{"took":138,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":112,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13150671","_score":28.201288,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding Bank of America 's improper handling of my fraud dispute related to unauthorized transactions made on my XXXX Employment Development Department ( EDD ) unemployment debit card account, issued and serviced by Bank of America. \n\nI am a victim of identity theft, and I submitted a formal claim to Bank of America disputing several unauthorized transactions made without my knowledge or consent in XX/XX/XXXX. Despite the extensive documentation I provided, Bank of America denied my claim without providing a specific or valid reason, in violation of federal regulations protecting consumers from electronic transaction fraud. I resubmitted the claim for re-evaluation in XX/XX/XXXX and received the same response from Bank of America. \n\nSupporting Documentation Provided to Bank of America : A police report documenting the unauthorized transactions made on my account and the theft of my identity ; A Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) Identity Theft Report and letter detailing the fraudulent transactions, and requesting action be taken by Bank of America ; A mail theft report from the U.S. XXXX XXXX, as my EDD card may have been stolen from my mailbox ; A doctors note confirming I was XXXX during the time these transactions occurred, making it impossible for me to have made them ; A detailed written explanation of the identity theft and how it affected my EDD account and finances. \n\nApplicable Legal Protections : Under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005 ), specifically : 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) A financial institution shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided herein, shall determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) If the institution determines that no error occurred or that an error occurred in a different manner or amount than described by the consumer, it shall deliver or mail to the consumer an explanation of its findings within 3 business days after concluding its investigation... \n\nBank of America failed to fulfill this obligation. I received no detailed explanation of why my claim was denied or any description of the investigation they allegedly conducted. I was simply informed that my claim was denied without reference to the substantial evidence I submitted proving the fraudulent nature of the transactions.\n\nAdditionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) : If a financial institution receives oral or written notice ... of an error involving an electronic fund transfer from a consumer... the financial institution shall investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error occurred, and report or mail the results of such investigation and determination to the consumer within ten business days.\n\nI complied with all conditions for protection under Regulation E and the EFTA. I reported the unauthorized transactions promptly and provided substantial documentation supporting my claim. Despite this, Bank of America ignored its federal obligation to investigate in good faith and provide a reasoned, timely response.\n\nI have re-uploaded all supporting documentation, including the police report, FTC identity theft letter, doctors note, and dispute letter requesting reinvestigation, for review.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter and for helping ensure my rights are upheld under federal consumer protection law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-25T00:34:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"91766","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13150671","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-04-25T00:22:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Applicable Legal Protections : Under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005 ), specifically : 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) A <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided herein, shall <em>determine</em> whether an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> within 10 business days of receiving a notice of <em>error</em>.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) If the <em>institution</em> <em>determines</em> that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> or that an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> in a different manner or amount than described by the consumer, it shall deliver or mail to"]},"sort":[28.201288,"13150671"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10386898","_score":27.288076,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2024 a charge from XXXX in the amount of {$99.00} was pending. XXXX was contacted and due to the software not being utilized since XX/XX/2024 the transaction was reversed on their end, as told by several representatives of the company. The charge remained pending until it posted. After waiting 10 business days, communication was sent to the merchant with a response stating that there would be no refund as the transaction was voided on their end and the charge should have reversed, resulting in the funds being returned to my available balance. Being that the merchant stated this information and the charge still reflecting as posted, a dispute was issued with Block Inc/Square Inc/Cashapp , hereby addressed as 'financial institution '. The dispute included the communication from the merchant stating the transaction was voided on their end. The dispute was denied and the supporting documentary evidence was disregarded. Further communication with the merchant referred to my financial institution for any further assistance due to the fact that the transaction was voided and nothing further on their end could be done. Several communication attempts with the financial institution resulted in the refiling of the dispute a total of 5 times along with 5 denials of said dispute, regardless of the communication directly from the merchant stating the transaction was voided and services were not rendered. Upon request of the information used to determine the decision, a timestamp of the posted transaction was provided with no additional supporting evidence relied upon to reach the conclusion of no error occurring. \n\nThe dealing of this issue has caused a great deal of stress, migraines, loss of sleep, mental anguish and XXXX  XXXX. Not including the time spent on various phone calls to attempt to have a proper investigation completed. All of this has been very stressful and without a proper investigation to be conducted, concluding that the funds for services not rendered by the merchant is deceptive, unfair, and unethical as per 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 1 ) and 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 2 ) as refusal to make a good faith investigation of the alleged error, nor did the financial institution provisionally credit the consumer 's account, nor was there reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in error. The financial institution also knowingly and willingly concluded that the consumer 's account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available at the time of investigation. Upon request of all information used during the course of the investigation, the financial institution failed to provide all documents relied upon to conclude such error did not occur, as per 15 USC 1693f ( d ). I have attached the communications from both the merchant and the financial institution as supporting documentary evidence.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-08T04:47:09.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"32714","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10386898","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-10-08T03:49:55.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All of this has been very stressful and <em>without</em> a proper investigation to be conducted, concluding that the funds for services not rendered by the merchant is deceptive, unfair, and unethical as per 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 1 ) and 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 2 ) as refusal to make a <em>good</em> <em>faith</em> investigation of the alleged <em>error</em>, nor did the <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> provisionally credit the consumer 's account, nor was there reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in <em>error</em>"]},"sort":[27.288076,"10386898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11107707","_score":24.093948,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Current Customer Service, I am writing to formally dispute several fraudulent transactions that appeared on my account ending in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/year> another family member and I noticed some unsettling activity across our bank accounts. Multiple unauthorized fraudulent transactions from the XXXX XXXX XXXX. These transactions, totaling over {$3500.00} are unauthorized, fraud and were not made by me. I have already made several attempts In good faith to contact the merchant. I have yet to receive a response concerning this matter. XXXX XXXX is continuing to show negligence in this complaint. As they have yet to respond to my first attempt of contact from 17 days ago, despite my recent complaints made with the FTC. Please investigate and remove these transactions from my account immediately. Please return the money that was stolen from my bank account at expeditiously. For this crime committed against me has caused tremendous hardship to me and my family and children. I also have reasonable suspicion to believe that current was involved in the fraud scheme. Ive made several attempts to request a copy of the documents or written explanation used in determining the final outcome of the investigation. I have also attached a list of the disputed transactions for your reference, as well as evidence showing exactly when, where and how the scammer/hacker attempted to steal my account information or how it may have been already compromised without my authorization. The total amount of money from all the fraudulently withdrawn transactions was a sum of {$3800.00} On XX/XX/year> I received Dispute Update in an email from Current with a letter stating A careful review of your transaction history, merchant data, and indicators of account compromise found there was no error in these instances, and the transactions in question were authorized by you. Therefore, no credit will be issued to your account. You will remain liable for the original disputed transactions. You may request a copy of the documents or written explanation used in determining the final outcome of the investigation at XXXXcurrent.com Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Current I again went ahead and requested the document supporting their claim that they couldnt find any errors from their investigation. Today XX/XX/year> marks the eighth business day since Ive received the Dispute Update. I have not received any supporting documentation as to how this outcome was determined. According to US Code 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) A financial institution shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph ( c ), shall determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error. The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred. Having yet to receive a response concerning the requests. I also have reasonable suspicion to believe my consumer rights are being violated, and current bank may be involved in a bank fraud. Also considering that my my purchase data has been compromised allowing hackers/scammers to have better opportunity at knowing when to target consumers like myself. As well as the concealing of the document supporting their alleged outcome. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to resolving this issue and ensuring the security of my account. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-10T16:44:04.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33169","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11107707","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2024-12-10T16:34:07.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["According to US Code 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) A <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph ( c ), shall <em>determine</em> whether an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> within 10 business days of receiving a notice of <em>error</em>. The <em>institution</em> shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The <em>institution</em> shall correct the <em>error</em> within one business day after <em>determining</em> that an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>."]},"sort":[24.093948,"11107707"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17198394","_score":23.967907,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal dispute under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) regarding an unauthorized ATM withdrawal made using my Cash App card issued by XXXX XXXX. I reported the transaction to Cash App promptly, but my claim was denied without a proper investigation or written explanation, in violation of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\nBecause XXXX XXXX  is the issuing financial institution, I am requesting a formal investigation and written report of your findings as required under Regulation E. In addition, the transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX  ATM , and I am requesting an investigation into whether XXXX XXXX  failed to properly maintain or secure the ATM, which may have allowed skimming or other unauthorized access to occur. \n\nI believe Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX  have failed to uphold their respective obligations to protect consumers from unauthorized electronic fund transfers and to conduct good-faith investigations under federal law. \n\n\nSummary of the Issue On XX/XX/year>, an unauthorized withdrawal of {$980.00} occurred from my Cash App debit card at a XXXX XXXX  ATM located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX. \n\nI did not authorize this withdrawal, and my physical card remained in my possession at all times. Based on the sequence of events, I believe my card information was skimmed or electronically compromised at that same ATM during a prior legitimate visit on XX/XX/year>. \n\nI immediately filed a fraud dispute through Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), but the claim was denied without proper explanation or resolution. Cash App has refused to provide any details of a proper investigation or any provisional credit all of which are required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\n\n\nRegulation and Compliance Concerns Failure to properly investigate the unauthorized transaction as required under Regulation E 1005.11.\n\nFailure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days while the investigation was pending.\n\nFailure to provide a written explanation of investigation results or legitimate supporting documentation. \nXXXX XXXX  lack of oversight of its third-party partner ( Cash App ) in ensuring compliance with federal consumer protection obligations. \nXXXX XXXX  potential failure to maintain ATM security, which may have allowed a skimming device or other compromise to occur posing a risk to consumers. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Violation of Regulation E 1005.11 Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ), when a consumer notifies a financial institution of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the institution must investigate promptly and complete the investigation within 10 business days ( or 45 days if more time is needed ). \nCash app denying my dispute within XXXX hours without contacting the ATM operator, reviewing footage, or examining the transaction data can not reasonably constitute a good-faith investigation. \nA financial institution is required to review all relevant evidence before making a determination not just look at whether the card number was used. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to Issue Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ) If the investigation could not be completed within 10 business days, the institution must provide a provisional credit to your account for the disputed amount while it continues the investigation.\n\nCash Apps denial in under two days suggests no provisional credit was provided, which is a violation if the claim was not fully and properly investigated within that time frame.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Required Written Explanation ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) If the financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide a written explanation of the results, including : A summary of the investigation, The evidence relied upon, and A notice of the right to request supporting documentation. \nSimply stating You authorized the transaction because your card was used does not meet this requirement. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX  Oversight Obligations Although Cash App ( Block , Inc. ) operates the platform, XXXX XXXX  is the regulated financial institution under the EFTA and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its third-party service provider ( Cash App ) complies with all consumer protection laws. \nIf XXXX XXXX  allowed Cash App to deny your dispute without a proper Regulation E investigation, XXXX XXXX  may also be liable for noncompliance. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX  ATM Security Duty Because the fraudulent transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX ATM, the bank may have a duty of care to maintain and secure its machines against skimming devices and other fraud risks. \nIf the ATM was compromised, XXXX XXXX  could share liability for damages resulting from negligent maintenance or security. \n\n\n\n\nSupporting Facts On XX/XX/year>, I spoke with the branch manager at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ATM, who confirmed that the machine has an active security camera and that footage should be available. \n\nI have filed a police report regarding this fraudulent withdrawal. \n\nCash App has numerous ongoing complaints and class-action lawsuits related to denied fraud claims. \n\nI have documentation of all transactions, dispute communications, and proof of possession of my card at the time of the fraudulent withdrawal.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T14:55:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"337XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17198394","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-12T14:40:44.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cash app denying my dispute within XXXX hours <em>without</em> contacting the ATM operator, reviewing footage, or examining the transaction data can not reasonably constitute a <em>good</em>-<em>faith</em> investigation. \nA <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> is required to review all relevant evidence before making a determination not just look at whether the card number was used. \n\n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[23.967907,"17198394"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18894270","_score":23.388052,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I sent a XXXX XXXX transfer of {$230.00} from my XXXX XXXX account ( ending XXXX ) for a service that was promised but never provided. I later determined the transaction appears to have been a scam ( services never delivered ; no refund ). I promptly disputed the transaction with XXXX XXXX and requested an investigation and supporting records. \n\nXXXX XXXX closed my dispute as \" no error occurred '' and refused to re-open it. XXXX XXXX  explanation is that ( 1 ) they attempted to request a \" good-faith return '' through XXXX to the receiving institution ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the receiving institution declined ; ( 2 ) under \" XXXX rules, '' they can not compel a return ; ( 3 ) XXXX has XXXX no purchase protection '' and works like cash/wire once funds are sent ; and ( 4 ) XXXX XXXX  concluded the transfer was \" authorized '' and not due to an unauthorized transfer, system failure, or other \" error ''. \n\nXXXX XXXX position conflates recoverability with error-resolution compliance. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, when a consumer reports a potential error, the institution must investigate, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within required timelines. \n\n1. XXXX XXXX described \" investigation '' is primarily a recovery attempt via XXXX. Whether the recipient bank will voluntarily return funds does not determine whether an \" error '' occurred under federal law. EFTA requires an investigation and a determination, not merely a clawback request.