{"took":287,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":106,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21488355","_score":17.789827,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against Bank of America regarding their failure to protect me as a client and their inadequate investigation of my dispute ( Claim No. XXXX, Amount : {$2900.00} ). \n\nAccording to the banks decision dated XX/XX/XXXX, my claim was denied on the basis that : The service was not canceled according to the merchants policy Verbal promises are not considered a billing error This conclusion is deeply concerning and demonstrates that the bank did not properly investigate or protect me as their client. \n\nThis case is not simply about a verbal promise. It involves : Service not rendered Misrepresentation by the merchant Contradicting statements from the merchant Documented timeline and communication inconsistencies On XX/XX/XXXX, I was contacted directly by the merchants office ( associated with XXXX XXXX ). During this call, I was subjected to pressure and inappropriate communication, and I was explicitly told that I should cancel and would receive a refund if I was not comfortable proceeding. \n\nThis was not initiated by me. The office called me and directed the outcome. Their later claim that I contacted them voluntarily on a holiday is false. \n\nDespite providing detailed explanations and supporting information, Bank of America dismissed my claim without properly addressing : The fact that no service was rendered The conflicting narrative provided by the merchant The circumstances of the XX/XX/XXXX call, including pressure and misleading guidance The need to verify communication records, call logs, and timelines Instead, the bank relied solely on the merchants documentation and ignored the broader context of the dispute.\n\nAs a client, I rely on my bank to : Act in good faith Conduct a fair and thorough investigation Protect me from deceptive or unfair business practices In this case, the bank did not meet those expectations.\n\nSimply stating that verbal promises are not considered a billing error is not sufficient when the dispute clearly involves misrepresentation and a service that was never provided.\n\nI am requesting that : This claim be reopened and escalated for a full and impartial investigation All submitted documentation be reviewed thoroughly, not selectively The bank verify call records and communication timelines from XX/XX/XXXX The bank reassess this case under the appropriate dispute category, including services not rendered and misrepresentation I expect Bank of America to fulfill its responsibility to protect its clients and not default to the merchants position without proper scrutiny. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ensure that this matter is reviewed appropriately and that my rights as a consumer are upheld. \n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T16:56:24.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33021","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21488355","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-04-22T16:35:00.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a client, I rely on my bank to : Act in good faith Conduct a <em>fair</em> and thorough investigation Protect me from deceptive or unfair business practices In this case, the bank did not meet those expectations.\n\nSimply stating that verbal promises are not considered a billing <em>error</em> is not sufficient when the dispute clearly <em>involves</em> misrepresentation and a service that was never provided."]},"sort":[17.789827,"21488355"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21861711","_score":17.67748,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Improper denial of billing dispute services not rendered & failure to conduct reasonable investigation under federal law Summary of Complaint I am filing this complaint regarding Capital Ones handling of a billing dispute involving a merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis is not a standard disputethis involves services never rendered and deceptive business practices by the merchant, combined with Capital Ones failure to properly investigate and reclassify the dispute after being notified of an error. \nDespite multiple phone calls explaining that my original dispute classification was incorrect, Capital One refused to reconsider and is now holding me financially responsible for services that were never provided. \n\nTimeline of Events XX/XX/year> I received a Binding Moving Estimate from XXXX XXXX XXXX The company presented itself as a full-service moving company, including transportation, loading, and delivery I paid a deposit based on this representation XX/XX/year> ( Prior to Scheduled Move ) My inventory and unit size never changed from the original estimate XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX Never scheduled a pickup Never assigned a carrier Never transported my belongings I attempted to cancel the service The company failed to : Confirm cancellation Provide documentation Follow proper cancellation procedures Move Date Passed No services were performed I was forced to : -Rent a truck -Pay for lodging -Complete the move independently Initial Dispute with Capital One -I filed a dispute, but it was categorized incorrectly -I immediately contacted Capital One multiple times to clarify : XXXXThis is a services not rendered case, not a standard dispute -The merchant performed zero services Follow-Up Calls with Capital One I repeatedly explained : -No pickup occurred -No mover was assigned -No transportation happened I also informed them that : The merchants conduct appears to violate Florida law governing moving brokers Despite this, Capital One : -Refused to properly reclassify the dispute, even though multiple agents agreed and helped with documents -Failed to meaningfully consider the updated information -Closed the case against me Merchant Violations ( Legal Context ) XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct appears to violate Florida Statute XXXX ( Moving Brokers ), including : Misrepresenting themselves as a moving company rather than a broker Providing a binding estimate including full move costs, which brokers are prohibited from doing Failing to clearly disclose their broker status prior to payment Failing to arrange a licensed carrier Additionally, this conduct constitutes deceptive and unfair trade practices. \n\nCapital Ones Failures ( Federal Law ) Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z, Capital One is required to : Conduct a reasonable investigation of billing disputes Correct billing errors involving : Charges for services not rendered Consider all relevant information provided by the consumer Capital One failed to meet these obligations by : Ignoring repeated notifications that the dispute was misclassified Failing to re-evaluate the claim under the correct category Disregarding evidence that no services were provided Holding me responsible for a charge where the merchant delivered nothing Key Facts : -I paid for moving services -No services were ever performed -The merchant failed to fulfill ANY contractual obligation -Capital One refused to correct or properly investigate the dispute This matter is straightforward : I was charged for services that were never provided. \nThe merchant engaged in deceptive practices, and Capital One failed to fulfill its legal obligation to properly investigate and resolve the dispute. \nI am seeking a fair resolution consistent with federal consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-04T19:12:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33993","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21861711","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-05-04T18:54:05.000Z","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":["Improper denial of billing dispute services not <em>rendered</em> & failure to conduct reasonable investigation <em>under</em> federal law Summary of Complaint I am filing this complaint regarding Capital Ones handling of a billing dispute <em>involving</em> a merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nThis is not a standard disputethis <em>involves</em> services never <em>rendered</em> and deceptive business practices by the merchant, combined with Capital Ones failure to properly investigate and reclassify the dispute after being notified of an <em>error</em>."]},"sort":[17.67748,"21861711"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21535240","_score":17.234737,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Against : Capital One , N.A . \nIssue : Billing dispute duplicate charge / no service received Date of Transactions : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$100.00} ( charged twice ) I am filing this complaint regarding Capital Ones improper handling and denial of a billing dispute involving a duplicate charge where no service was rendered. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I attempted to purchase a travel visa at a self-service kiosk in XXXX XXXX XXXX During the first attempt, the machine froze and failed to issue a visa. Despite the failure, my credit card was charged {$100.00}. I was then required to repeat the transaction, and the second attempt was successful, resulting in one visa being issued. \n\nAs a result, I was charged twice ( {$100.00} x 2 ) for a single visa. Only one visa exists and was issued under my passport. \n\nI disputed the duplicate charge with Capital One. The dispute was denied based on the merchants claim that both transactions were valid because they were contactless. However, this conclusion is flawed : - A contactless transaction only confirms payment authorization, not that a service was successfully delivered. \n- The merchant has not provided any evidence that two visas were issued. \n- It is not possible for two visas to be issued for the same passport in the same transaction session. \n- One of the charges clearly represents payment for a service that was never rendered. \n\nAdditionally, Capital One cited procedural reasons for denial, including lack of evidence of merchant contact. I am actively attempting to contact the merchant, but this does not change the fundamental issue : only one service was delivered. \n\nCapital One has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as required under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Specifically, they relied on generic merchant assertions rather than verifying whether two services were actually rendered. \n\nRequested Resolution : - Reopen and properly investigate the dispute under : - Duplicate charge, and/or - No service rendered - Require the merchant to provide proof that two separate visas were issued under my passport - Reverse the invalid duplicate charge of {$100.00} if such proof can not be provided I am requesting that Capital One correct this billing error and comply with its obligations under federal law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-23T18:36:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"08817","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21535240","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-04-23T18:15:21.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Requested Resolution : - Reopen and properly investigate the dispute <em>under</em> : - Duplicate charge, and/or - No service <em>rendered</em> - Require the merchant to provide proof that two separate visas were issued <em>under</em> my passport - Reverse the invalid duplicate charge of {$100.00} if such proof can not be provided I am requesting that Capital One correct this billing <em>error</em> and comply with its obligations <em>under</em> federal law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[17.234737,"21535240"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20615630","_score":16.936728,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting a new complaint regarding Capital Ones handling of a dispute that was improperly investigated and incorrectly denied.