{"took":137,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":44,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21891298","_score":18.797516,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated a dispute for a {$250.00} transaction with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and uploaded documentation showing services were not rendered. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the dispute was denied. That same day, I filed an appeal and submitted additional supporting documentation. \n\nOn XXXX, I received multiple emails ( sent repeatedly ) stating my appeal was closed due to no response within three days. However, I did not receive any request for additional information. \n\nOn XXXX, I contacted Cash App support and was told the email was generic, that my case was still open, and to ignore the closure notice. \n\nThis conflicting information indicates inconsistent handling of my dispute and lack of clear communication, despite my timely submissions and compliance with all instructions.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-05T14:57:30.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"48237","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21891298","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-05-05T14:36:38.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This conflicting information indicates inconsistent handling of my dispute and lack of clear communication, despite my timely submissions and <em>compliance</em> with all <em>instructions</em>."]},"sort":[18.797516,"21891298"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16758374","_score":18.672657,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX handling of my mortgage assistance and appeal process for my XXXX XXXX loan ( Loan Number : XXXX, Property Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX ). \n\nI submitted a complete loan modification package through XXXX and followed every instruction provided. I also made XXXX required trial payments of {$3000.00} each as directed by XXXX to demonstrate eligibility for the modification program. I made these payments in good faith and on time, understanding that they were a condition of qualification. \n\nDespite this, XXXX denied my modification request, stating that the signatures on the final modification agreement were incorrect or unauthorized. This determination is factually incorrect and appears to stem from administrative mishandling rather than any error on my part. \n\nThe documents XXXX sent me included multiple stickers indicating where to sign and XXXX labeled XXXX. Initially, I misunderstood the XXXX instruction, believing it was for XXXX internal use. Once I was informed otherwise, I immediately visited a licensed notary, re-signed the documents properly, and returned them. Later, I was told there was an issue with the notarization date. The notary verified that her seal and logbook were correct and even re-notarized the documents to ensure absolute clarity. I returned these promptly as well. \n\nDespite complying with every step, XXXX denied my application, repeating the same reason. I appealed this decision and explained the entire situation with documentation. However, XXXX denied my appeal on XX/XX/year>, issuing a brief statement that their decision is final, without addressing the factual basis of my appeal or the evidence I provided. \n\nFollowing this, my account was sent to collections, despite my full compliance, timely payments, and good faith cooperation throughout the process.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-22T19:52:21.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"97224","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16758374","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-22T19:39:37.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite complying with every step, XXXX <em>denied</em> my application, repeating the same reason. I <em>appealed</em> this decision and explained the entire situation with documentation. However, XXXX <em>denied</em> my <em>appeal</em> on XX/XX/year>, issuing a brief statement that their decision is final, without addressing the factual basis of my <em>appeal</em> or the evidence I provided. \n\nFollowing this, my account was sent to collections, despite my full <em>compliance</em>, timely payments, and good faith cooperation throughout the process."]},"sort":[18.672657,"16758374"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14357796","_score":18.095581,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Unjustified Denial of PayPal Case # XXXX On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a PC from XXXX for {$1700.00} using PayPal XXXX Transaction ID : XXXX XXXX. The item was defective upon arrival. The power supply was dead, tested with a multi-meter. \n\nI initiated a return with PayPal and opened a dispute with PayPal ( Case # XXXX ). As instructed by PayPal, I shipped the PC back to XXXX 's return facility in XXXX, CA via XXXX ( Tracking # XXXX ). \n\nThe case was first denied based on the false claim that I failed to use a merchant-provided return label. This was in direct contradiction to the instructions from PayPal, who explicitly told me to create my own label for the return. Only after I spent time escalating the matter did PayPal 's team finally acknowledge their own mistake and reverse this initial, baseless denial. \n\nFollowing that reversal, the case was then denied again, this time based on an error in the XXXX tracking data which incorrectly listed the package weight as XXXX lbs instead of its actual weight of XXXX lbs. \n\nA PayPal supervisor then informed me that the only way to appeal this decision was to provide official documentation from XXXX admitting fault for the weight discrepancy. I followed these instructions precisely. I contacted XXXX and obtained a formal email confirmation ( UPS Case # XXXX ) stating the XXXX lbs entry was a system error and the correct billed weight was XXXX lbs. \n\nI submitted this official XXXX documentationthe exact evidence PayPal demandedas part of my appeal. Despite my full compliance with their instructions, my appeal was denied for a final time on XX/XX/year>, without any valid reason provided. PayPal has refused to acknowledge the definitive proof from the shipping XXXX that they themselves required me to obtain.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-29T22:13:12.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"028XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14357796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-06-29T21:49:53.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I submitted this official XXXX documentationthe exact evidence PayPal demandedas part of my <em>appeal</em>. Despite my full <em>compliance</em> with their <em>instructions</em>, my <em>appeal</em> was <em>denied</em> for a final time on XX/XX/year>, without any valid reason provided. PayPal has refused to acknowledge the definitive proof from the shipping XXXX that they themselves required me to obtain."]},"sort":[18.095581,"14357796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18577627","_score":17.532444,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB ESCALATION COMPLAINT Respondent : American Express Product : XXXX  Charge Card ( Account ending XXXX ) CFPB Issue Categories : Adverse action without adequate explanation Improper denial of dispute/appeal rights Inconsistent and misleading communications Potential automated decision-making without disclosure Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ( for CFPB Intake & Supervisory Staff ) American Express imposed a {$3600.00} spending limit on my historically unlimited XXXX  charge card, failed to provide a meaningful adverse-action explanation, and then improperly denied my right to appeal despite my written complaint being submitted within the stated XXXX window. \n\nAmerican Expresss own Executive Customer Care letter instructed me to appeal through a specific department and phone number ; when I followed those instructions, the referenced department disclaimed authority and informed me that the appeal window had expired. This sequence reflects procedural obstruction, misdirection, and denial of review, raising concerns under ECOA/Regulation B and CFPB UDAAP standards.\n\nFACTUAL TIMELINE ( DOCUMENTED ) 1. Adverse Action and Timely Notice XXXX : American Express identifies this date as triggering a XXXX dispute/appeal period. \n\nXXXX : I submitted a written complaint disputing the newly imposed {$3600.00} limit and requesting review. This submission was within the XXXX window. \n\nAccounts were current and paid in full. \n\nNo delinquency, default, or adverse credit event existed at the time.\n\n2. Delayed Executive Response Without Explanation XXXX : American Express Executive Customer Care responded in writing. \n\nThe response : Acknowledged a careful and complete review Did not identify any specific risk factors Did not explain why a {$3600.00} limit was imposed Did not disclose whether the decision was made by a human reviewer or an automated system The letter explicitly instructed me to appeal by contacting the Responsible Lending Action Team at XXXX. \n\n3. Appeal Denied Despite Timely Complaint XXXX : I was told by American Express that the appeal window had expired, despite my XXXX written complaint being timely. \n\nXXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX : I contacted the Responsible Lending Action Team at the number provided in the Executive Customer Care letter. \n\nThe representative ( XXXX XXXX stated : Her department does not handle appeals Suggested the credit limit department might be responsible After consulting that department, I was told : The appeal window had expired No appeal could be opened American Express thus directed me to a department that disclaimed authority, while simultaneously asserting that the appeal period had expired a contradiction that effectively denied review. \n\nFAILURE TO PROVIDE A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT ADVERSE-ACTION EXPLANATION American Express has never provided : The specific reasons for the {$3600.00} limit The factors considered Any explanation that would allow me to understand or contest the decision Disclosure of whether the decision was : Generated by an automated or AI-based system Or reviewed by a human underwriter Generic statements such as careful and complete review do not constitute a meaningful explanation. \n\nCREDIT REPORTING AND CONSUMER IMPACT CONCERNS Credit bureaus ( including XXXX  ) do not report any {$3600.00} credit limit My total available credit remains {$160000.00} The imposed limit appears to exist only internally, raising concerns that : Internal risk modeling may be affecting my credit profile Without transparency or consistent reporting Additionally, my credit score declined from XXXX to XXXX shortly after paying off a {$12000.00} American Express personal loan, suggesting possible algorithmic misclassification rather than risk behavior. \n\nPATTERN OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS ( SUPERVISORY ISSUE ) American Express has : Accepted a timely written complaint Delayed its response until near the end of the appeal period Asserted that the appeal window expired despite timely notice Directed me to a department that denied authority Failed to identify any department empowered to hear an appeal Failed to provide a specific adverse-action explanation This pattern creates a procedural dead end and appears inconsistent with fair dispute-handling obligations. \n\nREGULATORY CONCERNS RAISED This matter raises concerns regarding : ECOA / Regulation B failure to provide a meaningful adverse-action explanation UDAAP misleading instructions, procedural obstruction, and denial of review Automated decision-making governance lack of transparency regarding AI or algorithmic determinations Dispute-handling practices denial of appeal despite timely notice RELIEF REQUESTED I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : Require American Express to reopen the appeal based on timely notice Require a written, specific adverse-action explanation Require disclosure of whether the decision was automated or human-reviewed Require correction of any unsupported internal risk classifications Review American Expresss appeal-window and departmental misdirection practices for compliance WHY THIS WARRANTS ESCALATION Timely notice is undisputed American Expresss own written instructions were followed Appeal rights were denied through misdirection No meaningful explanation has ever been provided Potential systemic issue affecting charge-card customers","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T20:43:07.000Z","issue":"Trouble using your card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33916","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18577627","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-01-08T20:32:26.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company won't increase or decrease your credit limit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["to reopen the <em>appeal</em> based on timely notice Require a written, specific adverse-action explanation Require disclosure of whether the decision was automated or human-reviewed Require correction of any unsupported internal risk classifications Review American Expresss <em>appeal</em>-window and departmental misdirection practices for <em>compliance</em> WHY THIS WARRANTS ESCALATION Timely notice is undisputed American Expresss own written <em>instructions</em> were followed <em>Appeal</em> rights were <em>denied</em> through misdirection No"]},"sort":[17.532444,"18577627"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21652595","_score":15.330782,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) from XXXX  for {$15000.00}, paid via PayPal XXXX funded by my XXXX XXXX card ending XXXX ). The item description explicitly stated the warranty/authenticity certificate was included. \n\nThe watch was delivered in person without the warranty/authenticity certificate an essential element for verifying authenticity and value on a $ XXXX luxury timepiece. I immediately contacted XXXX, who instructed me to return the item using a UPS shipping label they provided ( tracking number XXXX ). \n\nI returned the item on XX/XX/XXXX, in strict compliance with XXXX 's return instructions. UPS tracking confirms delivery to XXXX. * * XXXX subsequently acknowledged receipt of the returned item in writing. * * I filed a PayPal Buyer Protection claim under \" Item Not as Described '' ( XXXX ). PayPal denied the claim without providing a clear or substantive reason. I have been unable to obtain clarity on whether an appeal pathway exists, despite attempts to escalate. \n* * Why this denial violates PayPal 's own Buyer Protection policy : * * 1. * * The item was materially not as described * * a missing warranty certificate on a {$15000.00} luxury watch is a material discrepancy that goes directly to authenticity and resale value. \n2. * * The return was completed and confirmed * * UPS tracking XXXX confirms delivery to XXXX. \n3. * * The merchant acknowledged receipt in writing * * eliminating any factual dispute about whether the item was returned.\n\n4. * * PayPal 's denial reasoning was not provided in substantive form * *, preventing meaningful review or appeal.\n\nPayPal 's Buyer Protection program represents a contractual obligation to buyers using their platform. Denying a claim where ( a ) the item was demonstrably not as described, ( b ) the return was completed per merchant instructions, and ( c ) the merchant has acknowledged receipt in writing, constitutes a failure to honor that obligation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-28T02:51:24.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"10014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21652595","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-04-28T02:39:36.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I returned the item on XX/XX/XXXX, in strict <em>compliance</em> with XXXX 's return <em>instructions</em>. UPS tracking confirms delivery to XXXX. * * XXXX subsequently acknowledged receipt of the returned item in writing. * * I filed a PayPal Buyer Protection claim under \" Item Not as Described '' ( XXXX ). PayPal <em>denied</em> the claim without providing a clear or substantive reason. I have been unable to obtain clarity on whether an <em>appeal</em> pathway exists, despite attempts to escalate."]},"sort":[15.330782,"21652595"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18951952","_score":15.208256,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Cash App ( Block, Inc. ) has permanently deactivated my Cash App Card while allowing my account to remain active for sending and receiving payments. Cash App has confirmed in writing that this decision is final and can not be changed, yet they refuse to provide any specific reason or factual basis for the deactivation. \nCash App continues to allow deposits and transactions through my account, generating fees and ongoing use, while denying access to a core feature of the service. Cash App states only that the decision may include account history, transaction disputes, or unspecified violations of the Terms of Service, but explicitly refuses to disclose which, if any, apply to my account.\n\nThis selective restriction is arbitrary and lacks transparency. If my account presents a legitimate compliance or risk issue, Cash App should fully restrict or close the account with proper notice and withdrawal instructions. Instead, Cash App retains my business while denying card access without explanation or an appeal process.\n\nI am requesting that Cash App be required to do one of the following : Reinstate my Cash App Card access, or Provide a clear written explanation identifying the specific reason for the card deactivation, including whether this decision is permanent and what criteria were used. \nI am requesting CFPB assistance to obtain transparency, fair treatment, and a formal resolution.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-23T14:29:05.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"91411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18951952","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-01-23T14:20:29.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If my account presents a legitimate <em>compliance</em> or risk issue, Cash App should fully restrict or close the account with proper notice and withdrawal <em>instructions</em>. Instead, Cash App retains my business while <em>denying</em> card access without explanation or an <em>appeal</em> process."]