\n\n2. The banks conclusion that the transaction was \" authorized '' is conclusory and unsupported. Regulation E defines \" error '' to include an unauthorized electronic fund transfer. XXXX XXXX insists it reviewed evidence and determined the transfer was authorized, but it has not provided the factual basis that supports that conclusion ( e.g., authentication/authorization evidence ). Instead, XXXX XXXX relies on generalized XXXX disclaimers about \" no purchase protection '' which do not satisfy the banks federal statutory duties. \n\n3. XXXX XXXX failed to provide \" documents relied upon '' / meaningful explanation of findings. Regulation E requires a written explanation of findings when the institution determines no error occurred and, upon request, production of the documents the institution relied upon. Instead, XXXX XXXX sent me screenshots/status records indicating \" delivered/no return, '' but those records do not demonstrate authorization. When I requested records supporting the \" authorized '' determination, XXXX XXXX stated that \" system level data, internal security logs, or proprietary fraud monitoring outputs '' may not be disclosed. This is problematic because those are the categories of records that would ordinarily be relied upon to reach an \" authorized '' conclusion. If XXXX XXXX relied on those records, the bank should provide consumer-reportable versions or an adequate explanation of the evidence supporting its determination, rather than refusing disclosure while maintaining a conclusory denial. \n\n4. XXXX XXXX dispute handling appears to be an unfair process that effectively denies Regulation E protections by substituting \" XXXX works like cash '' messaging for the required investigation and substantiated findings. If XXXX XXXX markets or represents consumer protections for fraudulent transfers but then denies claims with conclusory statements and without providing the basis for an authorization determination, that XXXX implicate unfair/deceptive practices under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI requested that XXXX XXXX re-open the dispute and provide a Regulation E-compliant investigation and documentation, including : XXXX. Evidence supporting its \" authorized '' conclusion ( channel used, timestamps, session IDs, device identifiers, IP/geo indicators, XXXX challenges/results XXXX and any anomalous access/risk flags ) XXXX. Recipient token/enrollment history and the basis for \" token not restricted '' findings referenced by XXXX records XXXX XXXX XXXX case notes and the specific steps taken in the investigation beyond the XXXX return request XXXX. A substantive written explanation of findings consistent with Regulation XXXX First Tech refused to re-open and responded that the Regulation XXXX process is \" complete, '' relying largely on XXXX lack of purchase protection and stating some internal security documentation will not be disclosed. \n\nHarm to me : XXXX. Financial loss of {$230.00} XXXX. Significant time and administrative burden spent pursuing basic evidence and a legally compliant error-resolution process XXXX. Ongoing inability to validate the banks \" authorized '' conclusion due to lack of supporting evidence and refusal to provide consumer-reportable documentation","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-21T17:25:45.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"98072","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18894270","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","date_received":"2026-01-21T17:13:03.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regulation E requires a written explanation of findings when the <em>institution</em> <em>determines</em> no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> and, upon request, production of the documents the <em>institution</em> relied upon. Instead, XXXX XXXX sent me screenshots/status records indicating \" delivered/no return, '' but those records do not demonstrate authorization."]},"sort":[23.388052,"18894270"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17196493","_score":23.127502,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal dispute under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) regarding an unauthorized ATM withdrawal made using my Cash App card issued by XXXX XXXX I reported the transaction to Cash App promptly, but my claim was denied without a proper investigation or written explanation, in violation of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\nBecause XXXX XXXX  is the issuing financial institution, I am requesting a formal investigation and written report of your findings as required under Regulation E. In addition, the transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX  ATM XXXX and I am requesting an investigation into whether XXXXXXXX XXXX  failed to properly maintain or secure the ATM, which may have allowed skimming or other unauthorized access to occur. \n\nI believe Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX have failed to uphold their respective obligations to protect consumers from unauthorized electronic fund transfers and to conduct good-faith investigations under federal law. \n\nSummary of the Issue On XXXX XXXX XXXX an unauthorized withdrawal of {$980.00} occurred from my Cash App debit card at a XXXX XXXX ATM located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  XXXX. \n\nI did not authorize this withdrawal, and my physical card remained in my possession at all times. Based on the sequence of events, I believe my card information was skimmed or electronically compromised at that same ATM during a prior legitimate visit on XX/XX/year>. \n\nI immediately filed a fraud dispute through Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), but the claim was denied without proper explanation or resolution. Cash App has refused to provide any details of a proper investigation or any provisional credit all of which are required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\n\n\nRegulation and Compliance Concerns Failure to properly investigate the unauthorized transaction as required under Regulation E 1005.11.\n\nFailure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days while the investigation was pending. \nFailure to provide a written explanation of investigation results or supporting documentation. \nXXXX XXXX  lack of oversight of its third-party partner ( Cash App ) in ensuring compliance with federal consumer protection obligations. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX potential failure to maintain ATM security, which may have allowed a skimming device or other compromise to occur posing a risk to consumers.\n\nRegulation and Compliance Concerns Failure to properly investigate the unauthorized transaction as required under Regulation E 1005.11.\n\nFailure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days while the investigation was pending. \nFailure to provide a written explanation of investigation results or supporting documentation. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX  lack of oversight of its third-party partner ( Cash App ) in ensuring compliance with federal consumer protection obligations. \nXXXX XXXX  potential failure to maintain ATM security, which may have allowed a skimming device or other compromise to occur posing a risk to consumers.\n\n1. Violation of Regulation E 1005.11 Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ), when a consumer notifies a financial institution of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the institution must investigate promptly and complete the investigation within 10 business days ( or 45 days if more time is needed ). \nCash app denying my dispute within 48 hours without contacting the ATM operator, reviewing footage, or examining the transaction data can not reasonably constitute a good-faith investigation.\n\nA financial institution is required to review all relevant evidence before making a determination not just look at whether the card number was used.\n\n2. Failure to Issue Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ) If the investigation could not be completed within 10 business days, the institution must provide a provisional credit to your account for the disputed amount while it continues the investigation. \nCash Apps denial in under two days suggests no provisional credit was provided, which is a violation if the claim was not fully and properly investigated within that time frame.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Required Written Explanation ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) If the financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide a written explanation of the results, including : A summary of the investigation, The evidence relied upon, and A notice of the right to request supporting documentation. \nSimply stating You authorized the transaction because your card was used does not meet this requirement. \n\n4. XXXX XXXX Oversight Obligations Although Cash App ( Block , Inc. ) operates the platform, XXXX XXXX is the regulated financial institution under the EFTA and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its third-party service provider ( Cash App ) complies with all consumer protection laws. \nIf XXXX XXXX allowed Cash App to deny your dispute without a proper Regulation E investigation, XXXXXXXX XXXX may also be liable for noncompliance.\n\n5. XXXX XXXX ATM Security Duty Because the fraudulent transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX-owned ATM, the bank may have a duty of care to maintain and secure its machines against skimming devices and other fraud risks. \nIf the ATM was compromised, XXXX XXXX could share liability for damages resulting from negligent maintenance or security. \n\n\nSupporting Facts On XXXX XXXX XXXX I spoke with the branch manager at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who confirmed that the machine has an active security camera and that footage should be available. \n\nI have filed a police report regarding this fraudulent withdrawal. \n\nCash App has numerous ongoing complaints and class-action lawsuits related to denied fraud claims. \n\nI have documentation of all transactions, dispute communications, and proof of possession of my card at the time of the fraudulent withdrawal.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T15:05:10.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"337XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17196493","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-12T14:56:17.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cash app denying my dispute within 48 hours <em>without</em> contacting the ATM operator, reviewing footage, or examining the transaction data can not reasonably constitute a <em>good</em>-<em>faith</em> investigation.\n\nA <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> is required to review all relevant evidence before making a determination not just look at whether the card number was used.\n\n2."]},"sort":[23.127502,"17196493"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21273926","_score":22.881907,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Supplemental/Related Complaint Against Chime Financial , Inc . Continued EFTA Violations, Pattern of Bad-Faith Dispute Handling, and Failure to Respond to Formal Demand Original Complaint ID : XXXX Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , I am writing to supplement and renew my previously filed complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against Chime Financial, Inc. ( Chime ) in connection with unauthorized fraudulent transactions totaling approximately {$400.00} that were made on my account without my knowledge or authorization. This supplemental complaint is necessitated by a continuing pattern of conduct by Chime that I believe constitutes clear and repeated violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005. Since my initial complaint, the situation has materially worsened. I respectfully request that the Bureau treat this correspondence as a related and supplemental complaint to my prior filing, and that it be incorporated into Chimes ongoing regulatory record. \n\nI. Background and Prior Complaint On or about the date of the XX/XX/year>, I discovered approximately {$400.00} in unauthorized charges on my Chime account. I reported the fraud to Chime within approximately one hour of discovering the transactions well within the reporting windows established under the EFTA. I also filed a police report documenting the fraud and provided Chime with a copy. Despite this, Chime denied my initial dispute. I filed a second dispute, which was also denied. Following those denials, I filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and sent formal written Notice of Demand letters to Chime Financial , Inc. via XXXX mail on XX/XX/year>, citing violations of the EFTA and demanding reimbursement. Chime never responded to those demand letters. \n\nII. New and Continuing Violations Since Initial Complaint Since the filing of my initial CFPB complaint, Chimes conduct has continued in a manner that strongly suggests bad faith, automated processing, and willful disregard of federal law. The following events have occurred and form the basis of this supplemental complaint : 1. Chime independently reopened one of my disputes on its own initiative and denied it within 24 hours, providing no written explanation of its findings. A meaningful investigation of a fraud dispute can not be completed in 24 hours. This conduct is facially inconsistent with the reasonable investigation standard required under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ).\n\n2. Chime also independently reopened a second, separate dispute and denied it as well, again without providing a written explanation of findings or the basis for denial.\n\n3. Chime has failed to provide me with written findings explaining the basis of any of its denials. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ), when a financial institution determines no error occurred, it must promptly deliver a written explanation of its findings and inform the consumer of the right to request the documents it relied upon. \n\n4. Chime failed to respond to XXXX XXXX  mail demand letters sent on XX/XX/year> to its principal address at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. These letters cited the EFTA by statute, included my police report, and provided a deadline for response. No response was ever received. \n\n5. In total, I have now been denied reimbursement XXXX times across XXXX separate disputes. The pattern of conduct rapid automated denials, failure to explain findings, failure to respond to formal legal demands, and failure to conduct genuine investigations suggests systemic noncompliance rather than isolated error. \n\nIII. Applicable Legal Standards The EFTA and Regulation E impose specific obligations on financial institutions that handle electronic fund transfers on behalf of consumers. Under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, when a consumer reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : ( 1 ) investigate the claim within 10 business days ( or issue a provisional credit while conducting a longer investigation of up to 45 days ) ; ( 2 ) conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation of the alleged error ; ( 3 ) provide written notice of its findings upon completion ; and ( 4 ) inform the consumer of their right to request the documents relied upon in the determination. Under 15 U.S.C. 1693g, the burden of proof rests with the financial institution to establish that the transfer was authorized. Chime has not met any of these obligations. It has not conducted reasonable investigations, has not provided written findings, has not offered provisional credit, and has not met its burden of proving authorization.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-15T19:07:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"121XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21273926","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-04-15T18:33:31.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ), when a <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> <em>determines</em> no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>, it must promptly deliver a written explanation of its findings and inform the consumer of the right to request the documents it relied upon. \n\n4. Chime failed to respond to XXXX XXXX  mail demand letters sent on XX/XX/year> to its principal address at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. These letters cited the EFTA by statute, included my police report, and provided a deadline for response."],"company":["Chime <em>Financial</em> Inc"]},"sort":[22.881907,"21273926"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3370294","_score":22.772308,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"There was a fradulent fale stop payment made by XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX. On or around XX/XX/XXXX 2019- XX/XX/XXXX2019 that must be put into investigation and my account re credited for this error. This is the actual receipt of the XXXX ice maker inside the False stop payment XXXX refrigerator. It was manufactured in XXXX of 2019.I showed images of the box it came in with serial number above. \nServices Received By The XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n1 Brand New XXXX XXXX XXXX maker. total assembly with warranty that can be verified. \nPart Inquiring Service on the phone 20 minutes on Hold putting part on will call Part Expedition Service Receiving Part Same Day Service Fee Part Purchasing No Deposit given Part Picking Up Requires Driving to The Supply Location ( Time, Driving Part Correct Part Confirmation Testing New Part Service Part Transporting From Supply house To Customer Service address, Service Fee Old Part uninstall removal Service fee New Part Install Removal Service Fee 2 Service Calls fee Ice maker adjusting and then unadjusting service fee Saturday Service Weekend fee nd I still kept it within the Original quoting Everything was done to the highest grade of competency. I tested the water supply to the ice maker verified water supply and water dispenser. I replaced the old ice maker with a brand new XXXX ice maker that was tested before installing gave him a 25 day warranty on labor and 1 year warranty on the part. He had inconsistencies with the electrical breaker and receptacle. I told him to hive a residential electrician analyses and correct any non grounding and short issues and also to child proof any receptacles around the interior of building but he didnt. He dishonestly files a stop payment with an intent to defraud.You dont stop payment because you dont want to understand. he kept requesting a new Ice maker so he got what he asked for same day. And then he stops payment.Obviously he doesnt know what he is talking about. Or else he would have fixed the issue himself. This is a bank error on Chase bank and this false illegal stop payment requires reversal and fees put back into XXXX XXXX account in the total of {$270.00} requires reversal being removed from XXXX XXXX account hes a defrauder and he abused and co conspired the bank so underhandedly and this checks holder be put on XXXX  so he cant do these defrauding things any longer. Because making Chase bank aware of this with undisputed burden of proof evidence and they dont follow the regulation of Regulation E, FDIC, EFT, will put the bank in illegal circumstances. This matter is to be put into investigation. We require response to the matter with 7 days. \nElectronic Fund Transfer Act In 1979, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), also known as Regulation E, was implemented to protect consumers when they use electronic means and check are also covered to manage their finances. \nCompensation for Violations of the EFTA Electronic funds transaction act. \nIf a financial institution breaks laws established by the EFTA, you may be able to sue for damages in court. Thats if they refuse to credit the money back or correct an error. You can also sue if they fail to prevent a transfer when you reported the lost or stolen card and told them to freeze the account. Youre entitled to the money lost and potentially punitive damages between $ XXXX {$1000.00} as well as court fees and attorneys fees. \nI have rendered the service based on agreement, and I am entitled to that money. The demand letter in this complaint Chase bank can not say they did not receive it. Requesting a demand for payment the fraudulent stop payment within 7 days or you will file in the small claims court. As per FDIC Rules and Regulations : SECTION 1005.11 PROCEDURES FOR RESOLVING ERRORS 5. Discovery of error by institution. The error resolution procedures of this section apply when a notice of error is received from the consumer, and not when the financial institution itself discovers and corrects an error. \n\n11 ( c ) Time Limits and Extent of Investigation Supplement I to Part 1005Official Interpretations SECTION 1005.2 DEFINITIONS 1. Fund transfers covered. The term \" electronic fund transfer '' includes : v. A transfer via ACH where a consumer has provided a check to enable the merchant or other payee to capture the routing, account, and serial numbers to initiate the transfer, whether the check is blank, partially completed, or fully completed and signed ; whether the check is presented at POS or is mailed to a merchant or other payee or lockbox and later converted to an EFT ; or whether the check is retained by the consumer, the merchant or other payee, or the payee 's financial institution. \n\n\nSupplement I to Part 1005OfficiaXXXX Interpretations Investigations. \nSECTION 1005.2 DEFINITIONS 11 ( d ) ( 2 ) Debiting Provisional Credit 1. Alternative procedure for debiting of credited funds. The financial institution may comply with the requirements of this section by notifying the consumer that the consumer 's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification, specifying the calendar date on which the debiting will occur. \n2. 1. Notice to consumer. Unless otherwise indicated in this section, the financial institution may provide the required notices to the consumer either orally or in writing. \n3. 2. Written confirmation of oral notice. A financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice. It may not delay until it has received a written confirmation. \n4. 3. Charges for error resolution. If a billing error occurred, whether as alleged or in a different amount or manner, the financial institution may not impose a charge related to any aspect of the error-resolution process ( including charges for documentation or investigation ). Since the Act grants the consumer error-resolution rights, the institution should avoid any chilling effect on the good-faith assertion of errors that might result if charges are assessed when no billing error has occurred. \n5. 4. Correction without investigation. A financial institution may make, without investigation, a final correction to a consumer 's account in the amount or manner alleged by the consumer to be in error, but must comply with all other applicable requirements of 1005.11. \n6. 