\n\nThis dispute involves a transaction for chimney services in the amount of {$1100.00}. The merchant charged me for services that were never fully rendered, specifically the installation of two chimney caps.\n\nKey facts : -The merchant claimed that two chimney caps would be installed within 46 weeks. \n-As of today, the caps have never been installed. \n-I have photographic evidence showing the original cap still in place. \n-The merchant is no longer contactable : -The phone number provided is disconnected. \n-The companys website is nonfunctional. \nXXXX made multiple attempts to contact the merchant to resolve the issue and was unsuccessful. \n\nDespite this, Capital One denied my dispute and advised me to resolve the issue with the merchant, which is not possible because the merchant is unreachable. \n\nThis is not a quality-of-service dispute. This is a services not rendered case, and the merchant has failed to deliver the agreed-upon goods within the stated timeframe. \n\nCapital One failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and appears to have accepted the merchants claims without requiring proof that the contracted services were completed. \n\nWhat I am requesting I am requesting that Capital One : -Reopen and properly investigate this dispute as a services not rendered claim -Require the merchant to provide proof that the chimney caps were installed -Provide documentation of what evidence was used to deny my dispute -Issue a permanent credit for the transaction if the merchant can not provide proof of service completion Additional Concern : Capital Ones response through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stated that I should work with the merchant. This is not a reasonable resolution when the merchant is no longer reachable. \n\nThis raises concerns that Capital One is not complying with its obligation to conduct a fair and thorough investigation under applicable billing error resolution requirements.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-26T13:00:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"45150","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20615630","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-26T12:37:28.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This raises concerns that Capital One is not complying with its obligation to conduct a <em>fair</em> and thorough investigation <em>under</em> applicable billing <em>error</em> resolution requirements."]},"sort":[16.936728,"20615630"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20770891","_score":15.8197155,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This correspondence serves as formal notice of a disputed transaction and potential legal claims arising from both the merchants conduct and the issuing banks failure to comply with governing law. \n\nI was charged {$2500.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX for a XXXX XXXX  scheduled for XX/XX/year>. The reservation was canceled prior to the service date, and no services were rendered. \n\nThe merchants own documentation reflects : Pre-service communication regarding cancellation A final charge processed at XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, followed by a cancellation call at XXXX XXXX, within minutes Additional written communication confirming cancellation intent Despite this, the merchant retained substantially the full amount and issued only a {$110.00} partial refund, confirming the transaction was adjustable and not strictly non-refundable. \n\nFederal Law Violations 1. Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) This charge constitutes a billing error as it involves : Charges for services not delivered as agreed Goldman Sachs is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct such errors. That has not occurred.\n\n2. Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) Goldman Sachs failed to comply with required billing error procedures, including : Failure to properly evaluate submitted evidence Reliance on inconsistent merchant claims Requiring repeated submissions without resolution 3. Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) The failure to properly resolve this billing dispute undermines the statutory protections afforded to consumers regarding fair and accurate billing practices.\n\nKentucky Law Violations 1. Kentucky Consumer Protection Act KRS 367.170 The merchants conduct constitutes : Unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts in trade or commerce Retaining full payment for services never rendered, while relying on technical interpretations of a cancellation policy, falls within prohibited conduct.\n\n2. Unjust Enrichment ( Kentucky Common Law ) The merchant has : Retained a benefit ( {$2500.00} ) Without providing any corresponding service This creates a valid claim for restitution.\n\n3. Breach of Contract / Failure of Consideration ( Kentucky Common Law ) No service was delivered Therefore, the basis for the charge failed Card Network Violations This dispute qualifies under Mastercard Reason Code 4855 ( Services Not Rendered/ Canceled Services ) : Service date : XX/XX/year> Cancellation occurred prior to service No benefit was received Merchant policy does not override network protections in these circumstances. \n\nLiability Position The facts establish : No services rendered Retention of funds without performance Inconsistent and self-serving merchant evidence Failure of Goldman Sachs to comply with federal dispute requirements Notice of Intent Absent immediate resolution, I am prepared to pursue all available remedies, including : Continued action through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaints to the Kentucky Attorney Generals Office Evaluation of claims under : KRS 367.170 ( Consumer Protection Act ) Unjust enrichment Failure of consideration Federal consumer protection statutes Demand for Cure To resolve this matter without escalation, I demand : Immediate reversal of the full {$2500.00} Written confirmation of compliance with : 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( FCBA ) 12 CFR 1026.13 ( Regulation Z ) Failure to cure this matter promptly will result in further action without additional notice.