},"sort":[15.208256,"18951952"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19056336","_score":14.606271,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding PayPal, Inc.s improper handling of a dispute involving unauthorized recurring charges and the shipment of a food product subject to an FDA-published recall.\n\nA merchant processed recurring charges through PayPal without my authorization. I did not consent to a subscription, did not authorize recurring billing, and did not agree to receive additional shipments. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.10 ), recurring electronic fund transfers require clear consumer authorization. A merchants unilateral designation of a transaction as a subscription does not establish valid authorization.\n\nAfter the charge occurred, I learned that the product shipped by the merchant was subject to an FDA-published recall due to a serious food safety risk, specifically botulism. The merchant had knowledge of the recall prior to or at the time of shipment and failed to provide any warning, recall notice, or instruction not to consume the product. I would not have accepted shipment of a recalled food product posing a potentially life-threatening hazard.\n\nI disputed the unauthorized charge through PayPal. PayPal denied and closed my dispute, stating only that the transaction was processed correctly. PayPal did not require the merchant to produce a valid billing agreement, proof of consumer consent, or evidence of authorization for recurring charges, as required by 12 C.F.R. 1005.11. PayPal also failed to address or consider the consumer safety implications of shipping a recalled food product.\n\nPayPal has refused to identify the documentation it relied upon to deny my dispute and has not demonstrated that it conducted a reasonable investigation as required by Regulation E. Closing a dispute without verifying authorization or addressing a known FDA recall constitutes a failure to comply with federal consumer protection requirements. I appealed their decision and again paypal denied my appeal I am requesting that the CFPB require PayPal to : Provide documentation demonstrating valid authorization for the recurring charges, or reverse the unauthorized charges ; Correct its dispute investigation practices to ensure compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ; and Address its handling of disputes involving known consumer safety risks.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-28T00:44:08.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"27215","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19056336","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-01-28T00:28:21.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>appealed</em> their decision and again paypal <em>denied</em> my <em>appeal</em> I am requesting that the CFPB require PayPal to : Provide documentation demonstrating valid authorization for the recurring charges, or reverse the unauthorized charges ; Correct its dispute investigation practices to ensure <em>compliance</em> with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ; and Address its handling of disputes involving known consumer safety risks."]},"sort":[14.606271,"19056336"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18283102","_score":14.060251,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Chime refused to identify the specific policy I allegedly violated and would not provide a policy name, section number, or written documentation despite multiple requests on XX/XX/XXXX On or about XX/XX/year>, Chime notified me that my account would be closed for an alleged policy violation, but refused to identify what policy I violated or provide any written explanation, section number, or factual basis. \n\nI repeatedly requested clarification and escalation to a supervisor or compliance department. I was told that no supervisor was available and that nothing could be done. I was not provided an appeal process or meaningful notice. \n\nAn XXXX direct deposit in the amount of {$890.00} ( TREAS XXXX ) was returned to the depositor. Chime stated this was due to a name mismatch, yet I was not given advance notice that this deposit would be rejected or instructions to prevent this outcome. The returned deposit caused financial hardship, especially given the timing immediately before the holidays. \n\nThese actions occurred after I had previously filed a complaint, leading me to believe the account closure and refusal to assist may be retaliatory. Chime relied on vague policy language, denied escalation, and failed to provide transparency or consumer protections regarding my federally protected benefits. \n\nI am requesting a written explanation of the alleged policy violation, confirmation of how all funds are handled upon closure, and assurance that deposits will not be improperly rejected without notice in the future.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-25T18:00:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with customer service","sub_product":"Money order, traveler's check or cashier's check","zip_code":"11220","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18283102","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-12-25T17:53:39.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I repeatedly requested clarification and escalation to a supervisor or <em>compliance</em> department. I was told that no supervisor was available and that nothing could be done. I was not provided an <em>appeal</em> process or meaningful notice. \n\nAn XXXX direct deposit in the amount of {$890.00} ( TREAS XXXX ) was returned to the depositor. Chime stated this was due to a name mismatch, yet I was not given advance notice that this deposit would be rejected or <em>instructions</em> to prevent this outcome."]},"sort":[14.060251,"18283102"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17518944","_score":13.26622,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) placed a one-year restriction on my checking account that prohibits me from having or ordering a debit card until XX/XX/XXXX. This restriction prevents me from accessing my own funds in a normal and reasonable manner. I was not given any advance notice, documentation, or explanation before this action was taken. \n\nWhen I contacted Navy Federal through their secure message system, I specifically requested : The reason for the debit card restriction The findings or investigation used to justify it The internal policy or regulation Navy Federal is relying on A written adverse action explanation Instructions on how to appeal or remove the restriction Navy Federal refused to provide any of this information and responded only with a vague statement that my account does not meet Navy Federals underlying acceptance of risk for use of a debit card. They did not provide any specific details, any evidence, or any legally required notices. \n\nThis situation raises multiple regulatory concerns : 1. Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 Electronic Fund Transfers ) Regulation E requires that consumers have clear access to their own funds via electronic means unless the financial institution has a documented, lawful reason to limit access. A debit card is an EFT access device regulated under this section. \n\nNavy Federal : Did not provide written notice before restricting my access Did not provide documentation or investigation results Did not give any valid Regulation E reason for denying access Imposed an extreme one-year restriction without due process This appears to be an unreasonable restriction on an EFT access device in violation of Regulation E. \n\n2. ECOA Adverse Action Requirements ( 12 CFR 1002.9 ) Restricting access to an account or denying a service normally provided on that account is considered an adverse action. \n\nUnder ECOA, Navy Federal is required to : Provide a specific written reason for the action Provide a notice of rights Identify the decision maker Provide an explanation of the factors used Navy Federal did not provide any of these required disclosures. \nThe phrase underlying acceptance of risk is not a legally sufficient ECOA adverse action reason. \n\nXXXX. UDAP/UDAAP ( 15 U.S.C. 45 Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices ) Blocking a consumer from accessing their own funds, for one full year, without : A valid reason Proper notice Investigation Documentation and then refusing to provide the required information when requested, may constitute an unfair practice, because : It causes substantial harm The consumer can not reasonably avoid the harm There is no stated countervailing benefit 4. NCUA Compliance ( Federal Credit Union Act and Fair Access Principles ) As a federally insured credit union, Navy Federal must : Provide fair access to member accounts Document any risk-based restriction Notify the member of the basis for the decision Navy Federal did not follow these requirements. \n\n5. Failure to Provide a Clear Appeal Process Navy Federal informed me that I could appeal, but did not provide : What information is required What documentation is needed Who reviews the appeal How long the review takes What standards are used This prevents me from exercising my rights as a consumer. Navy Federal imposed a severe and unjustified restriction on my checking account, refused to provide the legally required explanation and documentation, and prevented me from accessing my own funds via debit card. This appears to violate Regulation E, ECOA adverse action rules, NCUA access standards, and UDAP/UDAAP protections. \n\nI am requesting CFPB assistance in requiring Navy Federal to : 1. Provide the legally required written explanation and documentation.\n\n2. Restore my debit card access and allow me to order a replacement card.\n\n3. Ensure compliance with all applicable federal regulations in this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T22:13:09.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20746","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17518944","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-26T20:15:59.000Z","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":["Ensure <em>compliance</em> with all applicable federal regulations in this matter."]},"sort":[13.26622,"17518944"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16023208","_score":11.959124,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I am submitting this rebuttal to Cash Apps XX/XX/year> response to my complaint. Their reply is inaccurate, misleading, and confirms violations of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) as well as unfair business practices. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Cash App Set Me Up for Failure I originally contacted Cash App support for help identifying which transactions on my account were fraudulent. Instead of assisting, Cash App required me to individually dispute transactions XXXX by XXXX. After following their instructions in good faith, they then turned around and accused me of filing fraudulent disputes and closed my account. \n\nIn other words, Cash App set me up for failure : they directed me into a process that guaranteed denials, then used my compliance against me. This is not only unfair but also a denial of my rights under Regulation XXXX to a good faith, reasonable investigation. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Regulation XXXX Violations ( Failure to Provide Provisional Credit & Investigation ) I disputed over {$10000.00} in unauthorized charges. \nCash App issued provisional credit on only {$110.00}, while denying the vast majority of disputes. \nThey never provided merchant documentation or proof of authorization. \nTheir denials relied on internal system checks only, not a real investigation. \n\nRegulation XXXX requires : A reasonable investigation based on available evidence. \nProvisional credit within XXXX business days if the investigation can not be completed. \n\nBy failing to provide provisional credit and issuing blanket denials without evidence, Cash App is in direct violation of Regulation XXXX. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Retaliatory Account Closure Cash App closed my account while disputes were still active, citing vague Terms of Service. This deprived me of : Access to ongoing dispute information, The ability to appeal or monitor disputes, Continued use of the account while my funds were being contested. \n\nThis closure was retaliatory and designed to block me from exercising my dispute rights. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Misleading Response Letter Cash Apps letter to CFPB states they satisfactorily addressed my complaint. In fact : They failed to help me when I first asked for guidance. \nThey set me up for failure by forcing me to file disputes in a manner that guaranteed denials. \nThey denied my claims without proof and withheld required provisional credit. \nThey closed my account in retaliation. \n\nThis is not a satisfactory resolution. It is a cover-up of regulatory violations. \n\n\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request CFPB hold Cash App accountable by requiring : 1. Immediate issuance of provisional credit for unresolved disputes totaling {$10000.00}.\n\n2. A full investigation with merchant evidence provided for each denied transaction.\n\n3. Oversight into Cash Apps pattern of : Setting consumers up for failure by mishandling disputes, Refusing provisional credits, Retaliating through account closure.\n\nConclusion Cash Apps actions violated federal law, denied me due process, and caused significant financial harm. Their own instructions placed me in a position where I was set up for failure, then punished for following their guidance. I urge the CFPB to reopen this matter and require Cash App to comply with Regulation XXXX and consumer protection standards.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-18T19:25:29.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"55025","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16023208","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-18T19:22:18.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["After following their <em>instructions</em> in good faith, they then turned around and accused me of filing fraudulent disputes and closed my account. \n\nIn other words, Cash App set me up for failure : they directed me into a process that guaranteed denials, then used my <em>compliance</em> against me. This is not only unfair but also a denial of my rights under Regulation XXXX to a good faith, reasonable investigation. \n\n\n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[11.959124,"16023208"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10346580","_score":11.632277,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated a dispute with PayPal after purchasing a used phone for {$390.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, via XXXX. The seller had advertised the device as being in pristine condition. However, upon inspection on XX/XX/XXXX, I discovered that the phone had over XXXX scratches on the screen, including several deep ones that were visible even when the screen was on and could be felt by touch. The condition of the phone was significantly worse than described. \n\nFollowing XXXX guidelines and staff instructions, I opened a dispute with PayPal on XX/XX/XXXX, requesting a partial refund due to the device being significantly not as described. On XX/XX/XXXX, PayPal initially closed the dispute in my favor but offered a partial refund of {$100.00} contingent upon my returning the device. This resolution was unacceptable because it would require me to return the phone while still incurring a {$280.00} loss due to the seller 's bad-faith sale of the device in such poor condition. \n\nConcerned by this outcome, I contacted PayPal customer service. On XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX, I spoke with a representative named \" Al '', who informed me that PayPal would re-open the case and work toward changing the resolution to a full refund of {$390.00}. During these calls, \" Al '' explicitly instructed me not to return the device unless told otherwise by PayPal. On XX/XX/XXXX, \" Al '' successfully re-opened the dispute for the full amount, and it was confirmed that the seller would have 10 days ( until XX/XX/XXXX ) to respond. \" Al '' reiterated that I should not return the phone unless instructed by PayPal. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from PayPal that not only contradicted their previous instructions but also threatened to charge me an additional {$390.00} on top of the original payment if I did not return the device by XX/XX/XXXX. This would have left me without the phone and at a loss of nearly {$800.00} in total. At the time, I had not yet received any refund for the phone and had been repeatedly told by PayPal representative \" Al '' not to return the device unless explicitly directed. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, PayPal confirmed the correct deadline for the return of the device as XX/XX/XXXX. I then shipped the phone on XX/XX/XXXX, via USPS XXXX XXXX, as required for devices containing lithium batteries ( tracking # XXXX ). I also documented the condition of the phone, the packaging process, and the weight of the package prior to mailing, ensuring everything was in compliance with PayPal 's instructions. Unfortunately, USPS appears to have lost the package, and it has not been scanned since its initial acceptance scan at my local post office. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, PayPal closed the dispute in the sellers favor, citing invalid tracking information, despite the valid USPS tracking number I provided, which shows the package was accepted but lost during transit. I immediately appealed the decision, providing proof that I had initiated a mail search with USPS to locate the missing package. Despite these efforts, my appeal was denied on XX/XX/XXXX, with PayPal claiming I did not provide valid proof of tracking that I had returned the device. \n\nAt this point, XXXX decision has left me without the phone and without the {$390.00} I paid for it. I have followed all of XXXX instructions in good faith and have been diligently working with XXXX to resolve the shipping issue. Despite my compliance and efforts, PayPal has unfairly penalized me for circumstances beyond my control, including USPS mishandling the returned package. \n\nDocumentation included with complaint : Evidence Exhibit XXXX : XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The ad described the phone as being in pristine condition, with no mention of the numerous deep scratches present. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : XXXX from XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Shows device with no visible scratches, as listed. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : Phone Screen Showing Damage ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Time-stamped photos documenting over XXXX scratches discovered upon unboxing, some deep enough to feel and visible with the screen on. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Screenshots proving the phone was activated with my XXXX after the damage was discovered, showing the scratches were not caused by me. Activation is recommended by XXXX as part of the functionality inspection and does not indicate acceptance of the devices condition. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : Response from Seller on Swappa Platform ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Exchanges between me and the seller, including my reasonable request for a partial refund and the seller 's hostile, uncooperative responses. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : Swappa Staff Recommendation ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Screenshot of XXXX XXXX suggesting I escalate the dispute to PayPal after failing to reach an agreement with the seller. I opened the dispute as instructed on XX/XX/XXXX. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : Seller hostile conduct on PayPal ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Evidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Offers {$100.00} Refund but Requires Return of Device ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Message from PayPal detailing their initial decision offering a partial refund but requiring me to return the device. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Reopens Dispute for Full Amount ( XX/XX/XXXX ) PDF from PayPal 's dispute center showing the case was reopened for a full refund of {$390.00} after discussions with \" Al ''. He explicitly clarified not to return the device to the seller. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Threatens Double Charge ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Email from PayPal incorrectly stating I had already received a refund and that failing to return the phone would result in an additional {$390.00} charge, despite \" Al '' 's instructions. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Confirms Full Refund and Return Request ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Email from PayPal confirming a full refund for {$390.00} and requesting the return of the device by XX/XX/XXXX. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : Video and Photos of Package Before Shipment ( XX/XX/XXXX ) A video showing local newspaper, detailed shots of the phone condition, packing materials, and weight of the package after it was sealed. NOTE : THIS FILE WAS TOO LARGE FOR THE UPLOAD BUT CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST Exhibit XXXX : Photo of the package at USPS, showing the matching weight of the sealed package with final shipping label after acceptance scan. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Confirmation of Tracking ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Email from PayPal confirming they had received the tracking information and transmitted it to the seller. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Closes Dispute in Seller 's Favor ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Email from PayPal stating \" The decision was made because you did not provide the tracking details we requested. '' Evidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Confirms Dispute Appeal ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Email from PayPal confirming receipt of my appeal of the decision. \nEvidence Exhibit XXXX : PayPal Denies Re-Opened Dispute ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Email from PayPal stating \" We have reviewed this transaction ( XXXX ) and are denying your case ( XXXX ) because we did not receive valid proof or tracking that you returned the merchandise. '' Evidence Exhibit XXXX : Proof of USPS Mail search ( XX/XX/XXXX )","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-04T19:29:03.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"94530","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10346580","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2024-10-04T17:26:02.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I immediately <em>appealed</em> the decision, providing proof that I had initiated a mail search with USPS to locate the missing package. Despite these efforts, my <em>appeal</em> was <em>denied</em> on XX/XX/XXXX, with PayPal claiming I did not provide valid proof of tracking that I had returned the device. \n\nAt this point, XXXX decision has left me without the phone and without the {$390.00} I paid for it."]},"sort":[11.632277,"10346580"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13016518","_score":11.587623,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Urgent : FCRA Compliance Request Identity Verification Dispute / Loan Applications # XXXX & # XXXX Dear College Ave Student Loans, I am writing in reference to my student loan applications, numbered XXXX and XXXX, which were recently denied due to identity verification issues involving your third-party provider, XXXX. \n\nAs stated in your adverse action letter dated XX/XX/year>, the denial was based on XXXX findings. However, despite multiple good-faith attempts to contact XXXX  and submit a request under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I have not received any response or instructions on how to verify or dispute the information used against me. \n\nUnder FCRA 1681m ( a ), I am entitled to a clear disclosure of the information that led to the adverse action. Furthermore, under FCRA 1681g and 1681i, I have the right to obtain all consumer report information used in the decision and to dispute any inaccurate or unverifiable information. As of today, these rights have not been fulfilled due to XXXX lack of response. \n\nSince College Ave made the adverse credit decision, I am requesting the following : A full explanation of the identity verification findings that led to the denial of my loan applications. \n\nA secure and legally compliant method to submit alternative documentation verifying my identity ( e.g., government-issued ID, SSN card, proof of residence ). \n\nGuidance on how to formally appeal or resubmit my loan applications once my identity is properly verified. \n\nI remain eager to resolve this issue in a timely manner and believe this matter deserves urgent attention given its impact on my access to education financing. Please advise how I may proceed with verifying my identity and re-establishing my application status. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-16T14:25:07.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"28786","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13016518","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"College Ave Student Loan Servicing, LLC","date_received":"2025-04-16T14:21:33.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Denied loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Subject : Urgent : FCRA <em>Compliance</em> Request Identity Verification Dispute / Loan Applications # XXXX & # XXXX Dear College Ave Student Loans, I am writing in reference to my student loan applications, numbered XXXX and XXXX, which were recently <em>denied</em> due to identity verification issues involving your third-party provider, XXXX. \n\nAs stated in your adverse action letter dated XX/XX/year>, the denial was based on XXXX findings."],"sub_issue":["<em>Denied</em> loan"]},"sort":[11.587623,"13016518"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2799264","_score":11.199694,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 0 minutes ago ) IT WOULD, ALSO, BE FAIR FOR ME TO BE AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR ALL THE MORTGAGE COMPANIES XXXX, XXXX XXXX  , XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX  AND XXXX, ETC. XXXX OF THEM, BANKS, SERVICING COMPANIES THAT FLIP AND BUNDLED AND SOLD MY LOANS. OFTENTIMES, WHEN THEY CHANGED HANDS I WAS NOT NOTIFIED AND WHEN I WAS PAYING NOTES, THE OLD MORTGAGE COMPANIES KEPT MY PAYMENTS AND DID NOT TURN THEM OVER TO NEW MORTGAGE COMPANY AND THEY DEMANDED I PAY AGAIN, TWICE. \n\nto me OCWEN IS BREAKING THE FDPCA -- FEDERAL DEBT PROTECTION COLLECTION ACT BY FILING A CLAIM AGAINST ME, THE HOMEOWNER ON A STALE TEXAS 4 YEAR STATUE OF LIMITATIONS TIME-BARRED DEBT. WILL YOU, THE CONSUMER FINANCE PROTECTION BUREAU, CITE OCWEN FOR VIIOLATIONS? WILL YOU PROTECT THE HOMEOWNERS OF AMERICA WHO ARE UNJUSTLY MISTREATED? \n\nDID YOU KNOW @ XXXX HOMEOWNERS HAD HOUSES FORECLOSED ON IN PAST 6 OR 12 MONTH PERIODS IN U.S? YOU, CFPB, ARE SUPPOSE TO PROTECT US. \n\nThursday, XX/XX/XXXX and Wednesday, XX/XX/ *****THIS LETTER SERVES AS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AGAINST OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, AND IS EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING AND THEM BREAKING FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND CONSUMER FINANCE RULES AND DEPARTMENT OF SAVINGS AND LOAN RULES : ***** I. I allege that Ocwen is retaliating against me and denied my loan modifications after promising me to work with me, and stated they would definitely give me a loan mod, because : 1. Ocwen found out through letters agencies sent to them that I filed complaints against them ; only, then, suddenly, they denied my loan mod. \n\n2. I allege also, that Ocwen is discriminating against me, because I am on a fixed income. \n\n3. The Legal Disclosures regarding Notice regarding Credit Discrimination states : \" The Federal Equal Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or because \" all or part of the applicant 's income derives from any public assistance program '' or because the applicant \" has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection. The FTC -- Federal Trade Commission, Equal Credit Opportunity, Washington, D.C. 20580 is the federal agency that administers compliance with this law concerning the creditor. \n\nII. I HEREBY STATE THE ABOVE STATED IS EVIDENCE TO ADD TO MY FILE TO RE-OPEN MY CASE, OR ISSUE ME A NEW CASE BECAUSE I ALLEGE OCWEN IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME, BECAUSE OF : 1. age-I am an elderly XXXX XXXX XXXX woman. 2. marital status -- I am not married 3. public assistance programs -- I get small XXXX and a social security check monthly and monthly food stamps, and 4. I exercised my my right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. \n\nTO THE OCWEN LOAN MODIFICATION DEPT AND RELATIONSHIP MANAGER : THIS LETTER SERVES AS MY APPEAL FOR MY LOAN MODIFICATION YOU DENIED ON LETTER DATED WEDNESDAY, XX/XX/ OCWEN SENT TO ME. \n\nYour rules state I have 30 days to appeal ; thus, this letter is serving as my appeal to your denial of my loan modifications. \nSome of your information might be incorrect ; thusly, I am asking you to review my information again for my loan modification. \n\nI am, also, asking you to solve this matter in all fairness to me by giving me the deed and title to my home, asap free and clear and to cancel my debt on this loan with Ocwen Servicing Loan you say I owe, as the 4 Year Statue of Limitations and Time-Barred Debt is in affect on my loan, and you have no right to bring any negative procedures against me. This account is still under litigation. \n\nI am considering my other LIMITED options I have with your company. Right now, I am requesting you to send me a \" Short Sell '' packet and all the instructions for a short sell. Yes, I do have a realtor, and I do have a BUYER for my home, IF YOU REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OWED, SO I AM ASKING YOU TO SEND ME A PAYOFF STATEMENT AND TO CANCEL THE MAJORITY OF THIS DEBT, AND PERHAPS CANCEL {$300000.00} OF THIS DEBT OR TO JUST VOID THE TOTAL DEBT AND GIVE ME MY DEED/TITLE FREE AND CLEAR TO MY HOME. \n\nAGAIN I AM ASKING FOR SEVERAL THINGS. \n\n1. Reconsider a loan modification you denied, again, after you promised one to me, before I made my complaints 2.  Give me the title/deed to my home free and clear. \n\n3. Send a complete Ocwen Loan Servicing short sell packet to me.\n\n4. Send me a greatly reduced payoff statement. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account No. XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2018-01-31T17:09:12.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"75104","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2799264","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2018-01-31T16:28:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TO THE OCWEN LOAN MODIFICATION DEPT AND RELATIONSHIP MANAGER : THIS LETTER SERVES AS MY <em>APPEAL</em> FOR MY LOAN MODIFICATION YOU <em>DENIED</em> ON LETTER DATED WEDNESDAY, XX/XX/ OCWEN SENT TO ME. \n\nYour rules state I have 30 days to <em>appeal</em> ; thus, this letter is serving as my <em>appeal</em> to your denial of my loan modifications. \nSome of your information might be incorrect ; thusly, I am asking you to review my information again for my loan modification."]},"sort":[11.199694,"2799264"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15329108","_score":10.968277,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/year>, Revolut unilaterally and without notice closed my Revolut account while I had an active Revolut credit card. At the time of closure, my credit card was current, in good standing, and had never been late or delinquent. \n\nFollowing the closure, Revolut has refused to provide any means to continue making payments toward the existing credit card balance. Revolut requires payments to be made exclusively through a Revolut balance, yet by closing my account, they simultaneously eliminated my only repayment channel. When I contacted Revolut, I requested instructions on how to continue making payments. Revolut advised me to withdraw funds and wait six months to appeal, but offered no alternative repayment method ( such as bank transfer, debit card, or ACH ). \n\nThis conduct places me at risk of involuntary delinquency and negative credit reporting, even though I have always made timely payments. Revoluts actions effectively prevent me from fulfilling my contractual obligations and may damage my credit history without any fault on my part. \n\nI believe Revoluts actions constitute violations of federal consumer protection law, specifically : 1. Unfair Practices ( UDAAP 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 / Dodd-Frank Act 1036 ) : By closing my account and denying me any repayment method, Revolut causes substantial injury ( blocked repayment ability, risk to credit ) that is not reasonably avoidable by the consumer and provides no countervailing benefit.\n\n2. Deceptive Practices ( UDAAP ) : Revolut represented that customers could use its credit card product with the ability to repay, yet later denied any reasonable means to make repayment once the account was closed. This is materially misleading and harmful.\n\n3. Potential Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : If Revolut were to furnish negative information regarding my account while simultaneously blocking repayment options, such reporting would be inaccurate and unfairly damaging.\n\nI am requesting that Revolut be required to : Provide a valid explanation for the closure of my account.\n\nImmediately establish a reasonable repayment channel outside of the Revolut balance requirement ( e.g., ACH transfer, debit card, or external bank funding ).\n\nEnsure that no negative credit reporting is made against me for payments I was willing and able to make, but which Revolut prevented. \n\nRevoluts conduct is unfair, deceptive, and abusive under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and risks serious harm to consumers who are otherwise in compliance with their contractual obligations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-16T15:26:30.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27407","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15329108","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Revolut Technologies Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-16T15:11:53.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem during payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I contacted Revolut, I requested <em>instructions</em> on how to continue making payments. Revolut advised me to withdraw funds and wait six months to <em>appeal</em>, but offered no alternative repayment method ( such as bank transfer, debit card, or ACH ). \n\nThis conduct places me at risk of involuntary delinquency and negative credit reporting, even though I have always made timely payments."]},"sort":[10.968277,"15329108"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18446023","_score":10.830085,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding XXXX XXXX  handling of my application for a Capital One Spark Business credit card and their failure to provide a meaningful explanation or resolution related to an identity verification denial. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I applied for a Capital One Spark Business credit card for my newly formed entity, XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am a long-time Capital One customer and currently maintain multiple personal accounts with them, including checking, savings, and XXXX personal credit cards, all in good standing. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Capital One requested additional documentation to verify my identity and business. That same day, I uploaded the following materials : My Nevada XXXX XXXX XXXX IRS XXXX confirmation letter A scanned copy of my valid XXXX passport Despite providing these documents promptly, on XX/XX/year>, I received an adverse action notice denying my application for the stated reason : Based on your application information, applicants identity can not be verified. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I contacted XXXX XXXX  credit application department seeking clarification. I was transferred repeatedly between the application department and the XXXX department, and I was informed that I could not speak directly with underwriting. No representative was able to identify what specific information was missing or insufficient to verify my identity. \n\nFollowing the instructions in the adverse action letter, I mailed a written appeal to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX. This package included physical copies of all previously submitted documentation, as well as my Articles of Organization and Initial List of Members filed with the State of Nevada. I sent this package via certified mail, and delivery was confirmed on XX/XX/year>. \n\nXXXX XXXX  written documentation request stated that I was required to submit XXXX primary business document that matched both the business name and physical address on my application, and specifically listed Articles of XXXX as an acceptable primary document. The same letter further stated that if the primary document did not match the information on the account, I could instead submit XXXX secondary documents, such as an IRS letter assigning an XXXX and a government-issued business license. \n\nIn compliance with these instructions, I submitted my Articles of XXXX filed with the State of Nevada as the primary document. In addition, and out of an abundance of caution, I also submitted XXXX secondary documents : my IRS letter assigning the XXXX and my government-issued Nevada business XXXX. All submitted documents reflected the same business name and physical address used in the application. \n\nDespite providing the exact primary document requested, and further providing secondary documentation that exceeded XXXX XXXX  stated requirements, my application was still denied for inability to verify identity. Capital One has never explained why these documents were deemed insufficient or what additional documentation, if any, would be required to resolve the issue. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I contacted Capital One again to inquire about next steps. I was once more transferred between departments and was told only that Capital One would respond within XXXX business days of receiving my mailed documentation. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I contacted Capital One again to confirm receipt of my appeal and requested a manual reconsideration of my application. I explicitly declined authorization for any additional hard inquiries on my credit report, as the denial was related to identity verification and not creditworthiness. After escalating the matter to a supervisor and spending approximately an hour on the call, I was told my only options were : To allow a manual review that would likely result in another hard credit inquiry, or To reapply in 30 days, which would also result in another hard credit inquiry At no point was I provided with a specific explanation of why my identity could not be verified, nor was I informed what additional XXXX XXXX resolve the issue. I provided my Social Security number on the application, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly reflect my name, the business name, and the address used in the application. \n\nAs a result of XXXX XXXX  actions, I have experienced unnecessary delays in obtaining business credit, wasted significant time attempting to resolve the matter through customer service, and faced pressure to incur additional hard credit inquiries without any explanation of how doing so would resolve the underlying issue. \n\nThank you for your assistance in reviewing this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T19:55:32.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"89509","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18446023","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-01-03T19:04:55.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In <em>compliance</em> with these <em>instructions</em>, I submitted my Articles of XXXX filed with the State of Nevada as the primary document. In addition, and out of an abundance of caution, I also submitted XXXX secondary documents : my IRS letter assigning the XXXX and my government-issued Nevada business XXXX. All submitted documents reflected the same business name and physical address used in the application."],"sub_issue":["Application <em>denied</em>"]},"sort":[10.830085,"18446023"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21493080","_score":10.327654,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally appeal Citibanks recent determination regarding my dispute with Wayfair. I was advised that the dispute was denied because it was determined that the merchants cancellation and return policy was not followed. This conclusion is incorrect and appears to overlook the documentation and timeline I previously provided.\n\nI followed the merchants return policy completely and within the allowed timeframe. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I initiated a return request online as required by Wayfairs instructions for three ceiling fans I purchased. The items were not to my satisfaction upon arrival. The return was initiated well within the standard 30-day return window, and in fact the holiday return period had been extended through XX/XX/year>. \nWayfair itself acknowledged my return request. I received confirmation on XX/XX/year>, at XXXXXXXX  stating that the return had been received and I would shortly receive a follow-up email confirming the pick-up date for the items. \nHowever, more than three months has now passed and that promised email was never sent, essentially denying me the ability to return my purchase as was my right. \nWayfair requires that these items be returned only through a pick-up arranged by their designated carrier, XXXX. I attempted to contact this company myself using the telephone number provided by Wayfair and discovered the number had been disconnected. It appears the company is no longer operating. \nI immediately notified Wayfair and provided proof of this issue. Despite doing so, Wayfair has never contacted me to arrange a pick-up or provide an alternative method for returning the items. \nI made multiple good faith attempts to complete the return process : XXXX initiated online per Wayfair instructions. \nXXXX Wayfair customer service. I was told I could return the items via XXXX  XXXX. \nXXXX went to a XXXX  XXXX location and attempted to return the items, only to be told this was not permitted because they are large items. \nXXXX I contacted Wayfair again and was told the prior information was incorrect and that only XXXX  could pick up the items from my home. I advised the representative the phone number for XXXX was disconnected. \nWayfair advised there was nothing further I could do and provided no alternative solution. \nAs a consumer, I can not force a merchants logistics provider to pick up merchandise. I followed every step required by the merchants return policy and went above and beyond to attempt to return the items. The failure to complete the return rests entirely with the merchant and their inability to coordinate pick-up. \nThe items remain available for return and have been ready for pick-up since the return was initiated. \nI also previously informed Wayfair that I would dispute the charge if the return could not be completed because I did not want to lose my right to a refund due to delays on the merchants side. \nI am extremely disappointed that Citibank concluded I failed to follow the merchants return policy when the documentation clearly demonstrates that I did follow it completely. \nIt is irresponsible and frustrating that not only did Citi not investigate this matter properly, but they also sent me a threatening letter advising they would report me to XXXX, XXXX  and XXXX  for failure to pay. These threatening tactics and language were seemingly done to intimidate me, however, I am still hopeful the \" system '' in place to protect me will function properly. Citi encouraged me to 'seek other means to resolve this matter '', so here I am. \nI am requesting a full refund credit in the amount of {$950.00} for the returned merchandise that the merchant has failed to retrieve despite my compliance with their return policy.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T18:39:26.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33138","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21493080","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-04-22T17:53:40.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing to formally <em>appeal</em> Citibanks recent determination regarding my dispute with Wayfair. I was advised that the dispute was <em>denied</em> because it was determined that the merchants cancellation and return policy was not followed. This conclusion is incorrect and appears to overlook the documentation and timeline I previously provided.\n\nI followed the merchants return policy completely and within the allowed timeframe."]},"sort":[10.327654,"21493080"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18882718","_score":9.605727,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Complaint I am filing this complaint because Chime Financial , Inc. failed to conduct a lawful, reasonable, and goodfaith investigation of my dispute regarding merchandise that was not as described. Chime denied my dispute without reviewing the evidence I submitted, without contacting the merchant, and without providing the documentation they relied upon to make their decision. These actions appear to violate Regulation E and may constitute unfair or deceptive practices under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law ( CCFPL ). \n\nDetails of the Issue 1. Nature of the Transaction I purchased merchandise from a seller located outside the United States. The item I received was not as described. The merchant does not provide a phone number, and email is the only method of communication.\n\n2. Attempts to Resolve with Merchant I contacted the merchant multiple times requesting return instructions or a refund.\n\nThe merchant responded only with automated form emails stating they would get back to me. \n\nThey never provided return instructions, an exchange option, or any meaningful response. \n\nI submitted copies of all email correspondence to Chime as part of my dispute. \n\nXXXX. Chimes Handling of the Dispute Chime denied my dispute. When I requested the documentation Chime relied upon to make their decision, I received only my initial dispute application. \n\nNone of the evidence I submitted was included. \n\nThere is no indication Chime contacted the merchant. \n\nThere is no indication Chime reviewed the emails I provided. \n\nThis strongly suggests that Chime did not conduct a reasonable or complete investigation. \n\nLegal Concerns Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) Regulation E requires financial institutions to conduct a reasonable, goodfaith investigation of consumer disputes involving electronic fund transfers. A denial issued without reviewing evidence or contacting the merchant does not meet this standard. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Financial Protection Law ( CCFPL ) Chime is subject to the CCFPL, which prohibits : Unfair acts or practices Deceptive acts or practices Abusive acts or practices Failing to review evidence, failing to contact the merchant, and failing to provide documentation relied upon in a denial may constitute violations of the CCFPL. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Protection Framework California maintains broad consumerprotection laws requiring financial institutions to treat consumers fairly and transparently. Chimes actions appear inconsistent with these obligations.\n\nRequested Resolution I am requesting DFPIs assistance to ensure that Chime : Conducts a full reinvestigation of my dispute.\n\nReviews all evidence I submitted.\n\nProvides a detailed explanation of the basis for the original denial.\n\nDemonstrates that proper investigative steps were taken, including merchant outreach. \n\nEnsures future compliance with Regulation E and the CCFPL.\n\nAttachments Provided Copies of all email correspondence with the merchant Screenshots or documentation showing the item was not as described Chimes dispute denial Chimes response to my request for documentation used in the denial If youd like, I can also prepare : A timeline of events A cover letter to accompany your DFPI submission A followup escalation letter to Chimes executive resolution team Just tell me what you want to add. \n\nA follow up escalation letter to Chime ; s executive resolution team Absolutely heres a polished, forceful escalation letter tailored for Chimes Executive Resolution Team. Its written in a tone that signals you are serious, organized, and prepared to involve regulators if necessary, without sounding hostile or unprofessional. It builds on your earlier appeal and frames the issue in a way that executivelevel reviewers tend to respond to.\n\nYou can send this by email or postal mail. \n\nEscalation Letter to Chime Executive Resolution Team [ Your Name ] [ Your Address ] [ City, State ZIP ] [ Email Address ] [ Phone Number ] [ Date ] Chime Financial , Inc. Executive Resolution Team Subject : Escalation Request Improper Dispute Denial and Failure to Conduct Required Investigation To the Executive Resolution Team, I am writing to formally escalate my dispute regarding Case # [ insert case number ], which was denied despite clear evidence that the merchandise I received was not as described and despite multiple attempts on my part to resolve the issue directly with the merchant. The handling of this dispute raises serious concerns about whether Chime conducted the investigation required under federal and California law. \n\nI have already submitted an appeal to the Dispute Resolution Department, but given the deficiencies in the original investigation and the lack of transparency in the denial, I am requesting executivelevel review. \n\nXXXX. Summary of the Issue The merchandise I received was not as described. \n\nThe merchant is located outside the United States and provides no phone number. \n\nI contacted the seller multiple times requesting return instructions or a refund. \n\nThe seller responded only with automated form emails and never provided return information. \n\nI submitted all email correspondence to Chime as evidence of my goodfaith efforts. \n\nDespite this, my dispute was denied. \n\nXXXX. Deficiencies in Chimes Investigation When I requested the documentation Chime relied upon to deny my dispute, I received only my initial dispute application. None of the evidence I submitted was included. There is no indication that Chime : Contacted the merchant Reviewed the emails I provided Considered the sellers refusal to provide return instructions Evaluated the merchandise not as described claim in accordance with regulatory standards This strongly suggests that the investigation was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of a reasonable, goodfaith investigation. \n\nXXXX. Applicable Legal Standards Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) Financial institutions must conduct a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes involving electronic fund transfers. A denial issued without reviewing evidence or contacting the merchant does not satisfy this requirement. \n\nCalifornia Consumer Financial Protection Law ( CCFPL ) As a financial services provider operating in California, Chime is subject to the CCFPL, which prohibits : Unfair acts or practices Deceptive acts or practices Abusive acts or practices Denying a dispute without reviewing evidence or providing documentation relied upon in the decision may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice under this law. \n\n4. Requested Executive Action I am requesting that the Executive Resolution Team : Conduct a full reinvestigation of my dispute. \n\nEnsure that all evidence I submitted is reviewed and attached to the case file. \n\nProvide a detailed explanation of the basis for the original denial. \n\nConfirm that proper investigative steps were taken, including merchant outreach. \n\nEnsure that Chimes handling of this matter complies with Regulation XXXX and the CCFPL. \n\nXXXX. Notice of Potential Regulatory Complaint If this matter can not be resolved through proper reinvestigation, I am prepared to submit a formal complaint to the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ( DFPI ), as well as any other appropriate regulatory bodies. My goal is simply to receive the fair and lawful investigation that consumers are entitled to. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to a timely and appropriate resolution. \n\nSincerely, [ Your Name ] If you want, I can also prepare : A shorter, more assertive version A version tailored for CFPB escalation A timeline attachment to include with the letter Just tell me what direction you want to go. \n\na version tailored for cfpb escalation Absolutely heres a polished, assertive version crafted specifically for a CFPB escalation. Its written in the tone and structure that tends to resonate with federal regulators : factual, concise, and focused on procedural failures and consumerrights violations. It avoids emotional language and sticks to the regulatory issues the CFPB cares about. \n\nYou can paste this directly into the CFPB complaint portal or send it as a supporting letter. \n\nCFPB Escalation Letter Improper Dispute Handling by Chime [ Your Name ] [ Your Address ] [ City, State ZIP ] [ Email Address ] [ Phone Number ] [ Date ] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Subject : Complaint Regarding Chime Financial , Inc. Failure to Conduct Proper Dispute Investigation To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this complaint regarding Chime Financial , Inc. for failing to conduct a lawful and reasonable investigation of my dispute involving merchandise that was not as described. Chime denied my dispute without reviewing the evidence I submitted, without contacting the merchant, and without providing the documentation they relied upon to make their decision. These actions raise concerns under Regulation E and CFPB standards for fair dispute resolution. \n\nXXXX. Summary of the Transaction and Issue I purchased merchandise from a seller located outside the United States. The item I received was not as described. The merchant provides no phone number, and email is the only method of communication. \n\nI contacted the merchant multiple times, requesting return instructions or a refund. The merchant responded only with automated form emails stating they would get back to me, and never provided return information or any meaningful assistance. \n\nI submitted all email correspondence to Chime as part of my dispute. \n\nXXXX. Chimes Handling of the Dispute Chime denied my dispute. When I requested the documentation Chime relied upon to make their decision, I received only my initial dispute application. None of the evidence I submitted was included. \n\nThere is no indication that Chime : Contacted the merchant Reviewed the emails I provided Considered the sellers refusal to provide return instructions Evaluated the merchandise not as described claim in accordance with Regulation XXXX This suggests that Chime did not conduct a reasonable or goodfaith investigation. \n\n3. Regulatory Concerns Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) Regulation E requires financial institutions to conduct a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes involving electronic fund transfers. A denial issued without reviewing evidence or contacting the merchant does not meet this standard.