5. Correction notice. A financial institution may include the notice of correction on a periodic statement that is mailed or delivered within the 10-business-day or 45-calendar-day time limits and that clearly identifies the correction to the consumer 's account. The institution must determine whether such a mailing will be prompt enough to satisfy the requirements of this section, taking into account the specific facts involved. \n7. 6. Correction of an error. If the financial institution determines an error occurred, within either the 10-day or 45-day period, it must correct the error ( subject to the liability provisions of 1005.6 ( a ) and ( b ) ) including, where applicable, the crediting of interest and the refunding of any fees imposed by the institution. In a combined credit/EFT transaction, for example, the institution must refund any finance charges incurred as a result of the error. The institution need not refund fees that would have been imposed whether or not the error occurred. \n8. 7. Extent of required investigation. A financial institution complies with its duty to investigate, correct, and report its determination regarding an error described in 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) by transmitting the requested information, clarification, or documentation within the time limits set forth in 1005.11 ( c ). If the institution has provisionally credited the consumer 's account in accordance with 1 9. \n10. SECTION 1005.2 DEFINITIONS 11. 11 ( d ) ( 2 ) Debiting Provisional Credit 12. 1. Alternative procedure for debiting of credited funds. The financial institution may comply with the requirements of this section by notifying the consumer that the consumer 's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification, specifying the calendar date on which the debiting will occur. \n\nDeceptive Trade Practices Act : XXXX XXXX has violated this law : he has violated this law. the price paid is substantial evidence to support that he asked how long was the warranty? because he knows it is brand new period. He still has this stolen property in his possession. I may also recover up to three times damages, he knowingly commited this fraud and implicated the bank in the process. \nCalifornia Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits any unlawful, ... [ A ] ny unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice is deemed ... section 17200 common law fraud or deception.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-11T07:49:48.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90504","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3370294","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2019-09-11T03:23:25.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Since the Act grants the consumer <em>error</em>-resolution rights, the <em>institution</em> should avoid any chilling effect on the <em>good</em>-<em>faith</em> assertion of <em>errors</em> that might result if charges are assessed when no billing <em>error</em> has <em>occurred</em>. \n5. 4. Correction <em>without</em> investigation."]},"sort":[22.772308,"3370294"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19784681","_score":22.59468,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX : Wells Fargo Violations of Regulation E, EFTA, and Unfair/Deceptive Practices in Dispute Handling Account Ending : XXXX Primary Claim Reference : XXXX Additional Case Numbers : XXXX XXXX XXXX Amount in Dispute : {$250.00} To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this complaint regarding Wells Fargos handling of my {$250.00} dispute, which reflects repeated procedural failures, broken representations, and apparent noncompliance with federal dispute investigation requirements. \nDespite multiple case numbers being generated, Wells Fargo has failed to conduct and document a reasonable investigation as required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ). \nSpecifically : Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation ( Regulation E 1005.11 ( c ) ) Regulation E requires a financial institution to conduct a prompt and reasonable investigation upon notice of error. Despite this requirement, my case was repeatedly closed without documented findings, investigative notes, or explanation of factual review. A representative confirmed that the most recent caseworker closed the case on XX/XX/XXXX without entering investigative documentation. \nFailure to Provide Written Explanation of Findings ( Regulation E 1005.11 ( d ) ) If a financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide a written explanation of its findings. I have not received a substantive written explanation detailing the basis for closure or the evidence relied upon. \nFailure to Follow Represented Procedures / Inducement Through Representation Multiple representatives explicitly instructed me that upon submission of requested documentation and a completed questionnaire, my dispute would be reopened in accordance with internal procedure. I relied on these representations and complied in good faith. \nHowever, after submission, the claim was not reopened. This constitutes reliance on representations that were not honored. \nA Claims XXXX identified as XXXX confirmed that, per standard procedure, once documentation is received, the claim should be reopened. She stated that she documented my file accordingly. Nevertheless, reopening did not occur. \nFailure to Maintain Adequate Case Documentation I was informed by a Wells Fargo representative that no investigative notes were entered by the assigned caseworker before closing my case. This suggests a failure to maintain adequate internal documentation supporting investigative actions. \nPotential Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ) Instructing a consumer to submit documentation with the explicit assurance that doing so will result in reopening of a dispute and then failing to take that action raises concerns of deceptive practice. \nRepeatedly generating overlapping case numbers while administratively closing them without substantive review may also constitute an unfair practice if it results in procedural obstruction or consumer harm. \nAdditionally, multiple representatives acknowledged : Caseworkers are required to contact the consumer when follow-up is requested. \nCase documentation and notes should reflect investigative activity. \nThe claim should have been reopened upon receipt of requested documentation. \nDespite these acknowledgments, no corrective action was taken. \nSupervisors have stated that the back office controls determinations and that they can not intervene. This lack of accountability further raises concerns regarding internal compliance oversight. \nI respectfully request that CFPB require Wells Fargo to : Conduct and document a reasonable, good-faith investigation consistent with Regulation E. \nProvide a written explanation of findings supported by documented evidence. \nProduce internal case notes for all referenced case numbers. \nExplain the failure to reopen the claim after representations were made that reopening would occur. \nConfirm that dispute review determinations are made solely on transaction merits and submitted documentation, consistent with fair and objective standards. \nI have recorded calls ( with disclosure provided ) and possess documentation supporting the representations made by Wells Fargo representatives. \nI request regulatory review to ensure compliance with federal consumer protection statutes. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-25T20:05:07.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"21030","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19784681","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-02-25T19:48:36.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to Provide Written Explanation of Findings ( Regulation E 1005.11 ( d ) ) If a <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> <em>determines</em> that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>, it must provide a written explanation of its findings. I have not received a substantive written explanation detailing the basis for closure or the evidence relied upon."]},"sort":[22.59468,"19784681"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8437133","_score":22.029419,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I have received your initial response to confirm that I did in fact file the complaint with the CFPB and, YES, I XXXX XXXX did file a complaint regarding the issues and circumstances that are mentioned. \n\nThe claims were not given a proper investigation and definitely can not be called \" Reasonable effort ''. The claims department obviously is still using the Automated Fraud Filter that was found to by the CFPB to be an \" unfair act or practice '' and is a violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U S.C. Subsection 553 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; ( 2 ) Bank of America Claims Department FAILED to conduct reasonable investigations of my XXXX XXXX benefit prepaid card claim and the Notice of Error is in violation of Sections 908 and 909 of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTAO ), 15 U.S.C. 1693f and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E. The practices used to determine the validity of my claims which was deemed an \" Abusive Act ''.\n\nThe reason I was unable to advise Bank of America sooner is due to the fact I was impeded by being given untrue information regarding my account status and it took over a XXXX XXXX XXXX to finally gain access to my account after physically going into the local branch to verify my identity not XXXX  or XXXX  but on XXXX separate occasions and XXXX of those visits were on the SAME DAY! At that point I learned of the status of my account and filed my claim immediately after my review of the transactions. This Impediment is in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U S.C. Subsection 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nAs a \" Affected Consumer \" I fall under the protections of the ORDER that was executed on XX/XX/XXXX by the CFPB that has jurisdiction over this matter under Sections 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. Subsection 5563, and Section 918 ( a ) ( 5 ) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. Subsection 1693o ( a ) ( 5 ). Due to the fact my account was froze or blocked.\n\nThe consequential harm I have suffered due to the incorrect determination that no errors had occurred based solely on the results of Bank of Americas Fraud Filter. I am certain that the Error Resolution Investigation procedures and practices REQUIRED of financial institutions as described in 12 C.F.R. Subsection 1005.11 were not followed in accordance with that policy. As it is the duty of this financial institution to investigate unauthorized EFT transactions Under EFTA, upon receiving notice of error, financial institutions may not determine NO ERROR had occurred without conducting a \" good faith investigation of the alleged error '' and without \" a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in error. '' 15 U S.C. Subsection 1693f ( e ).\n\nFurther, under Regulation E, when conducting an Error Resolution Investigation, a financial institution must conduct, at minimum, a \" review of its own records regarding [ the ] alleged error. '' 12 C.F.R. Subsection 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ), and the Error Resolution Investigation '' must be reasonable, '' 71 Fed. Reg 1638, 1654 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ).\n\nThe term \" Good Faith Investigation '' has been overlooked in my claims, obviously, because the number of transactions and the amount of claim ( s ) we are reviewing is very lengthy and numerous cards were issued and the transactions were spread out over as MANY as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX states, to reference Arizona, Nevada, California, and possibly more. The time it would take to give a claim of that size a Good Faith Investigation, I would say a minimum of XXXX weeks possibly XXXX if I wanted to be SURE and FAIR. And upon filing my claims I was told that the actual claim investigation department probably would not receive the claim for at least XXXX to XXXX businesses days. So with that knowledge, how was the reconsideration of my claims filed on XX/XX/XXXX and then just XXXX ( XXXX ) days later DENIED on XX/XX/XXXX??? \n\nThat XXXX simple fact, dated and completed by Bank of America, helps validate and provide significant evidence of the deliberate and willfully disregarded policies that are instituted by our Government and Governing Bureaus to maintain a procedural due process of law ensuring each citizen of our Great Country FAIR and HONEST treatment in our financial process. The negligence to conduct a investigation and determine that NO ERROR OCCURRED is a show of Abuse and Unprofessional. \n\nDuring my research I discovered that Bank of America, upon filing a claim of fraud, would send out a fraud packet consisting of an Affidavit in which the claimant declared under penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge of nor benefitted, from any unauthorized transactions, regarding the claim. The claimant was required to fill it out and return it within a set period disclosed by representative who initiated the claim. I was NEVER advised of this unspoken requirement, however, concerning Regulation E and provisional credit it's a stipulation. So I took it up on myself to find an Affidavit of Fraud and completed it to the best of my ability, under penalty of perjury, and submitted, via fax, when i requested the claims be reconsidered on XX/XX/XXXX along with other documents supporting my claims. \n\nAs Bank of America has provided the protection of the XXXX Liability Guarantee found in the cardholder agreement, it's plainly stated that XXXX cardholder will incur NO LIABILITY for UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS up to the amount of the Unauthorized Transactions, provided the cardholder notify Bank of America within a Reasonable amount of time. Yet the disconnections and excessively long wait and inaccurate information provided when I was able to speak to a representative, I wasn't able to inquire about my account until my verification was done, yet first I I was referred back to XXXX as Bank of America advised me that in fact they were responsible for the blocked account and they would have to verify my identity first and then XXXX would forward the verification to Bank of America and I was required to verify through the bank as well. Impossible and I believe intended to evade the XXXX XXXX XXXX. The unavailable harm caused by the extensive hold times, dropped calls, and the misinformation and intentional misdirected information implying that XXXX initiated the account be frozen, which was NOT the XXXX order at all. \n\nIt is evident that my claims were not processed nor properly investigated and as a direct result of this financial institutions intentional disregard for the required due process of law that I have been forced to suffer undue hardships and the loss of ALL my XXXX  benefits as a direct result of the failure of this financial institution to follow the guidelines set forth by the CFPB. As a result Bank of America has engaged in unfair acts or practices, in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. Subsection 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nTo further the placement of Liability regarding my claims allow me to remind you of a Executive Order from President Obama, on XX/XX/XXXX titled \" Improving the Security of Consumer Financial Transactions '' in paragraph \" ( c ) The Secretary of the Treasury shall take necessary steps to ensure that XXXX XXXX prepaid debit cards for administering Government benefits have enhanced security features, and by XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of the Treasury shall develop a plan for the replacement of XXXX XXXX prepaid debit cards without enhanced security features. '' This was a Presidential Executive Order published roughly XXXX years prior to the date Bank of America decided to begin using the XXXX chip security standards on the XXXX benefits card, yet ALL other accounts handled by Bank of America were in compliance with the order, again, deliberately neglected to secure the accounts and left them a target for fraudulent transactions from a lack of security standards. This is against the compliance orders provided to U.S. financial institutions. In support of the order, the XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly outlined the \" XXXX and Credit Card Liability '' asserting that \" During the transition, major financial institutions that dont provide chip-enabled cards to their cardholders remain accountable for fraudulent purchases. According to XXXX XXXX, a technology and business reporter for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Transactions still can be performed using the old card technology after the transition, but banks will be liable for any payment fraud if they do not issue a card containing a smart chip, and merchants will be liable if their teller machines do not accept the chip cards. Further stating \" Government-based purchasing and benefits cards are also shifting to chip-enabled cards. In late XXXX, President Obama signed an executive order requiring that this technology be used in all government-issued credit and debit cards. The XXXX initiative requires the use of chip-and-PIN security on government-issued cards through the General Services Administration. '' Bank of America was aware yet made a conscious decision to use a less secure card for Government benefits and in doing this, knowingly and deliberately disregarded the current Minimum Requirement of Security Standards of the XXXX chip and as a financial institution of its capacity and legal advisors surely knew the grounds and protocols if such a unsecure card was used, and knowing that, \" the issuing bank IS LIABLE '' it should be understood as well that Bank of America was prepared to take full accountability and responsibility of issues involving unauthorized transactions. With the decision to use outdated and unsecure debit cards is clear that they fully understood the liability their decision. \n\nI apologize for the length of this, however, i could continue to outline the many other issues supporting my claim but I feel this is enough to influence the decision and result in a decision in my favor and funds credited to my account.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-28T13:43:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"92394","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8437133","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-02-28T13:29:48.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As it is the duty of this <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> to investigate unauthorized EFT transactions Under EFTA, upon receiving notice of <em>error</em>, <em>financial</em> <em>institutions</em> may not <em>determine</em> NO <em>ERROR</em> had <em>occurred</em> <em>without</em> conducting a \" <em>good</em> <em>faith</em> investigation of the alleged <em>error</em> '' and <em>without</em> \" a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in <em>error</em>. '' 15 U S.C. Subsection 1693f ( e )."]},"sort":[22.029419,"8437133"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21440945","_score":20.869568,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against KeyBank regarding its handling of unauthorized recurring ACH debits from my account. \n\nBeginning in XX/XX/year>, a series of recurring ACH withdrawals in the amount of {$140.00} were debited from my account each month on or around the 10th, by a merchant listed as XXXX XXXX XXXX AP. These withdrawals continued consistently for approximately four years. I did not authorize these transactions and have no relationship with this company. Upon discovering the issue, I promptly contacted KeyBank to report the transactions as unauthorized. The bank closed my account and initiated a dispute.\n\nKeyBank denied reimbursement for the majority of the debits, citing a 60-day notification rule and asserting that no error occurred. This determination is conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and reflects a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. \nThis determination is conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and reflects a failure to conduct a reasonable investigation.\n\nCritically, KeyBanks response does not indicate that it : -Obtained or reviewed any ACH authorization -Requested proof of authorization from the originating merchant -Conducted any substantive analysis as to whether t\n\nhe debits were authorized Instead, KeyBank relied exclusively on a procedural timing defense to deny the claim. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, a financial institution is required to conduct a good-faith and reasonable investigation of alleged errors. While notification timing may affect certain liability limitations, it does not eliminate the requirement that transactions be authorized in the first instance.\n\nAdditionally, ACH network rules require that valid authorization be obtained and retained for all debits. To date, KeyBank has not produced, referenced, or confirmed the existence of any such authorization.\n\nKeyBanks position raises serious concerns : -It declared no error occurred without verifying authorization -It failed to perform a reasonable investigation into whether the debits were authorized -It relied on a timing technicality while disregarding whether the transactions were authorized This conduct also raises concerns under New York law XXXX By asserting that no error occurred without verifying whether the recurring debits were authorized, KeyBank provided a misleading and incomplete explanation of my rights as a consumer. This appears inconsistent with New York General Business Law 349, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in consumer transactions. A reasonable consumer would expect that a bank claiming no error has verified whether the transactions were in fact authorized. \n\nFurther, the failure to determine whether these debits were properly authorized raises concerns as to whether these transactions were properly payable under applicable law. \n\nI am formally requesting that KeyBank : -Produce the complete ACH authorization ( signed, recorded, or otherwise verifiable ) permitting XXXX XXXX XXXX AP to debit my account -Provide a detailed account of its investigation, including all steps taken to verify authorization -Reimburse all debits if valid authorization can not be produced If KeyBank is unable to produce valid authorization, its continued refusal to reimburse these transactions raises significant concerns regarding compliance with consumer protection obligations governing electronic fund transfers. \n\nI am requesting regulatory review of KeyBanks investigative practices and denial rationale.