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-30T14:50:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"40245","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20770891","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2026-03-30T14:09:13.000Z","state":"KY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) This charge constitutes a billing <em>error</em> as it <em>involves</em> : Charges for services not delivered as agreed Goldman Sachs is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct such <em>errors</em>. That has not occurred.\n\n2."]},"sort":[15.8197155,"20770891"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21159295","_score":15.663584,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am filing this formal complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union regarding their handling of a dispute involving negligent automotive repair services that resulted in substantial financial loss and safety risk. \n\nThis complaint extends beyond a disputed charge. It involves failure to conduct a thorough investigation, premature closure of a claim, admission of internal error, and continued delay despite full evidence being providedall of which raise serious concerns under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). \n\nBackground of the Dispute On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and an XXXX  ( XXXX ) sensor, which were installed by XXXX. \n\nImmediately following this installation : The vehicle began malfunctioning Performance declined significantly Safety concerns became evident Subsequent findings confirmed : Damage to engine and brake-related wiring Compromised fuel system, including a damaged gas line The vehicle was rendered unsafe and ultimately undrivable The vehicle later failed completely and was deemed unsafe by a mechanic, forcing me to impound it and purchase a replacement vehicle. \n\nFinancial Impact As a direct result, I incurred total damages of : {$4200.00} Additionally, I had invested {$1600.00} on XX/XX/year> to maintain the vehicle, demonstrating responsible ownership and maintenance prior to this incident. \n\nDispute Process & Procedural Failures I formally disputed these charges with Navy Federal and provided all requested documentation supporting my claim, including evidence of : Negligent installation Resulting mechanical damage Financial losses directly tied to the service However, Navy Federals handling of this dispute has been deeply concerning : Failure to Conduct a Thorough Investigation My dispute was closed without a complete or proper review of the evidence submitted.\n\nAdmission of Error by Navy Federal After closing the claim, I received communication from Navy Federal acknowledging that : Documentation had been submitted as requested The claim had not been properly reviewed They apologized and reopened the dispute, confirming that the initial closure was their mistake.\n\nContinued Delay & Lack of Resolution Despite reopening the case and having all relevant documentation : Navy Federal has failed to move forward in a timely manner They are delaying resolution despite having the necessary evidence No provisional credit has been issued No clear or substantive updates have been provided This pattern reflects procedural negligence and failure to meet dispute resolution standards.\n\nRequests Made to Navy Federal I formally requested : XXXX. Full reimbursement of {$4200.00} XXXX. Provisional credit during the investigation XXXX. A complete investigation under the Fair Credit Billing Act XXXX. A written explanation for any delay or denial XXXX. Copies of all documentation used in their decision-making XXXX. Confirmation of compliance with federal dispute timelines These requests have not been properly fulfilled. \n\nLegal Concerns Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, financial institutions are required to : Conduct a reasonable and thorough investigation Avoid premature or unsupported claim closures Resolve disputes within two billing cycles ( maximum 90 days ) Correct billing errors when services were not properly rendered The failure to properly investigate, combined with an admitted internal error and continued delay, raises serious concerns about compliance with these requirements.\n\nRequested Resolution I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to ensure : Immediate full reimbursement of {$4200.00} Proper handling and completion of the dispute Accountability for the premature closure and procedural errors Assurance that Navy Federal complies with federal dispute resolution laws Closing Statement I acted in good faith, provided all requested documentation, and followed the proper dispute process. Navy Federal initially failed to properly review my claim, admitted their error, and has since continued to delay resolution despite having all necessary information. \n\nThis is not simply a delay, it is a failure of process, oversight, and compliance. \n\nI respectfully request intervention to ensure this matter is resolved fairly and in accordance with federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-11T13:48:58.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90043","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21159295","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-04-11T13:24:22.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It <em>involves</em> failure to conduct a thorough investigation, premature closure of a claim, admission of internal <em>error</em>, and continued delay despite full evidence being providedall of which raise serious concerns <em>under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). \n\nBackground of the Dispute On XX/XX/year>, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and an XXXX  ( XXXX ) sensor, which were installed by XXXX."]