, or may accrue in the future, <em>related</em> XXXX  this {$320.00} <em>transaction</em>."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[15.340295,"20801176"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22611309","_score":15.100654,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Timeline of Events On or about XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/year>, I discovered through my online banking records that an unauthorized electronic withdrawal in the amount of {$1000.00} had been debited from my checking account on XX/XX/year>, without my knowledge, authorization, consent, or approval. \n\nImmediately upon discovering the unauthorized transaction, I contacted Wells Fargo customer service by telephone. I reported the transaction as possibly fraudulent, mistake, bank error, but certainly not unauthorized. I am new to this process. During that first call, the Wells Fargo representative asked me several questions, including : Whether my debit card had been lost. \nWhether I allowed another person to use my card. \nWhether I kept my PIN written on or attached to my card. \nWhen I last used my card ; and Whether I have recently written any checks. \n\nO fcourse, I answered all their questions as follows : My debit card was never lost and remained in my possession at all times. I never authorized anyone to use my card. I never wrote my PIN number on my card or stored it with the card. The last authorized use of my card was at XXXX on XX/XX/year>, to purchase gasoline ; and I had recently written a check to my attorney. \n\nThe Wells Fargo representative informed me that the bank would investigate the matter and requested approximately XXXX days to complete the investigation. Thereafter, I received a written notice from Wells Fargo stating that the bank was denying my fraud claim and closing the matter. The denial letter did not provide meaningful factual findings, supporting documentation, transaction evidence, surveillance evidence, device records, or any detailed explanation showing how Wells Fargo concluded that the transaction was authorized. \n\nDespite my immediate contact to Wells Fargo again I disputed the denial decision because I do not agree with the banks conclusion and believe the investigation was unreasonable and inadequate. I requested further review but have no trust in their statements. \n\nBasis for CFPB Complaint : I believe based on competent research that Wells Fargo violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, by failing to conduct a reasonable good-faith investigation into this unauthorized electronic fund transfer. \n\nSpecifically : Wells Fargo failed to provide competent evidence establishing that I authorized the transaction. \nThe mere fact that a PIN may have been used or that the card number was utilized does not prove authorization. Modern fraud schemes frequently involve : card skimming, card cloning, compromised merchant terminals, unauthorized digital wallet access, account takeover fraud, stolen credentials, or other electronic compromise methods. \nMy physical debit card remained in my possession at all times. \n\nWells Fargo failed to provide the evidence relied upon in denying the claim. \n\nThe denial letter failed to include : transaction metadata ; ATM or merchant surveillance evidence ; device identification records ; IP address logs ; geolocation information ; chip-read verification data ; fraud analyst findings ; investigative notes ; merchant authentication records ; or any meaningful documentation demonstrating that the transaction was actually authorized by me. \nWells Fargo appears to have conducted only a superficial or automated investigation. \nBased upon the limited response provided, Wells Fargo appears to have denied the claim without : interviewing me in detail; reviewing objective fraud indicators; comparing my normal transaction behavior ; determining whether the transaction location was consistent with my physical location ; or evaluating whether the transaction reflected potential card compromise or account takeover activity. \nWells Fargo improperly shifted the burden onto me. \n\nUnder Regulation E, Wells Fargo bears the responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation and determine whether the transfer was authorized. I should not be forced to prove a negative where the bank itself possesses the transaction data, surveillance access, authentication logs, and fraud detection tools necessary to evaluate the dispute properly. \n\nWells Fargo failed to provide transparency concerning the investigation. \nI request that Wells Fargo be required to provide : all documents relied upon in denying the claim ; copies of investigative findings ; all electronic transaction logs ; ATM or merchant records ; authentication and access logs ; fraud detection analysis ; and any evidence purportedly showing authorization. \n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Wells Fargo to : Reopen and conduct a full and reasonable Regulation E investigation ; Provide all documents and evidence relied upon in denying the claim ; Reimburse the unauthorized {$1000.00} withdrawal ; Refund any associated fees or charges ; Confirm whether the transaction involved : ATM withdrawal, debit card purchase, electronic transfer, digital wallet transaction, or another payment mechanism ; Preserve all surveillance footage, electronic logs, and fraud investigation materials related to this matter ; and Ensure compliance with federal consumer protection obligations under the EFTA and Regulation E. \n\nI affirm that I did not authorize this transaction, did not provide my card or PIN to another person, and reported the matter promptly upon discovery.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-27T12:53:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30083","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22611309","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-27T12:22:32.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[", electronic logs, and fraud investigation materials <em>related</em> to this matter ; and Ensure <em>compliance</em> with federal consumer protection obligations under the EFTA and <em>Regulation</em> E."]},"sort":[15.100654,"22611309"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":203,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":203}]}},"product":{"doc_count":203,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":127,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":124},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":24,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":17},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":4},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":15,"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":14},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":9}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":8}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":6},{"key":"Money order, traveler's check or cashier's check","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":3},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Bank account or service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other bank product/service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payday loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":203,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":65,"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":64},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":47,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":24},{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":14},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":3},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1},{"key":"Information is incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":18,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":18}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":12,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":8},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":2},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":4},{"key":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account","doc_count":2},{"key":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with balance transfer","doc_count":4},{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"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":4}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive services that were advertised","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged","doc_count":2},{"key":"Collected or attempted to collect exempt funds","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":2},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged too much interest","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":2,"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":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraudulent loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Making/receiving payments, sending money","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Confusing or missing disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"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}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":203,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":202},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":203,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":139},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":59},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":5}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":203,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":203}]}},"company":{"doc_count":203,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":38},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":36},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":27},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":9},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":7},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":6},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":5},{"key":"CBC Companies, Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":4},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"Colony Brands, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"ID Analytics, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":3},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"United PanAm Financial Corp.","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CCF Intermediate Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Comerica","doc_count":1},{"key":"Continental Finance Company, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Exeter Finance, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FC HoldCo LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foris DAX, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"GREEN ROAD FINANCE INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"General Motors Financial Company, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Grow Credit Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"OFG BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Self Financial Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Source Receivables Management LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Spring Oaks Capital, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Tesla, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"VYSTAR CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"World Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":203,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"GA","doc_count":73},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":26},{"key":"FL","doc_count":20},{"key":"MI","doc_count":13},{"key":"TX","doc_count":12},{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"IL","doc_count":6},{"key":"OH","doc_count":5},{"key":"HI","doc_count":4},{"key":"WA","doc_count":4},{"key":"LA","doc_count":3},{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"NC","doc_count":3},{"key":"RI","doc_count":3},{"key":"MN","doc_count":2},{"key":"NE","doc_count":2},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"IA","doc_count":1},{"key":"ID","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"PR","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1},{"key":"WV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":203,"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":82},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":9}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":203,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":13},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":5}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16469162,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[15.100654,"22611309"],"3":[12.440782,"8912599"],"4":[11.616812,"7339839"],"5":[10.362547,"18649416"],"6":[8.825644,"13830733"],"7":[8.005049,"15971197"],"8":[4.7708855,"8759313"]}}}