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-21T15:22:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10977","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21440945","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"KEYCORP","date_received":"2026-04-21T15:14:19.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, a <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> is required to conduct a <em>good</em>-<em>faith</em> and reasonable investigation of alleged <em>errors</em>. While notification timing may affect certain liability limitations, it does not eliminate the requirement that transactions be authorized in the first instance.\n\nAdditionally, ACH network rules require that valid authorization be obtained and retained for all debits."]},"sort":[20.869568,"21440945"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6751707","_score":19.641552,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"My Capital One Credit Accounts ending in # XXXX & # XXXX have been closed without authorized permission. These accounts are supposed to be open-ended consumer credit plans according to 15 U.S. Code 1637. Pursuant to 15 USC 1692c ( c ) I am notifying you in writing that I refuse to pay the alleged debt and I am demanding that you cease all forms of communication with me through any and all mediums unless it pertains to my remedy in writing via mail. Pursuant to 15 USC 1692c Communication in connection with debt collection ( c ) If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except ( 2 ) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor ; I am unable to pay bills, use my credit cards and obtain new forms of credit because of these alleged debts and adverse action that has been taken against me the consumer. My private information is being shared with third-party consumer reporting agencies pertaining to alleged debt and is doing great damage to my lively hood. CAPITAL ONE is a financial institution and I am the consumer. I have the right to make sure my private information isnt shared which is backed by 15 USC 6801 Wich states It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers non public personal information. CAPITAL ONE is a financial institution by definition under that title. CAPITAL ONE the financial institutions surely does not have my consent to furnish this information and they surely do not have my written consent. ACCORDING TO 15 U.S 6821- Privacy protection for customer information of financial institutions ( a ) Prohibition on obtaining customer information by false pretenses It shall be a violation of this subchapter for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to another person ( 2 ) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution ; a I believe there is a billing error and this needs to be corrected. According to 15 U.S. Code 1666 - Correction of billing errors ( b ) Billing error For the purpose of this section, a billing error consists of any of the following : ( 1 ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit which was not made to the obligor or, if made, was not in the amount reflected on such statement ( 2 ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit for which the obligor requests additional clarification including documentary evidence thereof.\n\n( 3 ) A reflection on a statement of goods or services not accepted by the obligor or his designee or not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of a transaction.\n\n( 4 ) The creditors failure to reflect properly on a statement a payment made by the obligor or a credit issued to the obligor.\n\n( 5 ) A computation error or similar error of an accounting nature of the creditor on a statement.\n\n( 6 ) Failure to transmit the statement required under section 1637 ( b ) of this title to the last address of the obligor which has been disclosed to the creditor unless that address was furnished less than twenty days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement is required.\n\n( 7 ) Any other error described in regulations of the Bureau.\n\n( d ) Restricting or closing by creditor of account regarded by obligor to contain a billing error Pursuant to regulations of the Bureau, a creditor operating an open end consumer credit plan may not, prior to the sending of the written explanation or clarification required under paragraph ( B ) ( ii ), restrict or close an account with respect to which the obligor has indicated pursuant to subsection ( a ) that he believes such account to contain a billing error solely because of the obligors failure to pay the amount indicated to be in error. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit a creditor from applying against the credit limit on the obligors account the amount indicated to be in error. \n\ne ) EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS BY CREDITOR Any creditor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section or section 1666a of this title forfeits any right to collect from the obligor the amount indicated by the obligor under paragraph ( 2 ) of subsection ( a ) of this section, and any finance charge thereon, except that the amount required to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed {$50.00} Any and all consent to CAPITAL ONE whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. 15 USC 6802 ( b ) ( c ) states that \" A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. '' CAPITAL ONE Never informed me of my right to exercise my non-disclosure option. By violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general -Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Ever company in their agreements with consumers they said they would follow the law and agreed to do so, according to! 5 USC 1681o- Civil liability for negligent noncompliance - In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure - Negligent noncompliance means the law was violated not on purpose but just due to a lack of knowledge on the required reporting procedures.\n\n12 CFR 226.13 - Billing error resolution. 27 ( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumers right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). 30 If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges ( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-26T23:25:07.000Z","issue":"Trouble using your card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"770XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6751707","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-03-26T21:55:19.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't use card to make purchases"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["employee, or agent of a <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> ; a I believe there is a billing <em>error</em> and this needs to be corrected."],"company":["CAPITAL ONE <em>FINANCIAL</em> CORPORATION"]},"sort":[19.641552,"6751707"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20366548","_score":18.374243,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this follow-up complaint regarding the handling of my prior dispute against Oriental Bank concerning two electronic fund transfers totaling {$230.00} that I reported as unauthorized. In my original complaint, I explained that one transaction in the amount of {$34.00} occurred through an online merchant using what appears to be a misleading and extremely rapid one-click checkout mechanism that processed a charge without any meaningful confirmation step or opportunity to review the transaction details before completion. As a result, the charge was processed even though the transaction was not made with the intention of purchasing the product or service. Immediately after noticing the charge, I contacted the merchant by email requesting cancellation and explaining the accidental nature of the transaction. I subsequently provided the bank with copies of those email communications as evidence of my prompt attempt to resolve the matter with the merchant. Those communications were sent directly to XXXX XXXX ( on XX/XX/year> ) as part of the dispute process. Despite providing the only documentation available to me demonstrating that the transaction was unintended and that I acted promptly to address the issue with the merchant, the bank never acknowledged receipt of this evidence and nevertheless treated the transaction as valid. The second transaction, in the amount of {$200.00}, remains entirely unknown to me and was never authorized. I reported both transactions to the bank immediately and initiated a dispute under the error-resolution procedures established by Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ), which implements the consumer protections provided by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ). Appears that the bank treated both disputed transactions as a single consolidated amount rather than evaluating each transaction independently. Both transactions were resolved under the same determination and causal explanation, which raises concerns that the bank did not conduct a separate or individualized investigation for each amount. The bank initially credited the total combined amount and later reversed it in the same consolidated manner, without providing any documentation or evidence supporting how each transaction was evaluated. This approach suggests that the bank may not have performed a thorough investigation, particularly since I formally requested the documentation and evidence relied upon in the investigation and, to date, nothing has been provided to me. \n\nIn its previous response to the complaint submitted to the CFPB, Oriental Bank asserted that the account qualified as a new account under Regulation E and therefore the bank was permitted additional time to investigate the dispute pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 3 ). While the bank relied on this explanation regarding regulatory timelines, its subsequent conduct has raised additional concerns regarding its compliance with the procedural safeguards required during the investigation process. During the course of the dispute, the bank issued a provisional credit for the disputed transactions ; however, the bank later reversed that credit and allowed the account balance to become negative while the disputed charges remained posted. The reversal of the provisional credit occurred WITHOUT providing a CLEAR written EXPLANATION of the investigative FINDINGS or IDENTIFYING the factual basis or EVIDENCE relied upon to DETERMINE that the transactions were valid. This sequence of actions appears inconsistent with the banks prior representations regarding the status of the investigation and raises serious concerns regarding whether the investigation required under Regulation E was conducted in a reasonable, thorough, and transparent manner as required under the error-resolution provisions of 12 C.F.R. 1005.11. \n\nAdditionally, after the provisional credit was reversed, I requested that the bank provide copies of the documentation and evidence relied upon in reaching its determination regarding the disputed electronic fund transfers. To date, the bank has not provided any documentation demonstrating that the transactions were authorized or otherwise valid, including authentication records, merchant verification, card-not-present, authorization data, or any investigative materials supporting its conclusion. The absence of such documentation is particularly concerning given that I had already provided the bank with evidence demonstrating that one of the transactions was unintended and that I had immediately attempted to cancel it with the merchant. Under the error-resolution provisions of Regulation E, when a financial institution determines that no error occurred, the institution must provide the consumer with an explanation of its findings and must provide copies of the documents relied upon in making that determination upon the consumers request ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ). Without access to the materials relied upon in the banks investigation, I have no way to understand how the bank concluded that the transactions were valid or whether the dispute was evaluated in accordance with the requirements of federal consumer protection law. \n\nFinally, the reversal of the provisional credit caused the account to become overdrawn while the legitimacy of the disputed transactions remained unresolved and while I was actively requesting clarification and documentation from the bank. As a result, I have experienced additional financial harm directly related to the banks handling of this dispute. I intentionally did not re-fund the account during the investigation process because I wanted to preserve the integrity of the dispute and avoid creating confusion about the source of funds or the status of the transactions while the banks review was pending. In fact, during one of my calls with the bank I clearly informed a representative that I would not deposit additional funds into the account until the investigation was completed. Now overdraft! These circumstances raise significant concerns regarding whether the bank conducted the reasonable investigation required under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) and whether the bank adequately considered the evidence provided by the consumer during the dispute process. Furthermore, the handling of this dispute raises concerns regarding potentially unfair practices in the administration of consumer account protections under federal law, particularly when a consumer has made a timely report of disputed transactions and has attempted in good faith to provide supporting evidence. Such practices may also implicate the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-18T10:34:05.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"00921","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20366548","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"OFG BANCORP","date_received":"2026-03-18T09:26:44.000Z","state":"PR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under the <em>error</em>-resolution provisions of Regulation E, when a <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> <em>determines</em> that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>, the <em>institution</em> must provide the consumer with an explanation of its findings and must provide copies of the documents relied upon in making that determination upon the consumers request ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) )."]},"sort":[18.374243,"20366548"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21443784","_score":17.830378,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I filed an Official Police Report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department concerning this same issue on XX/XX/XXXX with Detective XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nFormal Rebuttal to Cash Apps XX/XX/XXXX Response To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : I submit this response to formally dispute and rebut Cash Apps XX/XX/XXXX letter. I remain wholly dissatisfied with Cash Apps response, which fails to meet the requirements of federal consumer financial law and does not meaningfully address the unauthorized electronic fund transfers that resulted in a loss of {$8500.00} from my account on XX/XX/XXXX. Cash Apps response is conclusory, boilerplate in nature, and devoid of the factual findings, evidentiary support, or legal analysis required under applicable law. It does not demonstrate compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., or Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, nor does it establish that Cash App conducted a reasonable, good-faith investigation into my claim of unauthorized transfers. I. Nature of the Unauthorized Transactions On XX/XX/XXXX, an unknown and unauthorized third party gained access to my Cash App account and initiated two peer-to-peer withdrawals totaling {$8500.00}, with a third attempted transaction failing due to insufficient funds. These transactions were not authorized by me, were not initiated by me, and provided no benefit to me. I did not share my credentials, did not approve any such transfers, and did not engage in any conduct that would constitute authorization under Regulation E. Upon discovering the activity, I acted promptly and responsibly by notifying Cash App, filing a dispute, and later submitting an appeal when Cash App denied my claim. II. Cash Apps Response Fails to Satisfy Regulation E Cash Apps letter does not satisfy the requirements imposed by Regulation XXXX on financial institutions handling claims of unauthorized electronic fund transfers. Under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, a financial institution must : XXXX a reasonable investigation ; Determine whether an error occurred ; Provide the consumer with the results of the investigation ; and Correct the error promptly if found. Cash Apps response does none of the above in any meaningful way. Instead, it merely : Restates that prior communications occurred ; Confirms the dollar amounts of the transactions ; and Asserts denial without explanation. The response contains no description of the investigative steps taken, no findings, and no evidence supporting the conclusion that the transactions were authorized. XXXX. Absence of XXXX XXXX XXXX Cash App has failed to provide any proof that the transactions were authorized by me. Specifically, Cash App has not produced : Device identification records IP address logs Login timestamps correlated to my known activity Authentication or multi-factor verification records Evidence that security protocols functioned as intended Any consumer-initiated authorization record Under Regulation XXXX, the burden of proof rests with the financial institution to show that a transaction was authorized or that the consumers liability applies. Cash Apps response does not meet this burden. Conclusory statements that a claim was addressed or reviewed are not evidence and do not constitute a legally sufficient investigation. IV. Improper Shifting of Liability to the XXXX XXXX XXXX handling of this matter appears to improperly shift liability to the consumer without establishing any basis under the XXXX. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX, consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers is limited and conditioned on specific findings. Cash App has not alleged, much less proven, that : I authorized the transfers ; I engaged in fraud ; I failed to timely report the unauthorized activity ; or Any exception to consumer protections applies. Absent such findings, denial of reimbursement is inconsistent with federal law. V. Failure to Demonstrate Reasonable Security Controls Cash Apps response does not address how an unauthorized party was able to access my account or whether Cash Apps security systems failed. This raises broader concerns under : The XXXX ; CFPB supervisory expectations ; and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) standards. If Cash Apps systems permitted unauthorized access without effective detection or prevention, and then denied reimbursement without substantiated findings, such conduct XXXX constitute an unfair practice, as it causes substantial consumer injury that is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. VI. XXXX XXXX and Supervisory Concerns Cash Apps letter appears to be a standardized boilerplate response, lacking any individualized analysis of my specific account activity. This raises concerns about whether Cash App : Systematically denies unauthorized transaction claims without adequate investigation ; Fails to provide required documentation to consumers ; and Relies on automated or cursory review processes inconsistent with XXXX XXXX Such practices are of supervisory and enforcement interest to the CFPB XXXX XXXX. Requested Regulatory Relief and Resolution Given the deficiencies in Cash Apps response, I respectfully request that : The CFPB require Cash App to demonstrate compliance with Regulation XXXX by producing evidence of authorization or a documented investigation ; Cash App be directed to reimburse the {$8500.00} withdrawn without my authorization absent such evidence ; and The CFPB consider whether Cash Apps handling of this matter reflects broader compliance or UDAAP concerns warranting supervisory or enforcement review. XXXX. Reservation of Rights I reserve all rights and remedies available under federal and state law. Nothing in this response should be construed as a waiver of any legal claims or defenses. XXXX. Conclusion Cash Apps XX/XX/XXXX response fails to meet the standards required by federal consumer financial law. It does not establish authorization, does not document a reasonable investigation, and does not justify denial of reimbursement. I respectfully request continued CFPB involvement and review, as this matter implicates not only my individual loss but also Cash Apps compliance with core consumer protection obligations. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-21T16:16:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"33901","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21443784","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-04-21T15:41:07.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cash Apps Response Fails to Satisfy Regulation E Cash Apps letter does not satisfy the requirements imposed by Regulation XXXX on <em>financial</em> <em>institutions</em> handling claims of unauthorized electronic fund transfers. Under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, a <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> must : XXXX a reasonable investigation ; <em>Determine</em> whether an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> ; Provide the consumer with the results of the investigation ; and Correct the <em>error</em> promptly if found."]