\n\nCFPB Expectations for Dispute Resolution CFPB guidance emphasizes that financial institutions must : Review all available evidence Consider consumersubmitted documentation Conduct a fair and thorough investigation Provide clear explanations of dispute outcomes Chimes actions appear inconsistent with these expectations. \n\nXXXX. Requested CFPB Action Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to ensure that Chime complies with federal consumerprotection requirements and provides a fair resolution. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-21T06:15:57.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"757XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18882718","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-01-21T05:10:57.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Attempts to Resolve with Merchant I contacted the merchant multiple times requesting return <em>instructions</em> or a refund.\n\nThe merchant responded only with automated form emails stating they would get back to me. \n\nThey never provided return <em>instructions</em>, an exchange option, or any meaningful response. \n\nI submitted copies of all email correspondence to Chime as part of my dispute. \n\nXXXX. Chimes Handling of the Dispute Chime <em>denied</em> my dispute."]},"sort":[9.605727,"18882718"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3659748","_score":9.531824,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I have two Wells Fargo Home Mortgage loans. A first loan # XXXX which was converted from # XXXX. And a second loan # XXXX which was converted from # XXXX. \nThese loans were part of the Wachovia Pick-A-Pay Class Action Settlement ( attached ) in XXXX. \nAfter being notified of this court ordered Class Action settlement, I contacted Wachovia Mortgage for a Loan Modification. Wachovia Mortgage stated to me that I must discontinue making my mortgage payments to eligible for this court ordered Loan Modification before I could submit an application for the Loan Modification. Though reluctant, I was obedient to Wachovia Mortgages instructions and discontinued making my mortgage payments. I then submitted my Loan Modification application to Wachovia Mortgage as they instructed me to do. Wachovia Mortgage then denied my Loan Modification application. I then discovered that Wachovia Mortgages instructions to me to discontinue making my monthly payments was a common practice to purposely mislead and discourage people from a Loan Modification and to deny their Loan Modification applications. \nBy following Wachovia Mortgages deceptive instructions to discontinue making my mortgage payments, I was put into further financial distress. I had to borrow money and incur additional expenses to bring all my mortgage payments current. \nAfter bringing my mortgages currents, I made another Loan Modification applications to Wachovia Mortgage. This Loan Modification application was incorrectly processed by Wachovia Mortgage, as Wachovia Mortgage purposely input incorrect figures contradictory to the figures I had submitted on my Loan Modification application. Wachovia Mortgage denied this Loan Modification applications. After Wells Fargo bought Wachovia Mortgage, I made a 3rd Loan Modification application to Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo also processed the application incorrectly in the same manner as Wachovia Mortgage had done and again denied my application. \nI then hired a Loan Modification Processor to submit my Loan Modification application to Wells Fargo in XX/XX/XXXX. I submitted virtually the same exact figures as I had on the previous 3 Loan Modification applications that were denied. After my new Loan Modification Processor had submitted my application, I was instructed by the Loan Modification Processor to contact XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargo. I promptly called XXXX XXXX with Wells Fargo. XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargo immediately began attempting to discourage me from applying for this Court Ordered Loan Modification. Why would XXXX XXXX with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage make such an effort to discourage me from applying for this Loan Modification? I insisted to XXXX XXXX that I wanted to proceed with my application for this Loan Modification. \nI received a letter from Wells Fargo dated XX/XX/XXXX ( attached ), informing me that I was approved for a Trial Loan Modification. In the next telephone conversation with XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargo regarding my Trial Loan Modification terms, XXXX XXXX stated that my permanent Principal Mortgage Reduction would be in the amount of {$28000.00} for loan # XXXX and {$5100.00} for loan # XXXX if I completed my Trial Loan Modification as described in the Trial Loan Modification terms. I wrote the Principal Mortgage Reduction figures that XXXX XXXX quoted to me on page 3 of the Principal Reduction Quote when I was on the telephone with XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargo regarding the Trial Loan Modification terms ( attached ). XXXX XXXX asked me if I accepted these Trial Loan Modification terms and I replied Yes, I accept. \nI paid all my monthly Trial Loan Modification payments exactly on time. After the Trial Loan Modification was completed, XXXX XXXX with Wells Fargo called me again to inform me that my Loan Modification was approved and would be permanent. XXXX XXXX went on to state at that time that the Principal Reduction amount of {$28000.00} for loan # XXXX that XXXX XXXX had quoted to me before I had accepted the Trial Loan Modification terms would not be honored by Wells Fargo. XXXX XXXX stated that the Principal Mortgage Reduction would be a Deferred Principal Mortgage Reduction in the amount {$19000.00}, which is not a Mortgage Principal Reduction. XXXX XXXX continued to state that the Principal Mortgage Reduction amount of {$5100.00} for loan # XXXX that XXXX XXXX had quoted to me before I had accepted the Trial Loan Modification terms had changed and would now be {$0.00}. I referred to my notes and reminded XXXX XXXX of the permanent Principal Mortgage Reduction amounts she had quoted at the beginning of the Trial Loan Modification and asked if I accepted those terms. XXXX XXXX denied making any such quotes. I reminded XXXX XXXX that all of our conversations were recorded by Wells Fargo and that all we had to do was to replay those previous conversations. XXXX XXXX became very defensive and made several excuses as to why those recorded conversations could not be used to verify her representations. XXXX XXXX remained intent on being dishonest with me and not honoring the terms of the Trail Loan Modification that XXXX XXXX asked me to accept. \nI appealed several times to Wells Fargo to correct. The last appeal was to Well Fargos CEO office with the same information that is in this letter. XXXX XXXX with Wells Fargos Executive office responded to me that they did review the recorded telephone calls from XXXX XXXX to me. Wells Fargo did acknowledge that XXXX XXXX did quote the permanent Principal Mortgage Reductions in the amounts of {$28000.00} for loan # XXXX and {$5100.00} for loan # XXXX if I completed my Trial Loan Modification as described in the Trial Loan Modification terms and did confirm that XXXX XXXX did ask me if I accepted those Trial Loan Modification terms. Wells Fargos Executive office went on to state that because that accepted the revised Deferred Principal Mortgage Reduction that Wells Fargo was justified in not holding themselves accountable to XXXX XXXX previous representations. \nFirst, the whole purpose of a Loan Modification was to reduce the Principal Mortgage Balance. Second, Wells Fargo made specific Trail Loan Modification terms on a recorded line and would not proceed until I accepted those terms. That is a contractual agreement. Third, if Wells Fargo would have been honest in their representations to me before the Trial Loan Modification that the Principal Mortgage Deduction would be a Deferred Principal Mortgage Reduction ( which is not a Principal Mortgage Deduction ) on my first Mortgage and that I would not receive a Principal Mortgage Deduction on my second Mortgage and that my loan would be extended to 40 years, I would not have agreed to those Trial Loan Modification terms. Fourth, by agreeing to XXXX XXXX and Wells Fargos deceitful and dishonest representations, this put me further into financial distress, as I did not have the financial ability to bring my regular payments current with Wells Fargo if I chose not to accept the Final Loan Modification terms. Wells Fargo used this financial distress to purposely mislead me for their financial gain and profit. \nWells Fargo is required to follow the TRID guidelines in the mortgage business : TRID stands for the Truth in lending RESPA Integrated Disclosure that puts a tolerance on discloses fees : https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/tila-respa-disclosure-rule/. I can understand if terms change a few dollars and a few cents, but not by {$34000.00}! If I conducted my business as Wells Fargo behaved with me, I would lose my license and most be in jail. \nWells Fargo purposely misled and deceived me in this Loan Modification. I am now in financial bondage to Wells Fargo through the year XXXX. I will be XXXX years of age in XXXX. Approximately 16-18 years beyond the average life expectancy for an American male all for the financial benefit of Wells Fargo. \nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-05-20T00:03:30.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"92673","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3659748","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-05-19T23:23:35.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Though reluctant, I was obedient to Wachovia Mortgages <em>instructions</em> and discontinued making my mortgage payments. I then submitted my Loan Modification application to Wachovia Mortgage as they instructed me to do. Wachovia Mortgage then <em>denied</em> my Loan Modification application."]},"sort":[9.531824,"3659748"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5358296","_score":8.124461,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint over XXXX debt collection cases in which I have been a victim of illegal and predatory debt collection practices perpetrated by the now defunct law firm of Pressler & Pressler LLP in New Jersey. My cases are # XXXX & XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, NJ ) In XXXX XXXX Pressler & Pressler and two of the firms partners, were named in a consent order ( 2016-CFPB-0009 ) issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to stop churning out unfair and deceptive debt collection lawsuits based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The consent orders bar the companies and individuals from illegal practices that can deceive or intimidate consumers, such as filing lawsuits without determining if debts in question are valid. The consent order was issued in conjunction with a stipulation signed by the law firms partners acknowledging their agreement to the facts upon which the consent order was based and issued. \n\nThe alleged debts in both of the cases Ive listed here are part of the reorganized law firms alleged continued improper practices, and both cases were filed during a five-year period of compliance monitoring indicated in the consent order, effective the date of the consent order, during which time the law firm was required to produce specific documentation and other filing requirements every time they filed suit, and they did not do so in either of these cases ( see item # 44 on page 18 of the Consent XXXXrder ). In both cases, plaintiffs counsel knew that I had moved away, but improperly filed suit in New Jersey, knowing I would not only NOT get served, but I would not likely make an appearance.\n\nI only learned of these matters because the subsequent default judgements were discovered during a Title Search conducted while I was preparing to sell my house in New Jersey. I immediately filed motions to vacate in both cases, arguing improper service and lack of jurisdiction. In one of the cases, plaintiff 's counsel ( the decedent firm of Pressler & Pressler ) filed several motions arguing against my motion to vacate and the presiding judge agreed to oral arguments on the matter. Appearances in this matter were all held remotely, due to COVID, but because I was a pro se defendant ( and despite filing everything electronically ), my notice with instructions for how to log in for the appearance was mailed to me instead of emailed. Because it's just my luck, I was away for a work conference when the notice was mailed and would not be returning until the day AFTER the oral argument. I called in to the Court that morning, and even left a message for the presiding Judge indicating that I never received the instructions for how to join. Nobody in the clerks office seemed to know how I could join. So, of course, they marked me as a no-show, and my motion was denied.\n\nWhat the Judge didnt know was that I had recently received additional information from a colleague at the law firm where I was working which alerted me to this CFPB consent order and that I was prepared to bring up during these oral arguments as a reason to have the judgement invalidated, because Pressler had very obviously ignored the filing requirements outlined in the consent order, which they were still bound to operate under until XX/XX/2021. \n\nMarked as a no-show for the oral arguments, the judge refused my request for another hearing and would not accept another motion ( or hear my new evidence ) so I was unable to get the judgements vacated. So much for New Jersey 's standard to vacate a judgment giving significant latitude to the Judges to ensure fairness of justice for all parties. Since then, I have escalated both of these matters to appeals within the New Jersey circuit, because the presiding Judge in my cases did not hold Pressler accountable for the requirements they were obligated to fulfill under the CFPB Consent Order, and when brought to his attention, still refused to acknowledge the issue. \n\nAttached, for your convenience, is the amended motion to vacate that I intended to introduce if I could have participated in the oral arguments or if the Judge had just granted my request for a new hearing. It outlines specifically how Pressler violated due process and blatantly ignored the requirements outlined in the CFPB consent order.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-23T21:09:26.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"441XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5358296","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Pressler & Pressler, LLP","date_received":"2022-03-23T19:02:26.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I called in to the Court that morning, and even left a message for the presiding Judge indicating that I never received the <em>instructions</em> for how to join. Nobody in the clerks office seemed to know how I could join. So, of course, they marked me as a no-show, and my motion was <em>denied</em>."]},"sort":[8.124461,"5358296"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5358302","_score":8.111905,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint over XXXX debt collection cases in which I have been a victim of illegal and predatory debt collection practices perpetrated by the now defunct law firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in New Jersey. My cases are # XXXX & XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, NJ ) In XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX and two of the firms partners, were named in a consent order ( 2016-CFPB-0009 ) issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to stop churning out unfair and deceptive debt collection lawsuits based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The consent orders bar the companies and individuals from illegal practices that can deceive or intimidate consumers, such as filing lawsuits without determining if debts in question are valid. The consent order was issued in conjunction with a stipulation signed by the law firms partners acknowledging their agreement to the facts upon which the consent order was based and issued. \n\nThe alleged debts in both of the cases Ive listed here are part of the reorganized law firms alleged continued improper practices, and both cases were filed during a five-year period of compliance monitoring indicated in the consent order, effective the date of the consent order, during which time the law firm was required to produce specific documentation and other filing requirements every time they filed suit, and they did not do so in either of these cases ( see item # 44 on page 18 of the Consent Order ). In both cases, plaintiffs counsel knew that I had moved away, but improperly filed suit in New Jersey, knowing I would not only NOT get served, but I would not likely make an appearance. \n\nI only learned of these matters because the subsequent default judgements were discovered during a Title Search conducted while I was preparing to sell my house in New Jersey. I immediately filed motions to vacate in both cases, arguing improper service and lack of jurisdiction. In one of the cases, plaintiff 's counsel ( the decedent firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) filed several motions arguing against my motion to vacate and the presiding judge agreed to oral arguments on the matter. Appearances in this matter were all held remotely, due to COVID, but because I was a pro se defendant ( and despite filing everything electronically ), my notice with instructions for how to log in for the appearance was mailed to me instead of emailed. Because it's just my luck, I was away for a work conference when the notice was mailed and would not be returning until the day AFTER the oral argument. I called in to the Court that morning, and even left a message for the presiding Judge indicating that I never received the instructions for how to join. Nobody in the clerks office seemed to know how I could join. So, of course, they marked me as a no-show, and my motion was denied. \n\nWhat the Judge didnt know was that I had recently received additional information from a colleague at the law firm where I was working which alerted me to this CFPB consent order and that I was prepared to bring up during these oral arguments as a reason to have the judgement invalidated, because XXXX had very obviously ignored the filing requirements outlined in the consent order, which they were still bound to operate under until XX/XX/2021. \n\nMarked as a no-show for the oral arguments, the judge refused my request for another hearing and would not accept another motion ( or hear my new evidence ) so I was unable to get the judgements vacated. So much for New Jersey 's standard to vacate a judgment giving significant latitude to the Judges to ensure fairness of justice for all parties. Since then, I have escalated both of these matters to appeals within the New Jersey circuit, because the presiding Judge in my cases did not hold XXXX accountable for the requirements they were obligated to fulfill under the CFPB Consent Order, and when brought to his attention, still refused to acknowledge the issue. \n\nAttached, for your convenience, is the amended motion to vacate that I intended to introduce if I could have participated in the oral arguments or if the Judge had just granted my request for a new hearing. It outlines specifically how XXXX violated due process and blatantly ignored the requirements outlined in the CFPB consent order.