},"sort":[15.663584,"21159295"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20830886","_score":15.652758,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting a complaint regarding a {$5500.00} credit card transaction processed on XX/XX/year>, with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for a marketing program called XXXX XXXX. The payment was made using my Citibank credit card. \n\nThe service was sold to me after an initial phone call followed by a one-on-one XXXX  sales call, where I was promised a complete marketing system and a guaranteed minimum of XXXX fully closed and booked clients per month. Based on these representations, I proceeded with the purchase. \n\nThe company failed to deliver the promised services. No clients were generated, and most of the services outlined in the agreementincluding marketing setup, advertising management, and lead generationwere not performed or only minimally attempted. Additionally, the agreement specified that {$3000.00} of the payment would be allocated toward advertising spend, but the merchant has refused to provide any documentation, invoices, or reports showing how these funds were used. \n\nAfter attempting to resolve the matter directly, I sent a formal demand letter requesting documentation and a refund under the contractual guarantee. The merchant ceased communication and blocked further contact. \n\nI filed a dispute with Citibank for services not rendered. The bank denied the dispute, relying on the merchants submission of a contract and refund policy, but did not adequately consider the lack of evidence that any services were actually performed or that the advertising funds were used as stated. \n\nI requested that the dispute be reopened and provided additional documentation, including the contract, correspondence, and evidence of non-delivery. The merchant responded again by referencing the contract terms but still did not provide proof of service delivery. \n\nThis is not a dispute about dissatisfaction or contract terms. This is a case where the merchant failed to deliver the core services that were purchased and has refused to provide documentation supporting their claims. \n\nI am requesting that Citibank properly review this matter as a billing error involving services not rendered under the Fair Credit Billing Act and reconsider the denial of my dispute based on the full set of evidence provided.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T01:14:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"109XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20830886","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-04-01T00:35:13.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting that Citibank properly review this matter as a billing <em>error</em> <em>involving</em> services not <em>rendered</em> <em>under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act and reconsider the denial of my dispute based on the full set of evidence provided."]},"sort":[15.652758,"20830886"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21780493","_score":15.4289,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Description of Incident : On XX/XX/XXXX, American Express ( Amex ) processed an unauthorized {$100.00} annual charge for \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' on my XXXX  account. This charge was processed without my affirmative consent, shifting my account from a monthly billing cycle to an annual one. As a direct result, I was denied the {$14.00} monthly XXXX XXXX credits for the remainder of the XXXX fiscal year, resulting in an additional loss of {$150.00} in contracted benefits.\n\nI contacted Amex to dispute this as a billing error under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Regulation Z. During my investigation, the merchant ( XXXX ) admitted they had no record of my consent for the upgrade to annual billing. Under California BPC 17602, this lack of consent renders the charge unauthorized and the service an unconditional gift.\n\nDespite the merchants admission of an \" internal issue, '' Amex Supervisor XXXX ( Employee ID : XXXX ) refused to reverse the charge or restore my lost monthly credits. Amex failed to fulfill its duty to resolve a clear billing error involving services not accepted as agreed. I am seeking a full reversal of the {$100.00} charge and a credit for the {$150.00} in lost benefits, totaling {$260.00}.\n\nCompany : American Express Total Monetary Loss : {$260.00} Key Evidence : XXXX  Year-End Summary and Supervisor XXXX Transcript Crucially, the merchant ( XXXX ) has since acknowledged the error and resolved the billing structure on their end for the XXXX cycle. This correction by the merchant serves as definitive proof that the XX/XX/XXXX annual charge was a billing error. Despite this, American Express continues to refuse to credit back the {$100.00} unauthorized charge and the {$150.00} in suppressed XXXX credits, effectively profiting from a documented merchant error they were made aware of by Supervisor XXXX ( ID : XXXX ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-01T05:47:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21780493","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-01T05:33:34.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I contacted Amex to dispute this as a billing <em>error</em> <em>under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and Regulation Z. During my investigation, the merchant ( XXXX ) admitted they had no record of my consent for the upgrade to annual billing. <em>Under</em> California BPC 17602, this lack of consent <em>renders</em> the charge unauthorized and the service an unconditional gift."]