},"sort":[17.830378,"21443784"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19966853","_score":17.711752,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX CFPB Complaint Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation Under Regulation XXXX XXXX XXXX  I am submitting this complaint regarding Chimes handling of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer and its apparent failure to conduct a reasonable investigation as required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005 ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unauthorized Transaction Transaction DateXXXX Transaction Time : XXXX XXXX Merchant : XXXX Item Description : XXXX XXXX XXXX gift card Amount : {$200.00} This transaction was not authorized by me. I do not purchase XXXX XXXX gift cards. My purchase history at XXXX consists of grocery delivery and household items only. I have retained documentation and receipts for all legitimate XXXX purchases I have personally made. \n\nThe disputed transaction is materially different from my normal purchasing behavior. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Additional Fraudulent Activity In addition to the completed unauthorized transaction, there were additional attempted transactions that further support that my account information was compromised XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$100.00} transaction attempt on XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which was declined due to insufficient funds. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  {$25.00} transaction attempt on XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which was declined because the incorrect XXXX  code was entered. \n\nThese attempts demonstrate unauthorized use and trial-and-error behavior consistent with fraudulent activity. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute Timeline I promptly notified Chime of the unauthorized transaction in compliance with Regulation E. \n\nChime denied my dispute. The only documentation provided to me in support of the denial was XXXX XXXX  My dispute log XXXX My transaction history I was not provided : XXXX  Evidence demonstrating how the transaction was authenticated XXXX Device or IP address information ( if reviewed ) XXXX Documentation showing the basis for determining the transaction was authorized XXXX A detailed explanation of investigative steps taken Based on the information provided, it does not appear that a reasonable investigation was conducted as required under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX No Prior Pattern of Disputes I have never previously filed a dispute with Chime for an unauthorized XXXX transaction. I have not filed repeated unauthorized transaction disputes with XXXX or any other merchant. \n\nThis is an isolated incident. My account history reflects consistent, legitimate usage without any pattern of disputed transactions. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Between XXXXXX/XX/year> and XX/XX/scrub>XXXX  I contacted XXXX customer service on multiple occasions regarding this unauthorized XXXX  gift card purchase. \n\nDuring those communications, several XXXX representatives informed me that : XXXX  An internal investigation would be conducted. \nXXXX My funds would be recouped. \nXXXX  I would be contacted within 10 business days from XX/XX/year> regarding the outcome. \n\nI relayed this information verbally to Chime. \n\nAs of today XXXX XXXX  Nothing has been settled with XXXX. \nXXXX I have not received follow-up communication from XXXX. \nXXXX I have not been reimbursed. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Improper Request for Personal System Logs In my most recent communication with Chime, I was instructed to provide system logs from my personal computer. \n\nUnder Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ), once a consumer provides notice of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution is responsible for conducting a reasonable investigation and determining whether an error occurred.\n\nRegulation E does not require a consumer to XXXX XXXX Conduct a XXXX  investigation XXXX Provide personal device logs XXXX Prove how fraud occurred XXXX  Identify the perpetrator The burden of investigation rests with the financial institution. \n\n# # Supporting Evidence Attached I have attached multiple pieces of supporting documentation, including : XXXX  The email address to which the XXXX XXXX gift card was delivered. According to a XXXX search this email is involved in several similar scams ( XXXX ). \n\nXXXX  Evidence of the additional declined {$100.00} and {$25.00} transaction attempts. \n\nXXXX  Documentation reflecting the presence of XXXX XXXX- a remote monitoring software on my computer. \n\nXXXX  Relevant XXXX XXXX log entries showing activity around the time of the unauthorized transaction. \n\n\nWhile I am not legally required to provide forensic evidence under Regulation XXXX, I am providing this information in good faith to demonstrate that the transaction was unauthorized. I am prepared to provide any additional documentation upon request including but not limited to previous XXXX purchases online. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Representations Chime publicly advertises XXXX XXXX Liability and states that it follows Regulation XXXX protections for unauthorized transactions. \n\nConsumers reasonably rely on these representations. However XXXX XXXX My timely reported claim was denied. \n\nXXXX No substantive investigative findings were provided. \n\nXXXX I was instructed to provide personal forensic evidence. \n\nXXXX  The transaction remains unreimbursed. \n\nThis handling appears inconsistent with Regulation E requirements and Chimes public representations. \n\nRegulatory Basis Under : 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 Consumer liability for unauthorized transfers is limited when timely notice is provided.\n\n12 C.F.R. 1005.11 Financial institutions must conduct a reasonable investigation and report the results to the consumer.\n\nProviding only a transaction history and dispute log does not demonstrate that a reasonable investigation occurred.\n\nI am prepared to provide any additional documentation upon request.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T16:10:46.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"21921","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19966853","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-03-04T14:59:06.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ), once a consumer provides notice of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> is responsible for conducting a reasonable investigation and <em>determining</em> whether an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>.\n\nRegulation E does not require a consumer to XXXX XXXX Conduct a XXXX  investigation XXXX Provide personal device logs XXXX Prove how fraud <em>occurred</em> XXXX  Identify the perpetrator The burden of investigation rests with the <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em>."],"company":["Chime <em>Financial</em> Inc"]},"sort":[17.711752,"19966853"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18025271","_score":17.515612,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX systemic failure to comply with the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) in its handling of multiple credit card billing disputes involving transactions within the last 120 days. \n\nThese disputes arose during a period in which multiple widely reported data breaches affecting financial institutions, telecommunications providers, and online service platforms materially increased the risk of unauthorized account activity. This context required heightened scrutiny and careful investigation, not summary denial. \n\nI timely disputed multiple charges after determining that the underlying services associated with these transactions were not properly delivered, usable, or accessible. These transactions involved third-party payment processors and custodial wallet services, which require fact-specific, human review, particularly where data security concerns and account compromise risk exist. \n\nInstead of conducting individualized, good-faith investigations as required by federal law, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX boilerplate, conclusory determinations, including statements such as you accepted the amount charged and not enough documentation, without identifying what evidence was reviewed, what documentation was required, or how disputes involving custodial or intermediary services were evaluated. \n\nAt least XXXX dispute was closed as XXXX by XXXX despite no intent to withdraw and without any substantive investigation. Other disputes were declined in rapid succession using identical language, demonstrating a pattern of procedural denial rather than a reasonable investigation, contrary to 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ) ( 3 ). \n\nDue to the seriousness of these matters, and in light of the elevated risk environment created by recent data breaches, I took the additional step of filing a police report. XXXX XXXX never requested a copy of this report, never advised that it was required, and never incorporated it into any dispute review prior to declining the claims. The disputes were denied first and only afterward treated as final, effectively preventing the submission of additional documentation. \n\nThis sequence reflects a pre-determined dispute outcome rather than a lawful investigative process and is inconsistent with the Fair Credit Billing Acts requirement that a creditor conduct a reasonable investigation before concluding that no billing error occurred. \n\nFurther, XXXX XXXX handling of these disputes created a chilling effect that discouraged and inhibited me from submitting the remaining disputes within the applicable XXXX billing error window. After repeated premature closures, lack of guidance, and reliance on automated responses, I reasonably believed further submissions would be futile. This conduct interfered with my ability to fully exercise federally protected dispute rights. \n\nI am attaching a transaction summary reflecting the affected charges to demonstrate the scope of disputes impacted by XXXX XXXX dispute-handling practices. \n\nGiven the known data breach environment, the complexity of third-party payment XXXX, and the existence of a police report, I expressly request that this matter receive a manual, substantive investigation by qualified personnel. XXXX verification systems, including e-OSCAR-style processing, are inadequate in these circumstances and do not satisfy the statutory standard of a reasonable investigation. \n\nXXXX XXXX actions appear to constitute procedural non-compliance, not mere disagreement over outcomes, and raise serious concerns regarding whether consumers are being deterred from exercising rights guaranteed under federal law","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-14T07:26:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"23229","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18025271","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-12-14T06:25:03.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of conducting individualized, <em>good</em>-<em>faith</em> investigations as required by federal law, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX boilerplate, conclusory determinations, including statements such as you accepted the amount charged and not enough documentation, <em>without</em> identifying what evidence was reviewed, what documentation was required, or how disputes involving custodial or intermediary services were evaluated."]},"sort":[17.515612,"18025271"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8758670","_score":17.016678,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint Against Bank of America 's Persistent Violations of Enforcement Action ( Reference : XXXX ) I am writing to file a formal complaint against Bank of America regarding their repeated attempts to circumvent the enforcement action issued on XX/XX/XXXX. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America has continuously obstructed the processing of redress as described in the aforementioned enforcement action. \n\nThe enforcement action, which pertains to \" Affected Consumers '' during the Relevant Period from XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX, outlines specific criteria defining those impacted. \" Affected Consumers '' are individuals who qualified for and received government unemployment insurance benefit payments electronically through prepaid debit cards issued by Bank of America, filed a notice of error concerning alleged unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ( EFTs ), and had Bank of America incorrectly determine, solely based on the results of their Fraud Filter, that no error occurred. Consequently, Bank of America denied error claims, reversed granted credits, and froze or blocked affected consumers ' accounts, causing consequential financial harm. \n\nThe core issue arises from Bank of America 's utilization of a faulty Fraud Filter to investigate claims, which was implemented between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Instead of conducting thorough investigations, Bank of America solely relied on this automated process, disregarding established protocols under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E. This change in practice occurred despite the surge in error notices filed by prepaid debit cardholders nationwide in the summer of XXXX. \n\nMoreover, Bank of America failed to address the inadequacies of its Fraud Filter, despite recognizing the potential for erroneous determinations. Internal documentation from XX/XX/XXXX acknowledges the impracticality of solely relying on the Fraud Filter due to the volume of accounts flagged. \n\nThis contravenes the requirements stipulated in Sections 908 and 909 of the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 1693g, and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E, which mandate that upon notification of an error, a financial institution must conduct a thorough investigation and report its findings to the consumer. Bank of America 's deviation from these regulations has led to significant harm inflicted upon affected consumers, constituting a breach of trust and regulatory compliance. \n\n\nThe events outlined in the enforcement action paint a troubling picture of Bank of America 's disregard for the financial well-being of its customers. The decision to automate error resolution investigations through the Fraud Filter, without conducting thorough reviews, has had devastating consequences for many individuals.\n\nConsumers whose accounts were frozen based solely on the Fraud Filter indicators experienced significant delays in accessing their unemployment insurance benefits. These delays led to financial distress, including the accrual of late fees, interest charges, and missed payments on essential bills such as phone and utility bills. Additionally, some consumers faced severe consequences such as foreclosure, eviction, and car repossession due to the prolonged freezing of their accounts. \n\nThe findings and conclusions outlined in the enforcement action highlight Bank of America 's failure to fulfill its obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E. According to these regulations, financial institutions are required to conduct a \" good faith investigation '' and review their own records regarding alleged errors. Bank of America 's reliance on the Fraud Filter alone, without any further investigation or consideration of relevant information, directly contravenes these requirements. \n\nBetween XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America 's use of the Fraud Filter resulted in the automatic determination of no error for approximately XXXX notices of error submitted by Affected Consumers nationwide. This wholesale dismissal of consumer claims without adequate investigation constitutes a clear violation of regulatory standards. \n\nDespite the clear directives outlined in the consent order issued on XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America persists in its non-compliance with regulatory requirements and corrective measures. The provisions set forth in the order explicitly prohibit the bank and its agents from violating Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), as well as Sections 908 and 909 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E. Additionally, affirmative actions were mandated to ensure proper administration of unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cards and accounts. \n\nHowever, it is evident that Bank of America has failed to adhere to these mandates. The bank continues to determine no error solely based on the results of its automated fraud filter, despite explicit instructions to the contrary. Furthermore, accounts are still being frozen solely based on the outcomes of this flawed automated process. \n\nIn direct violation of the consent order, Bank of America has neglected to consider all relevant information during error resolution investigations. Instead, it persists in relying solely on automated procedures, disregarding the importance of reviewing pertinent data within its own records. \n\nMoreover, the bank has not complied with requirements regarding the verification of identity for EDD Cardholders and the facilitation of identity re-verification processes. Access to open EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts is being improperly conditioned, and necessary procedures for identity re-verification have not been adequately established. \n\nAdditionally, Bank of America has failed to conduct a risk assessment of its Prepaid Card Unemployment Insurance Benefits Program, as mandated by the consent order. This failure underscores the bank 's lack of commitment to rectifying systemic issues and mitigating risks associated with the administration of prepaid debit cards. \n\nFurthermore, to the continued violations of the consent order directives, Bank of America 's misconduct extends to its handling of ongoing disputes and account reviews. The disputes initially reported in XX/XX/XXXX were not adequately addressed by the bank, necessitating a reiteration of concerns on XX/XX/XXXX. I personally invested significant time and effort, spending XXXX hours on the phone with representatives to address these unresolved issues. \n\nDespite these efforts, Bank of America 's disregard for regulatory obligations persisted, as evidenced by the freezing of the account on XX/XX/XXXX. Alarmingly, this action occurred even after the account had been closed, indicating a blatant disregard for consumer rights and legal obligations. The bank falsely asserted that the Department of Labor in the State of Maryland had directed them to freeze a closed account due to fraud, a claim vehemently denied by the State of Maryland. This misrepresentation not only undermines the integrity of the enforcement action but also constitutes a clear violation of the bank 's obligations outlined within the consent order. \n\nThe consent order explicitly mandates the provision of redress to Affected Consumers, including compensation for unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ( EFTs ) incorrectly denied through the Fraud Filter and related Consequential Harm. Additionally, an individualized review process is stipulated to allow Affected Consumers to seek further compensation for financial harm exceeding Consequential Harm-related payments. Bank of America 's failure to adhere to these directives, including the provision of accurate and timely redress, further exacerbates the harm inflicted upon consumers and underscores its persistent non-compliance with regulatory requirements. \n\nBank of America 's continued disregard for regulatory directives and consumer rights is deeply concerning and warrants urgent attention from regulatory authorities. Despite the clear mandates outlined in the enforcement action, the bank persists in its non-compliance and acts in a manner that undermines the interests and rights of affected consumers. \n\nThe recent denial of disputes filed in XX/XX/XXXX, as though they were new claims, despite the bank 's acknowledgment of their backdated origin from XXXX, is a clear indication of the bank 's intent to obfuscate and delay the resolution process. This blatant attempt to manipulate the timeline of events to the detriment of affected consumers is unacceptable and should be met with swift and decisive action. \n\nFurthermore, Bank of America 's insistence on requiring affected consumers to submit reconsideration requests in writing, despite their prior knowledge of these disputes and their origins, smacks of retaliation and an attempt to impede the process of obtaining rightful redress. This tactic not only adds unnecessary barriers for affected consumers but also serves to prolong their financial distress and exacerbate the harm caused by the bank 's actions. \n\nMoreover, the bank 's demand for additional information to process claims, despite its knowledge of these disputes and their origin dating back to XXXX, is further evidence of its disregard for consumer rights and regulatory directives. This attempt to burden affected consumers with additional requirements is unjustified and serves only to hinder the timely resolution of their grievances. \n\nIt is imperative that regulatory authorities intervene to ensure that Bank of America fulfills its obligations under the enforcement action and provides timely and appropriate redress to affected consumers. Anything short of this would signal a failure to uphold consumer rights and would embolden financial institutions to flout regulatory requirements with impunity. \n\nIn light of the egregious conduct exhibited by Bank of America, we urge regulatory authorities to take decisive action to hold the bank accountable and ensure that affected consumers receive the redress they are entitled to under the terms of the enforcement action. \n\nThe bank also continues to process claims through an automated process as stated in the audio submit as stated by the representative. Audio has been attached.