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-23T21:09:39.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"441XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5358302","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2022-03-23T21:09:35.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I called in to the Court that morning, and even left a message for the presiding Judge indicating that I never received the <em>instructions</em> for how to join. Nobody in the clerks office seemed to know how I could join. So, of course, they marked me as a no-show, and my motion was <em>denied</em>."]},"sort":[8.111905,"5358302"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13284928","_score":7.594319,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Narrative Statement for CFPB Complaint Consumer Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX Impacted Account : $ XXXX Current Account : $ XXXX Cash App Case # : XXXX Amount Withheld : Over {$1000.00} ________________________________________ Issue Summary : This complaint is against Cash App ( Block , Inc. ) for unreasonably withholding funds from my inaccessible account, $ XXXX, despite my full compliance with repeated identity verification requests. I submitted every document a financial institution could reasonably require, and yet Cash App continues to deny access to my funds with vague and contradictory responses. This has caused financial harm and appears to be part of a broader pattern of neglect and abuse identified in previous CFPB enforcement actions against the company. \n________________________________________ Chronology of Events : XX/XX/XXXX : I mailed a formal written letter to Cash App because the in-app support tools offered no help in recovering access to my account. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I submitted a detailed identity verification packet via email, which included : My drivers license A selfie holding my license My Social Security card My birth certificate My debit card ( last 4 digits : XXXX ) Three months of bank statements showing Cash App transaction activity Past transaction history Verified phone numbers and email addresses XX/XX/XXXX : I called Cash Apps customer service line. No one was able to help, and the representative did not offer any escalation or resolution. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I completed Cash App 's mobile identity verification process and re-engaged with support. What followed was over 30 back-and-forth emails with at least seven different agents ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, each giving inconsistent instructions and requesting the same information over and over again. \nI complied every time, resubmitting information that had already been provided. \nI was told by XXXX that a one-time balance transfer from $ XXXX to $ XXXX would be processed. \nI confirmed YES as requested. \nLess than an hour later, another agent, XXXX, reversed the decision, stating they could not proceed. \nWhen I challenged the contradiction, no further resolution was offered. \nUltimately, I was told the account could not be accessed for security reasons, with no official denial letter or appeal option. \n________________________________________ I want to emphasize the extraordinary lengths I went to in order to verify my identityfar beyond what any bank would require. Cash App ignored valid credentials, refused to exercise basic judgment, and created a XXXX  customer service loop that left me without access to my own money. This is willful negligence, not a technical limitation. \nWorse, this appears to be a pattern of behavior. The CFPB has already taken enforcement action against Cash App for failing to provide adequate customer service. From my experience, this behavior is ongoing and systemic. Cash App appears to use poor support practices as a way to withhold customer funds and avoid accountability. \n________________________________________ Current Status : I still do not have access to my funds.\n\nMy funds remain locked in the inaccessible account, even though my identity has been repeatedly verified.\n\nI have used every possible contact method ( app, email, letter, and phone ).\n\nCash App has provided no meaningful support or formal denial.\n\n________________________________________ Requested Resolution : Grant me access to my original account ( $ XXXX ), OR Transfer my funds to my new verified account ( $ XXXX ), OR Issue a paper check for the full balance ________________________________________ Legal Grounds : Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005 ) Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 State and Federal Unclaimed Property Laws Cash Apps own Terms of Service, which prohibit indefinite withholding of funds following identity verification","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-01T23:43:09.000Z","issue":"Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"08085","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13284928","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-01T23:14:54.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I submitted every document a financial institution could reasonably require, and yet Cash App continues to <em>deny</em> access to my funds with vague and contradictory responses."]},"sort":[7.594319,"13284928"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16668094","_score":6.8775654,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"1. My complaint starts when I received a letter from Chase stating my account was closing. Chase stated there was concerning activity and I was instructed by Chase in writing to destroy all cards and checks associated with the accounts ( attached ). \n\nA. The concerning activity I attempted to appeal this decision through the CFPB to get directly in contact with the XXXX XXXX but was met with a response that their decision was remaining the same. In their response, I noticed they revised their original statement referring to it as unexpected activity when responding to my appeal ( attached ). I would like clarification on this inconsistency, as the original terminology used is associated with accusations, which brings me to the next part of my complaint ; When a Chase XXXX representative previously accused me of money laundering when discussing my personal transfers. This was documented as a complaint with Chase, and after making them aware of that statement, two Chase managers called me directly about the issue, attempting to discuss the statement that was made. Now I have received a letter from Chase, after a transfer that was performed, dated the same day, providing notice that my accounts will be closing. A transfer that was performed in accordance with Chases published guidance, and yet Chase ultimately blamed me for activity being concerning that it itself directed and encouraged.. I will be attaching Chases own How to Avoid a Fee terms ( attached ). \n\nB. Credit Card Fraud and Possible Identity Theft I followed the instructions in the letter directly as stated, then discarded all the material. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX   EST, a Chase representative contacted me to verify transaction activity and I then realized I fell victim to fraud. I explained the letter I received and having trouble destroying a metal card, but ultimately followed the instructions on the letter. The representative claims she has no idea what I was talking about and intimidated me for following instructions by Chase then later stated during the call that my Social Security number and personal data may have been compromised due my actions the very outcome that resulted from following Chases own written instructions. \n\n- This sequence of events reflects negligence and a deceptive practice under the Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ). Furthermore, because Chases instructions directly created a risk of unauthorized use of my account and personal data, this also implicates Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ), which governs consumer liability and bank obligations following unauthorized transactions.\n\n2. Chases failure to deliver communications, including my account statements, through my authorized electronic communication channel, and the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive financial information 1. I was enrolled in Chase Banks paperless statements program, which required me to provide an email address for electronic communications.\n\n2. My original email address was later compromised, so I updated my email address in Chase Banks online system. Chase acknowledged and confirmed the updated email, and communications have been successfully sent to the new email since then. My old email was removed from my account profile and is no longer authorized. \n\n- When I updated my email address, this update served as an express revocation of consent for Chase to send any further electronic communications or statements to my previous email address. Chase acknowledged this change, and the old address no longer appeared in my online banking profile.\n\n3. After this update, I opened a new account with Chase, using the updated email address on the application. However, Chase sent communications, including statements, for this accountincluding account type, product type, balances, due dates, statement details, and the last 4 digits of my cardto my old, unauthorized email address. An address never provided for this account.\n\n4. I did not receive certain communications and statements at any authorized communication channel, preventing me from monitoring my accounts and accessing financial records I am entitled to. \n\nLegal and Regulatory Basis for Complaint 1. E-SIGN Act / Paperless Agreement Violation : Under the E-SIGN Act, electronic records must be delivered in a manner that ensures the customer can reliably access them. Chase failed to deliver statements to my authorized email, violating my rights under the paperless agreement.\n\n2. UDAAP Unfair and Abusive Practices ( Dodd-Frank Act 5531, 5536 ) : - Unfair : Chases failure to send statements to my authorized email caused substantial harm by preventing access to account information necessary for financial management.\n\n- Deceptive : Chase represented that my email information had been updated and that all paperless statements would be sent to my authorized address, which did not occur. - Abusive : Sending sensitive account information to an old, unauthorized\nemail interfered with my ability to manage my finances and exposed me to potential fraud risk.\n\nLegal basis for revoked consent A. E-SIGN Act Under 15 U.S.C. 7001 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ( ii ), consumers have the right to withdraw consent for electronic delivery at any time, and the institution must honor that withdrawal within a reasonable period.\n\nBy sending statements to the revoked address, Chase : * Ignored a withdrawn consent, and * Failed to provide effective electronic delivery as required by E-SIGN.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 7001 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ( ii ), I had the right to withdraw or modify my consent to receive records at a specific electronic address. My email update and Chases acknowledgment constituted withdrawal of consent for the prior email address. By continuing to send records to that revoked address, Chase failed to comply with the E-SIGN Acts consumer consent and withdrawal provisions. \n\nB. Regulation P ( GLBA, 12 C.F.R. 1016.13 ) Regulation P also ties consent and authorization to nonpublic personal information sharing. Once you revoke consent, the bank must stop sending or disclosing information to that contact channel.\n\nUnder 12 C.F.R. 1016.13, financial institutions must respect consumer directions regarding disclosure and delivery of nonpublic personal information. My revocation of consent for th\ne prior email address made any further disclosures to that channel unauthorized under Regulation P.\n\n3. Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) and Regulation P ( 15 U.S.C. 68016809 ; 12 C.F.R. Part 1016 ) - The GLBA and Regulation P require financial institutions to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic personal information ( NPI ) and to ensure that disclosures are made only to authorized recipients.\n\n- Chases continued transmission of account statements containing personal and financial details to an unauthorized, compromised email address constitutes a failure to safeguard NPI and an unauthorized disclosure under these provisions.\n\n4. Violation of the FTC Safeguards Rule ( 16 C.F.R. Part 314 ) - The Safeguards Rule, issued under the GLBA, requires financial institutions to maintain appropriate procedures to protect customer information from unauthorized access or disclosure.\n\n- Chases failure to prevent statements from being sent to an unauthorized email shows a breakdown in internal safeguards and information-security controls.\n\n5. Potential Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ( ECPA 18 U.S.C. 2511 ) - The ECPA prohibits the intentional transmission of electronic communications containing personal data to unauthorized or unintended recipients. By sending confidential statements to a deauthorized, compromised email address, Chase may have violated the ECPAs prohibition against the unauthorized disclosure of protected electronic communications.\n\n1. Following the account closure, I contacted Chase to request copies of my account statements, since I never received them through any authorized channel which banks are federally required to retain and make available. The representative named XXXX stated on a recorded line that I would need to step into a branch to receive my statements, despite me explaining that I was outside the country and unable to appear in person. When I informed her that such a requirement obstructs my rights as a consumer, she replied that it was procedure and then abruptly ended the call. \n\nAt the time my accounts were active, I was enrolled in paperless statements and regularly accessed them through Chase Online Banking. Since the closure, Chase has revoked my ability to view past statements electronically and now refuses to issue them physically by mail, thereby denying me access by both methods. This is not only unreasonable it is directly inconsistent with federal regulations requiring that consumers be able to access or reproduce their own account records within the retention period. \n\nChases refusal to provide statements through a reasonable and accessible means constitutes a violation of multiple consumer protection and recordkeeping laws, including : * 12 C.F.R. 1005.9 ( Regulation E ) and 12 C.F.R. 1030.6 ( Regulation DD ) Failure to provide periodic statement information as required for consumer accounts * 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( UDAAP ) Unfair restriction of access to financial records that causes harm the consumer can not reasonably avoid * 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. ( E-SIGN Act ) Denial of continued access to electronic disclosures and statements after consent was established Limiting statement access only to an in-branch process especially when the customer can not physically appear and previously received paperless electronic disclosures is an unfair and obstructive practice under federal law. It prevents the consumer from reviewing transactions, filing disputes, and maintaining accurate financial records, all of which constitute substantial harm. \n\nCompounding these issues, these incidents form a clear pattern of poor data handling, noncompliance, and consumer harm. I followed Chases instructions in good faith from discarding my cards and checks as directed, to maintaining updated contact information in my profile. Each time, Chases own actions resulted in harm, exposure, and blame directed at the customer. \n\nThe incident involving Chases unauthorized use of an old, compromised email address demonstrates that the customer had no control over the banks communications or internal processes, reinforcing that Chase not the customer is responsible for these failures. This sequence of events illustrates a systemic failure in Chases compliance, data protection, and customer communication practices, all of which place consumers at risk and violate federal privacy, banking, and consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-17T07:31:46.