},"sort":[15.4289,"21780493"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22993232","_score":14.99067,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Summary I am filing this complaint regarding Citibanks mishandling of a credit card dispute involving merchant refusal of service, denial of boarding, lack of customer support, and forced repurchase of airfare at full price, resulting in financial damages of {$1600.00}.\n\nCitibank initially evaluated my dispute under the incorrect category of Goods / Services Never Received, resulting in reversal of the provisional credit. After submitting additional documentation and legal clarification, Citi reopened the dispute, confirming procedural error in its original handling, has since closed the file stating I was outside of the time frame..\n\nThis matter properly falls under Services Not Rendered / Merchant Failure to Provide Service, and I am requesting CFPB oversight to ensure Citi complies with its obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). \n________________________________________ Description of the Issue On the date of travel, I arrived at the airport and attempted to check in fully within XXXX XXXX published check-in policy. Despite compliance, I was denied boarding and refused assistance. No reasonable explanation, accommodation, or corrective resolution was offered at the airport. \nAt the time service was denied, XXXX customer service channels were functionally inaccessible, including : Multi-hour phone hold times Unanswered emails No on-site resolution assistance As a result, I was forced to repurchase airfare at full price, totaling {$1600.00}, with a 2-day delay in departure, in order to complete my travel. \nXXXX XXXX did not meaningfully respond until XX/XX/year> only after my dispute was reopened, demonstrating a lack of reasonable customer support or dispute resolution when assistance was required.\n\n________________________________________ Citibank Procedural Failure Citibank initially categorized this dispute incorrectly as Goods/ Services Never Received, rather than the correct classification of : Services Not Rendered / Merchant Failure to Provide Service This incorrect categorization resulted in reversal of the provisional credit, despite clear evidence of merchant refusal of service and financial damages caused by that refusal.\n\nFollowing my formal request for reconsideration and submission of extensive documentation, Citi has now reopened the dispute, confirming that the original investigation and decision were procedurally flawed.\n\n________________________________________ Regulatory Basis Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and card network dispute resolution standards, consumers are protected when : A merchant fails to provide contracted services A merchant refuses performance Reasonable resolution is not made available Financial damages result directly from merchant breach All of these conditions are present in this case.\n\n________________________________________ Requested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Citibank to : 1. Properly apply the Services Not Rendered / Merchant Failure to Provide Service dispute category 2. Permanently reinstate the {$1600.00} chargeback credit 3. Confirm compliance with FCBA dispute investigation standards ________________________________________ Conclusion This matter represents a clear case of merchant refusal of service resulting in direct financial damages, and an initial failure by Citibank to properly evaluate and apply consumer protection standards.\n\nI respectfully request CFPB oversight to ensure full compliance and fair resolution.\n\nThank you for your assistance. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX ________________________________________ Attachments Available Upon Request : Timeline of events Airport check-in evidence Merchant email correspondence Proof of forced airfare repurchase Dispute documentation","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-08T16:52:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"218XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22993232","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-06-08T16:07:15.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This matter properly falls <em>under</em> Services Not <em>Rendered</em> / Merchant Failure to Provide Service, and I am requesting CFPB oversight to ensure Citi complies with its obligations <em>under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ). \n________________________________________ Description of the Issue On the date of travel, I arrived at the airport and attempted to check in fully within XXXX XXXX published check-in policy. Despite compliance, I was denied boarding and refused assistance."]},"sort":[14.99067,"22993232"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20866453","_score":14.939121,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer : XXXX XXXX Account : Capital One Credit Card ( ending in XXXX ) Amount : {$260.00} Merchant : EconomyBookings.com Transaction Date : XX/XX/XXXX I dispute a {$260.00} charge from XXXX for services that were never rendered. Capital One improperly denied my dispute in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX, and its implementing regulation Z, XXXX C.F.R. XXXX. \nFacts : The merchant charged me for a car rental reservation that did not exist at the actual provider ( XXXX, located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, Alaska, XXXX ). \nI was informed directly by the provider that no reservation was on file and no vehicle was available. \nI canceled prior to service and received no benefit whatsoever. \nI was forced to obtain alternative transportation and paid {$170.00} out-of-pocket ( XXXX XXXX ; documentation provided ). \nThis constitutes services not rendered and failure of consideration. \n( See my formal dispute letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ) Capital One failed to comply with federal law by : Failing to conduct a reasonable investigation Accepted the merchants position without verifying that any