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-12T09:34:31.000Z","issue":"Unexpected or other fees","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"21117","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8758670","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-04-12T09:03:57.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["According to these regulations, <em>financial</em> <em>institutions</em> are required to conduct a \" <em>good</em> <em>faith</em> investigation '' and review their own records regarding alleged <em>errors</em>. Bank of America 's reliance on the Fraud Filter alone, <em>without</em> any further investigation or consideration of relevant information, directly contravenes these requirements."]},"sort":[17.016678,"8758670"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14903980","_score":16.080288,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint : XXXX XXXX XXXX Delayed Refund & Violations of Purchase Protection and Regulation E.\n\nXX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I paid {$100.00} to merchant via XXXX  ( External Payment ID XXXX ) for [ goods/services ]. The transaction was eligible for XXXX Purchase Protection. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : Upon not receiving the goods/services as promised, I filed a Purchase Protection dispute with XXXX  ( Dispute ID : XXXX ). \n\nXXXX  acknowledged the dispute but did not resolve it. More than 10 business days passed without any refund or final decision. My repeated follow-ups ( through phone, email, or in-app support ) elicited only vague responses that the case was under review or re-escalated, with no concrete timeline or supervisor involvement. XXXX  refused to provide a provisional credit, meaningful status update, or access to a dispute specialist, contrary to its own policy assurances. \n\nLegal and Policy Violations XXXX conduct violates both its Purchase Protection terms and federal law. XXXX dispute process is effectively a request for error resolution under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). As the CFPBs own guidance confirms, any person-to-person ( P2P ) payment that meets the definition of an electronic fund transfer is covered by EFTA and Regulation E . Thus, this XXXX payment qualifies, and XXXX  is legally required to follow Reg Es error-resolution procedures. \n\nRegulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) mandates prompt investigation and resolution of consumer errors. Specifically, a financial institution shall investigate promptly and determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving notice of a dispute, and must notify the consumer of the results within 3 business days thereafter. If an error is confirmed, the institution must correct it ( issue a refund ) within one business day. XXXX  has clearly flouted this requirement : more than ten business days elapsed with no determination, no refund, and no clear communication of results. \n\nXXXX  delay also breaches its own Purchase Protection promises and constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice. In CFPB enforcement actions, PayPal ( XXXX parent company ) was found to have similarly mismanaged disputes. For example, in CFPB v. PayPal ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), XXXX  XXXX alleged that PayPal mishandled billing disputes in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Acts prohibitions on unfair or deceptive acts. That consent order required PayPal to provide {$15.00} XXXX in consumer redress and pay a {$10.00} XXXX civil penalty. XXXX behavior in this case stonewalling a legitimate dispute, ignoring the 10-day deadline, and refusing to escalate echoes the misconduct previously sanctioned by the CFPB. It undermines the very protections Regulation E was designed to provide. Under 12 CFR 1005.11 and the CFPA, XXXX failure to resolve this dispute timely is unlawful and warrants enforcement. \n\nRequest for CFPB Action Pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, I request that the CFPB : Investigate XXXX practices. Examine XXXX handling of this and similar disputes for compliance with Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) and the CFPA. XXXX ongoing failure to apply the 10-business-day error-resolution rule is a regulatory violation. \nEnforce compliance and accountability. Use your enforcement authority to compel XXXX  to comply with federal law and its own Purchase Protection terms. XXXX  must be held accountable for engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts by misrepresenting its dispute process and ignoring statutory deadlines. \n\nSince that date, I have called and/or chatted with XXXX  support every single day, requesting updates and resolution. Despite my ongoing efforts and daily engagement, XXXX  has failed to : Provide a written status update or decision Issue a refund Allow me to speak to a supervisor or dispute specialist Meet the legally required resolution timeframe XXXX  has exceeded the 10-business-day requirement under federal regulation ( Regulation E 12 CFR 1005.11 ) for investigating and responding to electronic fund transfer XXXX Current Excuse : XXXX  has responded that the case is under review and has been re-escalated, but still refuses to provide : A resolution or timeline Any confirmation that a refund is approved or denied Access to a supervisor or internal specialist team Escalation options beyond scripted chat replies This is stonewalling, not customer service. The company has created a closed-loop system with no accountability, which harms consumers and violates federal law. \n\n\n\nRequested Relief : I am asking the CFPB to : Investigate XXXX  pattern of unresolved disputes Enforce compliance with Regulation E Require XXXX  to issue my full {$100.00} refund immediately Impose penalties or other corrective action to prevent future abuse Hold XXXX  accountable for deceptive practices and regulatory violations Supporting Documents Available : Screenshots of XXXX  support chats Payment and dispute confirmation Email/chat logs showing repeated follow-ups Summary : I followed XXXX process exactly as directed. I acted in good faith. XXXX  did not. I ask the CFPB to intervene and stop this pattern of delay, deception, and denial of consumer rights. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-26T21:11:35.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"78613","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14903980","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-07-26T20:42:05.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) mandates prompt investigation and resolution of consumer <em>errors</em>. Specifically, a <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> shall investigate promptly and <em>determine</em> whether an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> within 10 business days of receiving notice of a dispute, and must notify the consumer of the results within 3 business days thereafter. If an <em>error</em> is confirmed, the <em>institution</em> must correct it ( issue a refund ) within one business day."]},"sort":[16.080288,"14903980"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3277402","_score":15.818056,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I want to begin by saying i am making this complaint because of the handling of my 2 other complaints about Card Corporation ( Card.com ) finding no errors after investigations. \n1.Complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Closed company reaccredited my account after reinvestigating they found errors 2.Complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Pending I am filing this complaint because I'm not sure if just filing complaints about companies not reimbursing consumers for unauthorized charges will cause the CFPB to look at the violations against EFTA and Regulation E directly. \nI am asking the CFPB to look at Card.com for violations of Regulation E : Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ). \nThe first dispute filed XX/XX/XXXX complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX relates to the below regulations. \n\nLiability of Consumers for Unauthorized Transfers 12 CFR 1005.6, ( 71 Fed. Reg. 1638, 1653 ( Jan. 10, 2006 ) )., ( Comment 1005.6 ( b ) -3 ) *A consumer may be liable for an unauthorized EFT ( defined in 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) ) depending on when the consumer notifies the financial institution and whether an access device was used to conduct the transaction *The extent of the consumers liability is determined solely by the consumers promptness in notifying the financial institution The second dispute filed XX/XX/XXXX complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX relates to below regulations. \nPreauthorized Transfers 12 CFR 1005.10 ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( b ), ( Comment 1005.10 ( b ) -2 ). \n*Preauthorized transfers from a consumers account may only be authorized by the consumer in writing and signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( b ) ). Signed, written authorizations may be provided electronically, subject to the E-Sign Act ( Comment 1005.10 ( b ) -5 ).  In all cases, the party that obtains the authorization from the consumer must provide a copy to the consumer. If a third party payee fails to obtain an authorization in writing or fails to provide a copy to the consumer, the third party payee and not the financial institution has violated Regulation E (  Comment 1005.10 ( b ) -2 ). \n\n*If a preauthorized transfer from a consumers account varies in amount from the previous transfer under the same authorization or the preauthorized amount, either the financial institution or the designated payee must send to the consumer a written notice, at least 10 days before the scheduled transfer date, of the amount and scheduled date of the transfer ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( d ) ( 1 ) ). The consumer may elect to receive notice only when the amount varies by more than an agreed amount or falls outside a specified range ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( d ) ( 2 ) ). The range must be an acceptable range that the consumer could reasonably anticipate ( Comment 1005.10 ( d ) ( 2 ) -1 ). The financial institution does not violate Regulation E if the payee fails to provide sufficient notice ( Comment 1005.10 ( d ) -1 ). \n\n\n\n\n\nBoth disputes and complaints relates to the below regulation Procedures for Resolving Errors 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ), ( d ) ( 1 & 2 ), ( e ) *If the financial institution determines that no error occurred or that an error occurred in a different manner or amount from that described by the consumer, the financial institution must mail or deliver a written explanation of its findings within three business days after concluding its investigation. The explanation must include a notice of the consumers rights to request the documents upon which the financial institution relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ). \n*Upon debiting a provisionally credited amount, the financial institution must notify the consumer of the date and amount of the debit and of the fact that the financial institution will honor ( without charge ) checks, drafts, or similar paper instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized debits for five business days after transmittal of the notice. The financial institution need honor only items that it would have paid if the provisionally credited funds had not been debited. Upon request from the consumer, the financial institution must promptly mail or deliver to the consumer copies of documents upon which it relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ) ) *If a financial institution has fully complied with the investigation requirements, it generally does not need to reinvestigate if a consumer later reasserts the same error. However, it must investigate a claim of error asserted by a consumer following receipt of information provided pursuant to 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( e ) ). \n\n\n\n\n\n\nMy first complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX was made when after the investigation of dispute file XX/XX/XXXX for unauthorized EFT ( defined in 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) ) was concluded and Card.com determined no error were made and debited my account {$310.00} dollars. \nI did not receive a written explanation of its findings within three business days after concluding its investigation. I have not received a written explanation to date XX/XX/XXXX When I called Card.com on XX/XX/XXXX the next business day after my account was debited I made the request twice to an employee and supervisor fot copies of documents upon which it relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ) ) I have never received any copies or documentation to date 6/27/18 After I sent  Card.com excerpts of the EFTA defining unauthorized EFT and that the proper notice was provided and the fact the Card.com fraud department was the one that originally notified me and then i still notified Card.com verbally and in writing with time consternates of a stolen access device when my access device was not stolen and I wasnt subject to the time constraints I requested verbally and in written request to reinvestigate a claim of error following receipt of information provided pursuant to 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( e ) ). Card.com refused to reinvestigate I then filed a  complaint After CFPB notified Card.com of complaint Card.com promptly reinvestigated claim and found errors they previously could not find and credited my account on XX/XX/XXXX i have received written explanation of the reversal upon finding errors. I received such documentation one on XX/XX/XXXX post marked XX/XX/XXXX date on letter XX/XX/XXXX confirming credit of {$20.00} then i received a second letter on XX/XX/XXXX post marked XX/XX/XXXX and date on letter XX/XX/XXXX confirming 6 more credits after reversal of decision. \nOn a dispute claim previously investigated and finding no errors they miraculously found 6 errors. They site through additional information i provided. I provided Card.com : 1.information from  EFTA 2.A police report that wasn't required 3.Sworn statement of fact swearing i did not authorize the charges On XX/XX/XXXX my former Electrical provider debited my account for {$620.00} with out my consent, authorization or preauthorization. I switch service to another provider on XX/XX/XXXX due to being unable to pay my bill after Card.com deducted {$310.00} for my account which was earmarked for electric bill. I could not get ahold of my provider XXXX XXXX  after charge was made. \n\nI filed a dispute with Card.com on XX/XX/XXXX for unauthorized EFT ( defined in 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) )  and/or not giving consent for preauthorization. I explained in order to pay my bill I have register my debt card but always used it for 1 time payment and never authorized {$620.00} at any time. I waited until XX/XX/XXXX to call Card.com on XX/XX/XXXX ( 10 business days ) I wanted to know why I havent received a credit for {$620.00} and was that investigation was concluded and no errors were found. Stated the merchant verified the charge.I have spoken with the first employee, her supervisor, a manager and emailed XXXX XXXX Operations Manager, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX had a anther woman call me and leave a message. Everyone I have spoken to or left a message repeat the same information as if they are reading a script. Card.com has investigated your claim and no errors have been found and that decision is final.and a written explanation has been sent Its XX/XX/XXXX and I have not received a written explanation as required i have requested to each person and in email for copies of documents upon which it relied in making its determination ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ) ). \n\nI have been in contact with the merchant whom made the charge. They are claim I signed up for XXXX recurring payments. I told them your saying I set up for recurring payment during the same phone call of which i was refused help when I couldn't afford the amount due and then informed you I would need to switch service providers. Your claiming I signed for a recurring payment with a company I was no longer a customer with? I have asked for copies of XXXXXXXX XXXX signed written consent for preauthorization to debit my account. They dont have such document. But I shouldnt of had to ask for that documentation. Would that not be included in Card.com good faith investigation? \n\nI have made Card.com aware of Everything I stated in this complaint and they still refuse to follow the EFTA and Regulation E rules and regulations. I can only conclude I an not an isolated case. They have not followed the minimum requirements of the before mention regulation on separate disputes with in a 30day window. I would be willing to bet they are conducting their investigations in such a manner with every dispute. I shudder to imagine how may of their customer have not been reimbursed for charges they are rightful due under the protection of the EFTA. \n\n\nI have attached saved pages from my XXXX XXXX account the payment methode page showing the cards i ha register when making payments the XXXX page blank because i never set it up if i had set it up my information would be filled in I sent my billing history showing every payment ever made was ontime payment except the final that is recuring The final bill i saved from their site because i was never sent one. it show the payment method as XXXX and payment made on XX/XX/XXXX even thought payment wasnt due until XX/XX/XXXX i never thought my habit of not paying bills on time would be helpful but look at the billing history i sent and ask yourself is paying his bill 5 days early something my history supports? \nI was able to find out XXXX had no written consent get copies of my account documents with in 3 hours on a saturday why couldnt Card.com get it in 10 days","date_sent_to_company":"2019-06-17T13:40:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"75180","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3277402","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARD Corporation","date_received":"2019-06-17T12:39:17.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Both disputes and complaints relates to the below regulation Procedures for Resolving <em>Errors</em> 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ), ( d ) ( 1 & 2 ), ( e ) *If the <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> <em>determines</em> that no <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> or that an <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> in a different manner or amount from that described by the consumer, the <em>financial</em> <em>institution</em> must mail or deliver a written explanation of its findings within three business days after concluding its investigation."]