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"06614","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16668094","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-10-17T07:09:42.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The concerning activity I attempted to <em>appeal</em> this decision through the CFPB to get directly in contact with the XXXX XXXX but was met with a response that their decision was remaining the same. In their response, I noticed they revised their original statement referring to it as unexpected activity when responding to my <em>appeal</em> ( attached )."]},"sort":[6.8775654,"16668094"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7107529","_score":6.265374,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Capital One Retaliated against me for filing valid disputes for Identity Theft, an Account Breech, Fraudulent activity and being a victim of a scam that potentially exposed my info, and took no steps to secure my account. They closed my checking and savings account stating that it was due to filing Bad Claims when my claims ARE VALID. They also lied to me several times providing false information in terms of their investigation as well as stating that they are not responsible for XXXX  transactions if goods or services aren't received or if money is lost via theft or scam ; XXXX transactions are a type of Electronic Fund Transfer and are covered under Regulation E. \n\nI filed an initial regulation E dispute on XX/XX/XXXX of this year, giving oral notice to Capital One in regards to the error/ fraudulent activity. I informed them that I was a victim of fraud and may have been scammed. The proper language under regulation E is Error ; Unauthorized ; Fraudulent TransactioXXXX. My initial claim was denied and a decision was made stating : We looked into this, and our research shows that the payment was processed according to my instructions. When this could not possibly be the case, and is the furthest thing from the truth because I did not authorize any such transaction, nor is there a history of me making such transactions. There is no history of transactions indicative that I would or have made such transactions in such an excess amount through XXXX, as I am aware that the platform is completely UNSAFE, and all transactions, although completed through debit and credit transactions are to be considered Cash transactions Per XXXX Website. \nI filed a complaint against the representative who improperly notated my claim resulting in its initial denial and resubmitted a new dispute, requesting that notation be made using exact verbiage for clarity. On the 10th Day* During the investigation period I received a notice that my claim had been denied, without the issue of any provisional credit. The denial email states : We have finished researching your dispute ( s ). Based on the information we have, your claim has been denied because : We finished looking into your claim and didnt find an error. Well this is preposterous! It is not possible to have completed a REASONABLE investigation in such a short period of time, after I indicated a SECOND time that the transaction in question is in fact an error and requires a thorough and reasonable investigation and due process. BEcause of this, I requested copies of the documentation used to make this decision. I also requested documentation that proves the validity of the transaction, because I know that I did not authorize any such XXXX transaction and I vehemently oppose any such information that states otherwise. \nIt was also stated to me that I would have to PROVE '' that this transaction was unauthorized, when such language is a gross violation of my rights as a consumer under regulation XXXX, refer to Consumer Federal Protection Bureaus Interactive Bureau Regulations manual : 12 CFS Part 1005 ( Regulation E ). Burden of proof is on the financial institutions behalf. \nThere are several violations of my rights as a consumer carved out by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. Capital One failed to inform me that XXXX is a third party entity and not subject to protections that are extended by Capital One via its own debit and credit transactional protections. Instead, XXXX is marketed as a Fast, Safe, and Secure method of sending money via Banking institution Networks. Capital One also failed to inform me that in the event of any Fraudulent/unauthorized or scam transactions that occur through XXXX that my protections are limited and will most likely result in a denial of any claims made in reference to transactions through the XXXX service. Negligence. Please refer to Mensah v. Capital One, N.AXXXX, A class action alleging that Capital One misrepresented the security of the XXXX money transfer service by failing to disclose that fraud victims have no recourse.Huge, Unreimbursed Losses : Capital One Failed to Disclose Risks of Using XXXX. There are also several Class Action Lawsuits against XXXX for the enabling of cybercrime, specifically fraud, scams, and unauthorized transactions and failing to reimburse those who use their service. \nWith all of this information stated, it could not possibly be concluded with certainty that a reasonable investigation was done. It also is evident that no such investigation was done based on the nature of their responses included in the denial decisions. \nAlso, It must be noted that upon my research, there were several changes and rearrangements of my XXXX and Capital One online banking information including contacts and phone numbers over the last 90 days, clearly indicative of potential exposure to identity theft and a blatant risk of fraudulent activity. Not to mention, no provisional credit was issued in either instance of my disputes, when I have the right to any provisional credits even if it is concluded that no error was found. Not to mention, I was incorrectly informed or otherwise misinformed that XXXX transactions are not covered under the EFTA or Regulation E, and that these transactions are not typical Debit or Credit transactions, when this is FALSE. ALL forms of electronic payments, including but not limited to third party entities such as XXXX, are included under the EFTA and REGULATION E. Another violation of my rights as a consumer. This entire circumstance is a direct indicator of the MASSIVE FRAUD and gross negligence of financial institutions to properly protect consumers against Fraud and Third Parties like XXXX that enable fraud. \nLet me reiterate : My rights as a consumer have been disgustingly violated. I have been misinformed and misrepresented by Capital One and its employees, I Am requesting clarifying documentation for the Error that occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, an unauthorized XXXX transaction in the amount of {$2500.00}, I did not authorize this transaction nor do I know the person to which the Electronic funds were disbursed to and I am requesting that another dispute be filed and an appeal of my previous dispute be properly filed and a claim number generated. Because I have requested documentation clarifying the error, I am still owed a provisional credit as well as any interest and I am not subject to the investigation deadlines and Capital One is OBLIGATED to reimburse me or provide me with the provisional credit until this investigation is completed fully. \nThis is more than enough information and supporting documentation to reopen my claim and resubmit my dispute. There were also several escalations/complaints filed against representatives of Capital One who, due to their negligence, violated my rights as a consumer. \n\nI also Filed a CFPB complaint : XXXX in regards to this issue, the case was closed because Capital One Responded, however in their response they provided FALSE INFORMATION, they stated that a provisional credit was provided for {$2500.00} while the dispute is being investigated, but no such credit was issued because my account was closed as a form of retaliation. \n\nDo give this letter the necessary attention it deserves, Respectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nAlso, Refer to : U.S. Code> Title 15> Chapter 41> Subchapter VI> Section 1693f : Error Resolution.\n\nU.S. Code> Title 15> Chapter 41> Subchapter VI> Section 1693g : Consumer Liability U.S. Code> Title 15> Chapter 41> Subchapter VI> Section 1693m : Civil Liability 15 USC Section 1693n : Civil Liability for Willful Non-Compliance 18 U.S. Code Section 1028 : Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-12T17:01:48.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"07103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7107529","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-06-12T16:38:34.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not received from closed account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My initial claim was <em>denied</em> and a decision was made stating : We looked into this, and our research shows that the payment was processed according to my <em>instructions</em>. When this could not possibly be the case, and is the furthest thing from the truth because I did not authorize any such transaction, nor is there a history of me making such transactions."]},"sort":[6.265374,"7107529"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19359608","_score":6.019981,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is a continuation complaint regarding unauthorized transaction case # XXXX, previously filed as CFPB complaint # XXXX. Despite Cash App 's response to the initial complaint, Cash App has failed to comply with Regulation E documentation requirements, provided contradictory information about my case status, and has not responded to new evidence of fraud. \n\nBackground : On XX/XX/XXXX, I was defrauded of {$1000.00} via Cash App ( Transaction # XXXX ) by fraudsters impersonating XXXX XXXX  The fraudsters coerced me into authorizing the transfer by claiming they were XXXX XXXX fraud prevention and that I needed to \" secure '' my account. The funds went to a XXXX account that I did not control and from which I received no benefit. Under Regulation E, this fraudulently induced transfer qualifies as an unauthorized electronic fund transfer. I filed a police report ( XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ). Additionally, weeks after this fraud, I received an unauthorized XXXX debit card in another person 's name at my home address, and XXXX confirmed they closed that card 's account for fraud. \n\nRegulation E Violations : On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested the documents Cash App relied on to deny my claim, as required under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). Cash App sent only a one-page transaction summary listing three completed transactionsnot the investigation records, decision rationale, or evidence showing the transfer was authorized. \n\nContradictory Communications and System Failures : On XX/XX/XXXX, Cash App responded to CFPB complaint # XXXX stating my issue was \" resolved '' and that \" the issue has already been resolved and no new information has been provided, '' marking the complaint as \" Closed with explanation. '' However, on the same date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), Cash App Complaints emailed me directly stating they need 30 business days to resolve my complaint. These two responsesissued on the same day by the same companydirectly contradict each other. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I provided feedback to the CFPB stating Cash App 's response was inadequate and noting that Cash App simultaneously told me they need 30 business days to investigate. On the same day ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I attempted multiple times to reply to Cash App 's XX/XX/XXXX email and submit my police report, XXXX fraud documentation, and supporting evidence to XXXX. Every attempt bounced back with \" message could not be delivered '' errors. I sent four separate emails on XX/XX/XXXX trying to provide the evidence, and all were rejected. \n\nI then contacted Cash App Support via in-app chat on XX/XX/XXXX ( multiple sessions throughout the day ) and received wildly contradictory information : First told my case was being \" carefully handled '' and I would receive an update, but NOT to upload documents because \" our team is already investigating all activities on your account '' Told to \" retain documents for any future filings that may be required '' suggesting Cash App expected me to pursue legal action Later told \" this appeal has already gone through the investigation process with our specialty team and a final decision was made '' and that the agent was \" unable to override the decision '' contradicting the XX/XX/XXXX email saying 30 days was needed Finally told to upload documents \" directly through the Cash App in-app support section under your dispute case '' where there would be a \" secure document upload option '' Also on XX/XX/XXXX, a Cash App support agent ( Isagi ) asked me to \" confirm, do you recognize or authorize the transaction of {$1000.00} on your account? \" a basic question suggesting they haven't reviewed any of my prior communications Failure to Consider New Evidence : On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( complaints coordinator ) emailed me stating my case was denied and considered final. At XXXXXXXX XXXX  the same day ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I replied informing Cash App that I have : Police report documenting the fraud ( XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX 's confirmation that they closed the fraudulent account Evidence that an unauthorized XXXX debit card in another person 's name was mailed to my home address I explained that my previous attempts to submit these documents to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX had all bounced back as undeliverable. I requested : Whether Cash App will reconsider the claim in light of the police report and XXXX fraud-closure evidence When and how Cash App will provide the documents relied upon in making their determination, as required under Regulation E 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) As of XX/XX/XXXX ( 4 days later ), Cash App has not responded to my XX/XX/XXXX email, has not provided a method to submit the evidence, and has not provided the Regulation E documentation I requested. \n\nPattern of Non-Compliance : Cash App has : Failed to provide documents relied upon under Reg E 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) Provided three contradictory case statuses within 48 hours : \" resolved '' ( CFPB response XX/XX/XXXX ), \" 30 days needed '' ( email XX/XX/XXXX ), and \" final decision made, can not override '' ( chat XX/XX/XXXX ) Made it impossible to submit evidence through repeated bounced emails ( four attempts on XX/XX/XXXX ) Provided contradictory instructions via chat support about uploading documents Not responded to formal reconsideration request with new evidence sent XX/XX/XXXX Asked basic authorization questions on XX/XX/XXXX after claiming the case was already fully investigated I am also filing concurrent complaints with Connecticut Department of Banking and Connecticut Attorney General due to Cash App 's ongoing non-responsiveness and contradictory communications.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-09T18:33:11.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"061XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19359608","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-02-09T18:00:11.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Pattern of Non-<em>Compliance</em> : Cash App has : Failed to provide documents relied upon under Reg E 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) Provided three contradictory case statuses within 48 hours : \" resolved '' ( CFPB response XX/XX/XXXX ), \" 30 days needed '' ( email XX/XX/XXXX ), and \" final decision made, can not override '' ( chat XX/XX/XXXX ) Made it impossible to submit evidence through repeated bounced emails ( four attempts on XX/XX/XXXX ) Provided contradictory <em>instructions</em> via chat support about uploading"]},"sort":[6.019981,"19359608"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16920791","_score":5.2323756,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint PayPal , Inc . Violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Attn : Office of Consumer Response XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX DC XXXX Via : www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint Complainant : Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Respondent : Entity : PayPal , Inc . \nAddress : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, CA XXXX Issuer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( PayPal Debit XXXX Issuer ) To Whom It May Concern : This letter constitutes a formal legal complaint against PayPal , Inc. for repeated and willful violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ). PayPal failed to investigate, protect, and refund a series of clearly unauthorized electronic fund transfers totaling {$3500.00}, and subsequently engaged in retaliatory action by permanently limiting my account after I followed PayPals own procedures and fully complied with applicable law. These actions constitute unlawful practices that have caused me substantial financial, academic, and personal harm. \n\nXXXX. Summary of Events On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX, I discovered that my Paypal account balance was unexpectedly low after receiving my school tuition refund of {$4500.00} the day prior. Upon further investigation, I found that my PayPal Debit XXXX ( issued by The XXXX XXXX  ) had been used XXXX times without authorization between the evening of XX/XX/XXXX and the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$3500.00}. All of The charges were made to XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX during overnight hours, with several of the transactions occurring within the same minute, indicating automated or fraudulent activity. \nAt XXXX XXXX, less than XXXX minutes after discovery, I contacted PayPal by telephone to report the unauthorized transactions. The representative confirmed the activity appeared suspicious and instructed me to obtain documentation from the merchant confirming that no account in my name existed. \n\nOver the next XXXX weeks, I made more than XXXX attempts by phone and email to obtain such documentation from XXXX. The merchant confirmed in writing : My email address is not registered to any XXXX account. \n\nMy card number and personal information do not match any user or record. \nNo transaction history exists associated with my details. \n\nAll documentation was provided to PayPal multiple times, per PayPals instructions. \n\nXXXX. PayPals Gross Negligence, Mishandling and Breach of Statutory Obligations Despite my full compliance and timely reporting, PayPal failed to meet multiple obligations imposed by EFTA 1693f and 1693g and Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.6 and 1005.11.\n\na ) Failure to investigate within required timeframes Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ), a financial institution must investigate any reported error ( including unauthorized electronic fund transfers ) promptly and resolve the matter within 10 business days of receiving notice. If additional time is needed, provisional credit must be provided. PayPal denied XXXX of XXXX disputes within XXXX dayswell before any meaningful investigation could have occurredconstituting a prima facie violation of 1005.11 ( c ). \n\nb ) Failure to provide provisional credit Per 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ), if an institution can not conclude an investigation within 10 business days, it must provisionally credit the consumers account for the disputed amount ( including interest where applicable ) and provide written notice within two business days. PayPal issued no provisional credit, thereby depriving me of critical access to funds intended for tuition and education-related expenses, in violation of EFTA 1693f ( c ). \n\nc ) Failure to provide written explanation and access to evidence When a financial institution determines no error occurred, 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) requires a written explanation of findings and a statement of the consumers right to request copies of documents relied upon. Despite multiple written and verbal requests, PayPal provided only a cursory denial ( We found these transactions were authorized ) and refused to produce any supporting documentation. This refusal constitutes a clear violation of 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nd ) Failure to limit consumer liability Under 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ), if the consumer notifies the institution within two business days of learning of unauthorized use, liability is limited to no more than {$50.00}. I reported the fraud within minutes of discovery, well within this statutory window. PayPals refusal to credit my account, combined with its denial of my dispute, unlawfully shifted full liability onto me in direct contravention of EFTA 1693g ( a ).\n\ne ) Retaliatory account limitation Following my repeated attempts to obtain compliance and lawful resolution, PayPal permanently limited my account, citing abuse of the dispute process. This constitutes a retaliatory action designed to deter the exercise of rights protected under EFTA 1693m ( civil liability ) and violates the fundamental principle of good faith in consumer protection enforcement.\n\n3. Systemic Failures and Gross Negligence PayPal ignored clear indicators of fraud, including 44 identical transactions executed in rapid succession overnight.\n\nIts adjudication was inconsistentone charge may have been reversed, while 43 others with identical patterns were denied without explanation. \n\n\nPayPal disregarded documentation from the merchant confirming no account linkage, violating 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( v ) - ( vi ), which mandates consideration of any relevant information within the institutions own records.\n\nRequests for the documents used to reach denial were ignored, violating 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ).\n\nThe permanent limitation of my account following legitimate disputes constitutes retaliatory interference and demonstrates institutional negligence and bad faith. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Consequences and Harm Loss of {$3500.00} in unauthorized debits, representing tuition refund funds. \n\n\nInability to purchase required educational materials, resulting in withdrawal from my academic program. \nSevere emotional distress, reputational harm, and disruption to personal and academic progress. \n\n\nDenial of access to essential financial tools and payment services due to retaliatory account termination. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Legal Authority Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 16931693r Regulation E, 12 CFR Part 1005 1005.6 Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers 1005.10 Preauthorized transfers 1005.11 Procedures for resolving errors Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Official Interpretations of Regulation E 15 U.S.C. 1693m ( a ) Civil liability for noncompliance ( actual and statutory damages, attorneys fees, and costs ) 6. Nature of Violations Violation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) Failure to conduct prompt investigation.\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) Failure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days.\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) Failure to provide written findings and supporting documentation. \n\n\nViolation of 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 1 ) Improper denial of consumer liability limitation ( {$50.00} cap ).\n\nRetaliatory account limitation inconsistent with good-faith compliance under EFTA 1693m .\n\n7. Timeline of Key Events XXXX XXXX XXXX : Unauthorized transactions occur ( XXXX charges totaling {$3500.00} ). \n\n\nXX/XX/year> ( XXXX PM ) : I report all transactions as unauthorized to PayPal. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, 2025 : I make over XXXX attempts to obtain written verification from XXXX, which confirms no account exists in my name. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : PayPal requests I submit evidence, which I do. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : I resubmit all documents multiple times per PayPals requests. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : PayPal denies XXXX of the XXXX disputes without explanation. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : My appeal is rejected with a generic response and no documentation. \n\n\nXX/XX/year> : PayPal permanently limits my account for abuse of dispute process. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX of Events including XXXX  Below is the complete, verified timeline of events summarizing my interactions with XXXX  and the related transactions for PayPals dispute investigation. This information has been relayed to Paypal numerous times by email, phone, and the uploading of documents through the Paypal message center. \nPaypal has chosen to ignore the information and has denied the claims and refused to refund my money despite XXXX giving written confirmation XXXX separate times that my email and identity are not tied to a XXXX account. Furthermore, they gave me written confirmation multiple times, by multiple employees, they don't have any record of these transactions. These written statements from XXXX satisfies the requests made by PAYPAL, confirming that my information is not linked to an account where the charges occurred. This is what Paypal instructed me to get from XXXX, and is the proof they needed to make the determination that the charges were unauthorized and issue the appropriate refund. The written confirmation from XXXX further proves that the charges made using my PayPal debit card were completely unauthorized, not associated with me nor linked to an account associated with me.. \nXX/XX/year> I discovered that my PayPal balance was unexpectedly low after receiving a tuition refund of {$4500.00} the day before. \n\n\nUpon review, I found XXXX unauthorized transactions from XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, totaling {$3500.00}. \n\n\nI immediately contacted PayPal ( XXXX XXXX  ) and reported the transactions as unauthorized. \n\nXX/XX/year> Spoke with A PayPal Rep and was told to get something from XXXX that shows my name is not associated with an account where my debit card was used Request # : I contacted XXXX via phone to report the unauthorized use of my PayPal debit card, and asked for the information that Paypal requested Request number XXXX : I sent XXXX via email documents that i created to assist in the investigation XXXX issued Ticket # XXXX, acknowledging receipt of my request. ( Source : XXXX - We have received your request XXXX ) XX/XX/year> I sent a XXXX Request for XXXX and asked for them to take my attached information and check their system for the requested information. \nXXXX XXXX, ( XXXX ) responded to my outreach and confirmed that my email address is not registered to any accounts in their system. \nXXXX wrote : Dear XXXX Thank you for contacting XXXX Pennsylvania XXXX XXXX. \n\nYour email address is not registered to any accounts in our system. \nIf you have an account with us and have access to the email address registered on it, please send us your query from it or make live contact with our support team via chat or phone. \n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX sent a follow-up request for verification documents, asking for : First XXXX and last XXXX digits of card Total amount of unauthorized transactions Supporting bank statements XX/XX/year> I responded to XXXX request ( via XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX  ), providing all requested documentation and a detailed explanation. \n\n\nI reiterated that PayPal required documentation showing the XXXX  account tied to these transactions is not in my name. \n\n\nI provided transaction details, totaling {$3500.00}, and clearly stated that these were unauthorized charges. \n\n\nAttachments included PayPal transaction records and screenshots showing each charge. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX ( XXXX ) replied, stating the matter was escalated to their operations team and asked for XXXX hours for review. \n\n\nI followed up that evening, noting no update or communication had been received. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> XXXX ( XXXX ) replied, claiming the review was still ongoing and asked for patience. \n\n\nI responded the same day, stating that my request was simple and could be completed in minutes, not weeks. \n\n\nI emphasized I was only asking XXXX  to confirm whether the account tied to these transactions was registered under my name or not, and warned I would escalate to regulators if not addressed by XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> After no further response, I followed up again (??? ). \n\n\nLater that day, XXXX ( XXXX ) responded, stating : We were not able to locate an account that matches the transactions provided with the card details previously shared. \n\n\n\nXXXX again requested the same documentation ( first XXXX / last XXXX digits, statement, and card images ) all of which had already been submitted. \n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> I replied, expressing frustration that XXXX kept requesting the same information, pointing out that I had already submitted all documents multiple times and that the matter was overdue. \n\n\nLater that day, another XXXX  representative ( XXXX ) repeated the same message as XXXX again stating no matching account was found and asking for the same materials again. \nWe were not able to locate an account that matches the transactions provided with the card details previously shared. \n\n\n\n\nXX/XX/year> I again provided the requested information for a third time, including : PayPal XXXX XXXX ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX Issuing bank : XXXX XXXX transactions totaling {$3500.00} Despite this, Paypal has ignored this information and chose not to review it. \n\n\nXXXX. Requested Remedies Pursuant to XXXX XXXX ( civil liability for noncompliance ), I request that PayPal and any relevant oversight bodies take the following corrective actions : Reverse all denials and refund the full {$3500.00} in unauthorized charges. \n\n\nProvide {$25000.00} in punitive and compensatory damages for financial losses, educational disruption, and emotional distress. \n\n\nIssue a formal written acknowledgment and apology for procedural and investigative failures. \n\n\nImmediately lift the permanent account limitation and restore full access. \nImplement corrective measures to ensure : Timely investigations and provisional credits per 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nWritten explanations and disclosure of evidence per 1005.11 ( d ).\n\nProhibition of retaliatory account actions against consumers asserting protected rights.\n\nProvide regulators with all internal records, including fraud-detection logs, denial rationales, investigator notes, and communications regarding this case.\n\n10. Conclusion I have acted in full good faith, complied with all PayPal instructions, and fulfilled every requirement under EFTA and Regulation E, which includes the reporting of the unauthorized transactions immediately and promptly. I have followed every instruction given by paypal in the process and provided all requested evidence multiple times. The documentation proves these transactions were unauthorized and not tied to me in any way. PayPal representatives have confirmed that these are not authorized and assured me when providing these documentations it would satisfy the unlawful demands that paypal requested. By law, paypal has no right to demand that a consumer must contact a merchant in order to file a dispute over an unauthorized transaction. \nThe evidence provided incontrovertibly establishes that these transactions were unauthorized and that PayPals handling of the matter constitutes multiple regulatory violations.\n\nPayPals unlawful conduct and actions violate my rights multiple times, including its failure to investigate, denial of provisional credit, lack of written explanation, refusal to provide documentation, failure to limit consumer liability, and retaliatory account termination. These violate both the letter and spirit of federal consumer protection law and my rights as a consumer. \nPaypal chose to not address or acknowledge this gross negligence and mishandling of this case, and instead attempted to gaslight me with their retaliatory account termination, by claiming abuse of their dispute process hoping I would just go away and not pursue this any further. This is not only unacceptable but unlawful and has caused me significant financial and personal hardship. I am seeking immediate corrective action, a refund of my stolen funds, punitive damages and accountability for the repeated failures in this case. I respectfully request that PayPal and their gross negligence, be compelled to remedy these violations immediately and that appropriate enforcement and compliance actions be undertaken by relevant regulatory authorities. \nThank you for your time and attention to this serious matter. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T18:36:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"196XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16920791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-10-30T18:19:17.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All documentation was provided to PayPal multiple times, per PayPals <em>instructions</em>. \n\nXXXX. PayPals Gross Negligence, Mishandling and Breach of Statutory Obligations Despite my full <em>compliance</em> and timely reporting, PayPal failed to meet multiple obligations imposed by EFTA 1693f and 1693g and Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.6 and 1005.11."]},"sort":[5.2323756,"16920791"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":44,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":44}]}},"product":{"doc_count":44,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":18,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":18}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":7},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Money order, traveler's check or cashier's check","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":44,"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":11,"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":11}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":6}]}},{"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":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":3,"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":2},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Denied loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"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":"Credit card company won't increase or decrease your credit limit","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":44,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":44}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":44,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":28},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":15},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":44,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":44}]}},"company":{"doc_count":44,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":7},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":6},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":5},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"College Ave Student Loan Servicing, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Corp Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Pressler & Pressler, LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Revolut Technologies Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":44,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"PA","doc_count":14},{"key":"OH","doc_count":5},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":4},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NC","doc_count":3},{"key":"CT","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"TX","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"RI","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":44,"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":15},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":44,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[5.2323756,"16920791"]}}}