},"sort":[15.818056,"3277402"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8764612","_score":15.758723,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against Bank of America for its repeated attempts to circumvent an enforcement action issued on XX/XX/XXXX. Despite the stipulations outlined in the enforcement action, Bank of America has persistently obstructed the processing of redress described therein, resulting in significant financial harm to affected consumers. \n\nThe enforcement action defines \" Affected Consumers '' as individuals who, during the Relevant Period ( XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX ), met specific criteria related to government unemployment insurance benefit payments. These criteria include qualifying for and receiving such benefits electronically through prepaid debit cards issued by Bank of America, filing a notice of error concerning alleged unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ( EFTs ), and experiencing account freezes or blocks due to Bank of America 's erroneous determinations made solely based on its Fraud Filter. \n\nThe enforcement action explicitly states that when notified of an error, financial institutions must conduct a good-faith investigation to determine its validity, as per the requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E. However, Bank of America 's implementation of an automated XXXX XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, led to the automatic denial of error claims and subsequent freezing of accounts for affected consumers, without conducting the necessary investigation as mandated by law. \n\nFurthermore, the enforcement action imposes specific obligations on Bank of America regarding redress for affected consumers. It stipulates that within XXXX  days of the Effective Date, Bank of America must submit a comprehensive written plan for providing redress consistent with the Consent Order. This plan must include methodologies for identifying affected consumers, procedures for remediation, and a description of the individualized review process for seeking additional redress compensation. \n\nDespite these requirements, Bank of America has failed to communicate any intentions to provide redress to affected consumers or submit a comprehensive plan for review. This failure represents a clear violation of the terms outlined in the enforcement action and deprives affected consumers of the redress they are entitled to. \n\nMoreover, Bank of America 's actions have led to significant consequential harm for affected consumers. Consequential harm is defined within the enforcement action as the financial harm incurred due to the freezing or blocking of accounts after Bank of America incorrectly determined that no error occurred, based solely on the results of its XXXX XXXX. \n\nI can attest to the consequential harm I personally experienced as a result of Bank of America 's actions. In XXXX, my XXXX  insurance benefit prepaid debit card account was frozen, leading to late fees, interest charges, and missed payments on other accounts. Additionally, I incurred financial impacts such as foreclosure, eviction, and car repossession. \n\nBank of America 's persistent violations of the corrective action ordered in the enforcement action are evident in its continued obstruction of redress and failure to conduct reasonable error resolution investigations. This is exemplified by the bank 's recent demand for additional information related to disputes filed in XX/XX/XXXX, despite these claims originating in XXXX. Such actions amount to retaliation aimed at delaying the redress process and deterring affected consumers from seeking the financial compensation they are owed. \n\nI have enclosed evidence of my communications with local representatives and state officials, as well as screenshots of my unemployment insurance account, demonstrating the direct financial harm inflicted by Bank of America 's actions. \n\nAs an affected consumer, I wish to draw attention to the Bank of America 's failure to comply with a crucial stipulation outlined in the enforcement action. According to the terms, within XXXX  days of the Effective Date, the Respondent was obligated to submit a comprehensive written plan for providing redress to affected consumers, consistent with the XXXX XXXX. However, I have not received any communication from the bank regarding their intention to provide redress, nor have I been informed of any such plan being submitted to the XXXX XXXX for review. \n\nTo substantiate my claim, I have enclosed several conversations that transpired between myself and local representatives, including XXXX XXXX XXXX, former XXXX XXXX for the XXXX District of XXXX. These email exchanges detail my efforts to seek assistance in mitigating the damage caused by Bank of America 's use of the faulty XXXX XXXX to process my claims. Furthermore, correspondence with state officials, including XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, reflects the interventions required to unfreeze my unemployment benefits following the erroneous actions of Bank of America. \n\nMoreover, I am seeking consequential harm payments as outlined in the enforcement action. Consequential harm refers to the financial detriment incurred by affected consumers due to the freezing or blocking of their XXXX  insurance benefit prepaid debit card accounts based on the erroneous determinations of Bank of America 's XXXX XXXX. I have submitted screenshots of my XXXX XXXX insurance account, indicating an overpayment totaling {$12000.00}, directly attributable to the actions taken by Bank of America. This amount represents the financial harm inflicted upon me as a result of the bank 's failure to accurately process my claims and its subsequent freezing of my account. \n\nIt is imperative that Bank of America rectify its mishandling of my claims and calculate the remaining claims reported in XXXX accurately. The bank 's removal of transactions under the guise of duplicate entries further compounds the injustice suffered by affected consumers. \n\nIn light of the evidence presented, I urge regulatory authorities to hold Bank of America accountable for its non-compliance with the enforcement action and ensure that affected consumers receive the redress they are entitled to under the terms of the XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-13T09:46:30.000Z","issue":"Unexpected or other fees","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"21117","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8764612","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-04-13T09:19:18.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The enforcement action explicitly states that when notified of an <em>error</em>, <em>financial</em> <em>institutions</em> must conduct a <em>good</em>-<em>faith</em> investigation to <em>determine</em> its validity, as per the requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E."]},"sort":[15.758723,"8764612"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3793986","_score":15.439603,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"JP Morgan Chase employees refused to fix or address the issues honestly and timely as the law required. so please show proof that a response in writing for the issue I sent a letter on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nDodd Frank resolution section says if you do not respond in 30 days all interest in my property by your bank is lost for breach of rules and laws. XXXX my records show no such response by you. ) I want proof you complied with the law. ( on both dates ) you are required to give said proof by Dodd Frank and RESPA. My evidence shows proof you did not comply with any requirements of RESPA or Dodd Frank.\n\nDODD FRANK AND RESPA REFERENCES Pyramiding late fees refers to a creditor 's practice of imposing a late fee when a  consumer sends a timely payment in an amount sufficient to cover the regularly scheduled payment but insufficient to cover a prior unpaid late or delinquency fee. If the creditor allocates payments first to late fees, the consumer 's payment only partially covers the currently scheduled payment, resulting in a new late fee. If the consumer continues to pay only the scheduled payment, late fees will continually be assessed ( hence, the phrase pyramiding of late fees ). Section 226.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) requires that if a consumer sends a timely payment sufficient to cover the currently scheduled payment, the creditor can not assess late fees.\n\nError resolution and information requests ( 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule ). Servicers are required to meet certain procedural requirements for responding to written information requests or complaints of errors. The rule requires servicers to comply with the error resolution procedures for certain listed errors as well as any error relating to the servicing of a mortgage loan. Servicers may designate a specific address for borrowers to use. Servicers generally are required to acknowledge the request or notice of error within five days. Servicers also generally are required to correct the error asserted by the borrower and provide the borrower written notification of the correction, or to conduct an investigation and provide the borrower written notification that no error occurred, within 30 to 45 days. Further, within a similar amount of time, servicers generally are required to acknowledge borrower written requests for information and either provide the information or explain why the information is not available.\n\nDispute resolution section of the Dodd Frank act ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\nsection 1463 ( a ) of the Dodd-Frank Act adds section 6 ( k ) ( 1 ) ( E ) to RESPA, which provides that a servicer of a federally related mortgage loan must comply with any other obligation found by the [ Bureau ], by regulation, to be appropriate to carry out the consumer protection purposes of this Act. [ 41 ] This provision provides the Bureau authority to establish prohibitions on servicers of federally related mortgage loans appropriate to carry out the consumer protection purposes of RESPA. As discussed below, in light of the systemic problems in the mortgage servicing industry discussed above, the Bureau is exercising this authority in this rule making to implement protections for borrowers with respect to mortgage servicing.\n\n1026.13 Billing error resolution.\n\n( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures. ( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period ; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice.\n\n( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable ; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.\n\n( g ) Creditor 's rights and duties after resolution. If a creditor, after complying with all of the requirements of this section, determines that a consumer owes all or part of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, the creditor : ( 1 ) Shall promptly notify the consumer in writing of the time when payment is due and the portion of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges that the consumer still owes ; ( 2 ) Shall allow any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable, during which the consumer can pay the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section without incurring additional finance or other charges ; ( 3 ) May report an account or amount as delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section remains unpaid after the creditor has allowed any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable or 10 days ( whichever is longer ) during which the consumer can pay the amount ; but ( 4 ) May not report that an amount or account is delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of the section remains unpaid, if the creditor receives ( within the time allowed for payment in paragraph ( g ) ( 3 ) of this section ) further written notice from the consumer that any portion of the billing error is still in dispute, unless the creditor also : ( i ) Promptly reports that the amount or account is in dispute ; ( ii ) Mails or delivers to the consumer ( at the same time the report is made ) a written notice of the name and address of each person to whom the creditor makes a report ; and ( iii ) Promptly reports any subsequent resolution of the reported delinquency to all persons to whom the creditor has made a report.\n\n( h ) Reassertion of billing error. A creditor that has fully complied with the requirements of this section has no further responsibilities under this section ( other than as provided in paragraph ( g ) ( 4 ) of this section ) if a consumer reasserts substantially the same billing error.\n\n( i ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. If an extension of credit is incident to an electronic fund transfer, under an agreement between a consumer and a financial institution to extend credit when the consumer 's account is overdrawn or to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account, the creditor shall comply with the requirements of Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11 governing error resolution rather than those of paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), ( c ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( h ) of this section.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-08-13T16:39:00.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"37716","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3793986","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2020-08-13T15:08:36.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( e ) Procedures if billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted. If a creditor <em>determines</em> that a billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing <em>error</em> and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable ; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing <em>error</em> or no billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>."]},"sort":[15.439603,"3793986"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7381806","_score":15.429494,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX Billing error resolution.\n\n( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 1 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not made to the consumer or to a person who has actual, implied, or apparent authority to use the consumer 's credit card or open-end credit plan.\n\n( 2 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not identified in accordance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( a ) ( 2 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ), as applicable, and 1026.8.\n\n( 3 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit for property or services not accepted by the consumer or the consumer 's designee, or not delivered to the consumer or the consumer 's designee as agreed.\n\n( 4 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account.\n\n( 5 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of a computational or similar error of an accounting nature that is made by the creditor.\n\n( 6 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence.\n\n( 7 ) The creditor 's failure to mail or deliver a periodic statement to the consumer 's last known address if that address was received by the creditor, in writing, at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement was required.\n\n( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( 2 ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( 3 ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error.\n\n( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures.\n\n( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice.\n\n( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.\n\n( g ) Creditor 's rights and duties after resolution. If a creditor, after complying with all of the requirements of this section, determines that a consumer owes all or part of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, the creditor : ( 1 ) Shall promptly notify the consumer in writing of the time when payment is due and the portion of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges that the consumer still owes ; ( 2 ) Shall allow any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable, during which the consumer can pay the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section without incurring additional finance or other charges ; ( 3 ) May report an account or amount as delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section remains unpaid after the creditor has allowed any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable or 10 days ( whichever is longer ) during which the consumer can pay the amount ; but ( 4 ) May not report that an amount or account is delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of the section remains unpaid, if the creditor receives ( within the time allowed for payment in paragraph ( g ) ( 3 ) of this section ) further written notice from the consumer that any portion of the billing error is still in dispute, unless the creditor also : ( i ) Promptly reports that the amount or account is in dispute ; ( ii ) Mails or delivers to the consumer ( at the same time the report is made ) a written notice of the name and address of each person to whom the creditor makes a report ; and ( iii ) Promptly reports any subsequent resolution of the reported delinquency to all persons to whom the creditor has made a report.\n\n( h ) Reassertion of billing error. A creditor that has fully complied with the requirements of this section has no further responsibilities under this section ( other than as provided in paragraph ( g ) ( 4 ) of this section ) if a consumer reasserts substantially the same billing error.\n\n( i ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. A creditor shall comply with the requirements of Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11, and 1005.18 ( e ) as applicable, governing error resolution rather than those of paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), ( c ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( h ) of this section if : ( 1 ) Except with respect to a prepaid account as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs under an agreement between the consumer and a financial institution to extend credit when the consumer 's account is overdrawn or to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account ; or ( XXXX ) With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature of a prepaid account where both are accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in XXXX, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs when the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses both funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account and a credit extension from the credit feature with respect to a particular transaction.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-11T02:19:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7381806","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-08-11T02:19:07.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( e ) Procedures if billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted. If a creditor <em>determines</em> that a billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing <em>error</em> and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing <em>error</em> or no billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[15.429494,"7381806"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7381805","_score":15.429413,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX Billing error resolution.\n\n( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 1 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not made to the consumer or to a person who has actual, implied, or apparent authority to use the consumer 's credit card or open-end credit plan.\n\n( 2 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not identified in accordance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( a ) ( 2 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ), as applicable, and 1026.8.\n\n( 3 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit for property or services not accepted by the consumer or the consumer 's designee, or not delivered to the consumer or the consumer 's designee as agreed.\n\n( 4 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account.\n\n( 5 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of a computational or similar error of an accounting nature that is made by the creditor.\n\n( 6 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence.\n\n( 7 ) The creditor 's failure to mail or deliver a periodic statement to the consumer 's last known address if that address was received by the creditor, in writing, at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement was required.\n\n( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( 2 ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( 3 ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error.\n\n( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures.\n\n( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice.\n\n( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.\n\n( g ) Creditor 's rights and duties after resolution. If a creditor, after complying with all of the requirements of this section, determines that a consumer owes all or part of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, the creditor : ( 1 ) Shall promptly notify the consumer in writing of the time when payment is due and the portion of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges that the consumer still owes ; ( 2 ) Shall allow any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable, during which the consumer can pay the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section without incurring additional finance or other charges ; ( 3 ) May report an account or amount as delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section remains unpaid after the creditor has allowed any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable or 10 days ( whichever is longer ) during which the consumer can pay the amount ; but ( 4 ) May not report that an amount or account is delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of the section remains unpaid, if the creditor receives ( within the time allowed for payment in paragraph ( g ) ( 3 ) of this section ) further written notice from the consumer that any portion of the billing error is still in dispute, unless the creditor also : ( i ) Promptly reports that the amount or account is in dispute ; ( ii ) Mails or delivers to the consumer ( at the same time the report is made ) a written notice of the name and address of each person to whom the creditor makes a report ; and ( iii ) Promptly reports any subsequent resolution of the reported delinquency to all persons to whom the creditor has made a report.\n\n( h ) Reassertion of billing error. A creditor that has fully complied with the requirements of this section has no further responsibilities under this section ( other than as provided in paragraph ( g ) ( 4 ) of this section ) if a consumer reasserts substantially the same billing error.\n\n( i ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. A creditor shall comply with the requirements of Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11, and 1005.18 ( e ) as applicable, governing error resolution rather than those of paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), ( c ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( h ) of this section if : ( 1 ) Except with respect to a prepaid account as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs under an agreement between the consumer and a financial institution to extend credit when the consumer 's account is overdrawn or to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account ; or ( 2 ) With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature of a prepaid account where both are accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in XXXX, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs when the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses both funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account and a credit extension from the credit feature with respect to a particular transaction.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-11T02:19:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7381805","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-08-11T02:19:07.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( e ) Procedures if billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted. If a creditor <em>determines</em> that a billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing <em>error</em> and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing <em>error</em> or no billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[15.429413,"7381805"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7339839","_score":15.2829,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Capital One and XXXX continue to report a charged off account. Under federal law any consumer account that incurs a finance charge should be reimbursed to me the consumer withing 7 days upon the written request of the consumer. I have request Capital One to send my payment and I have not received it. \n\nCapital One is not allowed to collect on a discharged debt. Per the IRS once a debt is discharged it is considered a certificate of indebtedness which is income and income can not be reported to the reporting agencies. \n\nIn Capital One terms and conditions they agreed not to share my information with non affiliates unless it was the credit bureaus, The only credit bureau recognized by the government is the CFPB and they do not furnish credit report. \n\nXXXX, XXXX, and XXXX are independent companies with no affiliation to Capital One thus Capital One is breaking privacy laws by releasing my non public information.\n\n1026.11 Treatment of credit balances ; account termination.\n\n( a ) Credit balances. When a credit balance in excess of {$1.00} is created on a credit account ( through transmittal of funds to a creditor in excess of the total balance due on an account, through rebates of unearned finance charges or insurance premiums, or through amounts otherwise owed to or held for the benefit of the consumer ), the creditor shall : ( 1 ) Credit the amount of the credit balance to the consumer 's account ; ( 2 ) Refund any part of the remaining credit balance within seven business days from receipt of a written request from the consumer ; ( 3 ) Make a good faith effort to refund to the consumer by cash, check, or money order, or credit to a deposit account of the consumer, any part of the credit balance remaining in the account for more than six months. No further action is required if the consumer 's current location is not known to the creditor and can not be traced through the consumer 's last known address or telephone number.\n\n1026.13 Billing error resolution. \n( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 1 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not made to the consumer or to a person who has actual, implied, or apparent authority to use the consumer 's credit card or open-end credit plan. ( 2 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not identified in accor\ndance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( a ) ( 2 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ), as applicable, and 1026.8.\n\n( 3 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit for property or services not accepted by the consumer or the consumer 's designee, or not delivered to the consumer or the consumer 's designee as agreed.\n\n( 4 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account.\n\n( 5 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of a computational or similar error of an accounting nature that is made by the creditor.\n\n( 6 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence.\n\n( 7 ) The creditor 's failure to mail or deliver a periodic statement to the consumer 's last known address if that address was received by the creditor, in writing, at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement was required.\n\n( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( 2 ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( 3 ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error.\n\n( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures.\n\n( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice.\n\n( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.\n\n( g ) Creditor 's rights and duties after resolution. If a creditor, after complying with all of the requirements of this section, determines that a consumer owes all or part of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, the creditor : ( 1 ) Shall promptly notify the consumer in writing of the time when payment is due and the portion of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges that the consumer still owes ; ( 2 ) Shall allow any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable, during which the consumer can pay the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section without incurring additional finance or other charges ; ( 3 ) May report an account or amount as delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section remains unpaid after the creditor has allowed any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable or 10 days ( whichever is longer ) during which the consumer can pay the amount ; but ( 4 ) May not report that an amount or account is delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of the section remains unpaid, if the creditor receives ( within the time allowed for payment in paragraph ( g ) ( 3 ) of this section ) further written notice from the consumer that any portion of the billing error is still in dispute, unless the creditor also : ( i ) Promptly reports that the amount or account is in dispute ; ( ii ) Mails or delivers to the consumer ( at the same time the report is made ) a written notice of the name and address of each person to whom the creditor makes a report ; and ( iii ) Promptly reports any subsequent resolution of the reported delinquency to all persons to whom the creditor has made a report.\n\n( h ) Reassertion of billing error. A creditor that has fully complied with the requirements of this section has no further responsibilities under this section ( other than as provided in paragraph ( g ) ( 4 ) of this section ) if a consumer reasserts substantially the same billing error.\n\n( i ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. A creditor shall comply with the requirements of Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11, and 1005.18 ( e ) as applicable, governing error resolution rather than those of paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), ( c ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( h ) of this section if : ( 1 ) Except with respect to a prepaid account as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs under an agreement between the consumer and a financial institution to extend credit when the consumer 's account is overdrawn or to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account ; or ( 2 ) With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature of a prepaid account where both are accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs when the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses both funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account and a credit extension from the credit feature with respect to a particular transaction.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-03T02:31:49.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7339839","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-08-03T02:10:06.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( e ) Procedures if billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted. If a creditor <em>determines</em> that a billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing <em>error</em> and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing <em>error</em> or no billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>."],"company":["CAPITAL ONE <em>FINANCIAL</em> CORPORATION"],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[15.2829,"7339839"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7339576","_score":15.263006,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX and Equifax continue to report a charged off account. Under federal law any consumer account that incurs a finance charge should be reimbursed to me the consumer withing 7 days upon the written request of the consumer. I have request XXXX XXXX to send my payment and I have not received it. \n\nXXXX XXXX is not allowed to collect on a discharged debt. Per the IRS once a debt is discharged it is considered a certificate of indebtedness which is income and income can not be reported to the reporting agencies. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX terms and conditions they agreed not to share my information with non affiliates unless it was the credit bureaus, The only credit bureau recognized by the government is the CFPB and they do not furnish credit report. \n\nEquifax, XXXX, and XXXX are independent companies with no affiliation to XXXX XXXX thus XXXX XXXX is breaking privacy laws by releasing my non public information. \n1026.11 Treatment of credit balances ; account termination. \n( a ) Credit balances. When a credit balance in excess of {$1.00} is created on a credit account ( through transmittal of funds to a creditor in excess of the total balance due on an account, through rebates of unearned finance charges or insurance premiums, or through amounts otherwise owed to or held for the benefit of the consumer ), the creditor shall : ( 1 ) Credit the amount of the credit balance to the consumer 's account ; ( 2 ) Refund any part of the remaining credit balance within seven business days from receipt of a written request from the consumer ; ( 3 ) Make a good faith effort to refund to the consumer by cash, check, or money order, or credit to a deposit account of the consumer, any part of the credit balance remaining in the account for more than six months. No further action is required if the consumer 's current location is not known to the creditor and can not be traced through the consumer 's last known address or telephone number. \n1026.13 Billing error resolution. \n( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 1 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not made to the consumer or to a person who has actual, implied, or apparent authority to use the consumer 's credit card or open-end credit plan.\n\n( 2 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit that is not identified in accordance with the requirements of 1026.7 ( a ) ( 2 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ), as applicable, and 1026.8.\n\n( 3 ) A reflection on or with a periodic statement of an extension of credit for property or services not accepted by the consumer or the consumer 's designee, or not delivered to the consumer or the consumer 's designee as agreed.\n\n( 4 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account.\n\n( 5 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of a computational or similar error of an accounting nature that is made by the creditor.\n\n( 6 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence.\n\n( 7 ) The creditor 's failure to mail or deliver a periodic statement to the consumer 's last known address if that address was received by the creditor, in writing, at least 20 days before the end of the billing cycle for which the statement was required.\n\n( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( 2 ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( 3 ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error.\n\n( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures.\n\n( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice.\n\n( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or other charges if a billing error notice is received any time up to 3 business days before the scheduled payment date.\n\n( 2 ) Adverse credit reports prohibited. The creditor or its agent shall not ( directly or indirectly ) make or threaten to make an adverse report to any person about the consumer 's credit standing, or report that an amount or account is delinquent, because the consumer failed to pay the disputed amount or related finance or other charges.\n\n( 3 ) Acceleration of debt and restriction of account prohibited. A creditor shall not accelerate any part of the consumer 's indebtedness or restrict or close a consumer 's account solely because the consumer has exercised in good faith rights provided by this section. A creditor may be subject to the forfeiture penalty under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( e ) for failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section.\n\n( 4 ) Permitted creditor actions. A creditor is not prohibited from taking action to collect any undisputed portion of the item or bill ; from deducting any disputed amount and related finance or other charges from the consumer 's credit limit on the account ; or from reflecting a disputed amount and related finance or other charges on a periodic statement, provided that the creditor indicates on or with the periodic statement that payment of any disputed amount and related finance or other charges is not required pending the creditor 's compliance with this section.\n\n( e ) Procedures if billing error occurred as asserted. If a creditor determines that a billing error occurred as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing error or no billing error occurred. If, after conducting a reasonable investigation, a creditor determines that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted, the creditor shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Mail or deliver to the consumer an explanation that sets forth the reasons for the creditor 's belief that the billing error alleged by the consumer is incorrect in whole or in part ; ( 2 ) Furnish copies of documentary evidence of the consumer 's indebtedness, if the consumer so requests ; and ( 3 ) If a different billing error occurred, correct the billing error and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable.\n\n( g ) Creditor 's rights and duties after resolution. If a creditor, after complying with all of the requirements of this section, determines that a consumer owes all or part of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges, the creditor : ( 1 ) Shall promptly notify the consumer in writing of the time when payment is due and the portion of the disputed amount and related finance or other charges that the consumer still owes ; ( 2 ) Shall allow any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable, during which the consumer can pay the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section without incurring additional finance or other charges ; ( 3 ) May report an account or amount as delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of this section remains unpaid after the creditor has allowed any time period disclosed under 1026.6 ( a ) ( 1 ) or ( b ) ( 2 ) ( v ), as applicable, and 1026.7 ( a ) ( 8 ) or ( b ) ( 8 ), as applicable or 10 days ( whichever is longer ) during which the consumer can pay the amount ; but ( 4 ) May not report that an amount or account is delinquent because the amount due under paragraph ( g ) ( 1 ) of the section remains unpaid, if the creditor receives ( within the time allowed for payment in paragraph ( g ) ( 3 ) of this section ) further written notice from the consumer that any portion of the billing error is still in dispute, unless the creditor also : ( i ) Promptly reports that the amount or account is in dispute ; ( ii ) Mails or delivers to the consumer ( at the same time the report is made ) a written notice of the name and address of each person to whom the creditor makes a report ; and ( iii ) Promptly reports any subsequent resolution of the reported delinquency to all persons to whom the creditor has made a report.\n\n( h ) Reassertion of billing error. A creditor that has fully complied with the requirements of this section has no further responsibilities under this section ( other than as provided in paragraph ( g ) ( 4 ) of this section ) if a consumer reasserts substantially the same billing error.\n\n( i ) Relation to Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. A creditor shall comply with the requirements of Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11, and 1005.18 ( e ) as applicable, governing error resolution rather than those of paragraphs ( a ), ( b ), ( c ), ( e ), ( f ), and ( h ) of this section if : ( 1 ) Except with respect to a prepaid account as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs under an agreement between the consumer and a financial institution to extend credit when the consumer 's account is overdrawn or to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account ; or ( 2 ) With regard to a covered separate credit feature and an asset feature of a prepaid account where both are accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in 1026.61, an extension of credit that is incident to an electronic fund transfer occurs when the hybrid prepaid-credit card accesses both funds in the asset feature of the prepaid account and a credit extension from the credit feature with respect to a particular transaction.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-03T02:31:56.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7339576","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-08-03T02:31:53.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( e ) Procedures if billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted. If a creditor <em>determines</em> that a billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em> as asserted, it shall within the time limits in paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section : ( 1 ) Correct the billing <em>error</em> and credit the consumer 's account with any disputed amount and related finance or other charges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n( f ) Procedures if different billing <em>error</em> or no billing <em>error</em> <em>occurred</em>."],"sub_issue":["Their investigation did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[15.263006,"7339576"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":112,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":112}]}},"product":{"doc_count":112,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":55,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":55}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":14,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":13},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":4},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":5},{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":5,"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":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other advances of future income","doc_count":1},{"key":"Payday loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":112,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":35,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":24},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":8},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":17,"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":17}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":9,"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":5},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":2},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":6,"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":6}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":3},{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":3},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":4,"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":4}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company explaining amount owed","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Unexpected or other fees","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Communication tactics","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Frequent or repeated calls","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing, 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":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Confusing or missing disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"You never received your bill or did not know a payment was due","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems receiving the advance","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":112,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":110},{"key":"No","doc_count":2}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":112,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":77},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":32},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":112,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":112}]}},"company":{"doc_count":112,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":19},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":18},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":17},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":7},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":6},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":3},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":2},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":2},{"key":"KEYCORP","doc_count":2},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Avant Holding Company, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARD Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"COMMERCE BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foris DAX, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"MoneySpot USA LLC DBA Sunshine Loans","doc_count":1},{"key":"OFG BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rosebud Economic Development Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"Sentry Credit, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Spring Oaks Capital, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Westlake Services, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":112,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"PA","doc_count":29},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":18},{"key":"GA","doc_count":10},{"key":"FL","doc_count":9},{"key":"TX","doc_count":8},{"key":"MI","doc_count":6},{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"MD","doc_count":4},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"TN","doc_count":3},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":2},{"key":"LA","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"NE","doc_count":2},{"key":"WA","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"PR","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":112,"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":49},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":112,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[15.267754,"7339576"],"3":[14.168199,"7509328"],"4":[13.307793,"15475774"],"5":[9.139967,"10988193"]}}}