service was provided. \nThis violates XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) and XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ( f ). \nDenying procedural fairness and due process Did not request or meaningfully consider my evidence. \nRefused to disclose the documents allegedly submitted by the merchant. \nPrevented me from rebutting the merchants claims. \nIssuing an unexplained determination Failed to provide the evidentiary basis for its decision, contrary to XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ). \nEngaging in unfair and deceptive practices ( XXXX ) XXXX on undisclosed evidence and refusal to provide transparency constitute an unfair practice under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \n\nThis is not a billing error involving quality or cancellation terms. This is a complete absence of service : A creditor can not lawfully uphold a charge where no goods or services were delivered and no benefit was received. \nCapital Ones acceptance of the merchants unsupported claims without proof of service fails the reasonable investigation standard required by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T23:20:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"91352","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20866453","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-04-01T22:14:51.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Engaging in unfair and deceptive practices ( XXXX ) XXXX on undisclosed evidence and refusal to provide transparency constitute an unfair practice <em>under</em> XXXX XXXX. XXXX. \n\nThis is not a billing <em>error</em> <em>involving</em> quality or cancellation terms. This is a complete absence of service : A creditor can not lawfully uphold a charge where no goods or services were delivered and no benefit was received."]},"sort":[14.939121,"20866453"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19565592","_score":14.258539,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Narrative Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX : Discover Bank Product : Credit Card Billing Dispute ( Services Not Rendered ) Amount in Dispute : {$2200.00} Complaint Summary I am submitting this complaint regarding Discover Banks handling of a billing dispute involving non-delivery of contracted website development services by XXXX XXXX. Despite extensive documentation demonstrating material non-performance by the merchant, Discover declined to provide relief after previously advising me that I would retain dispute rights if the services were not delivered. \n\nThis complaint concerns Discovers dispute handling process, my reasonable reliance on Discovers guidance, and Discovers subsequent refusal to substantively evaluate documentation that directly addressed non-delivery under the contract. \n\n\n\nBackground and Dispute History In XX/XX/year>, I was charged {$2200.00} by XXXX XXXX for custom website development services. I timely provided all requested onboarding materials, written content, branding direction, and access credentials. After onboarding, I did not receive meaningful communication from the merchant for approximately three and a half weeks, which exceeded the contractual timeline. \n\nWhen I followed up, the merchant provided a generic draft website that did not include the agreed-upon content, branding, colors, service descriptions, or written materials that had been discussed and delivered in writing. \n\nAt that point, I disputed the charge with Discover for services not rendered. \n\nWhile the dispute was pending, the merchant contacted me, apologized, and proposed an alternative path forward. The merchant stated they would not contest the dispute and suggested restarting the project by reissuing paperwork and recharging the amount so the project could begin again. \n\nBefore taking any action, I contacted Discover to confirm my rights. \n\n\n\nDispute Process Transparency and Consumer Reliance During this communication, Discover advised me that if the merchant ultimately failed to deliver the contracted services, I would retain recourse provided I documented non-performance. \n\nRelying on Discovers guidance, I agreed to give the merchant an additional opportunity to perform. I allowed the original charge to stand, did not re-sign new paperwork, and did not restart the transaction, specifically because I relied on Discovers representation that documentation of non-delivery would preserve my dispute rights. \n\nThis reliance directly informed my decision not to initiate a new transaction and instead to document continued non-performance under the existing agreement. \n\n\n\nSatisfaction of Discovers Stated Dispute Condition I subsequently satisfied the condition Discover identified for retaining dispute rights by submitting extensive documentation demonstrating that the merchant did not deliver the services paid for. Despite this showing of non-delivery, Discover declined to reverse the charge without substantively addressing whether the contractual services were, in fact, performed. \n\nAs a result, the issue is no longer whether documentation was provided, but whether Discover meaningfully evaluated documented non-performance after advising that such documentation would preserve dispute rights. \n\n\n\nContinued Non-Performance and Second Dispute Despite being given more than four and a half months in total from onboarding, the merchant still failed to deliver the contracted services. The website was never completed or launched and continued to contain numerous objective deficiencies, including : Failure to incorporate finalized client-provided written content Duplicated and misplaced service descriptions Incorrect factual information Misrepresentation of services offered At that point, I again disputed the charge and submitted a 28-page documentation packet to Discover. This submission included the signed agreement, written communications, finalized service-specific content that was never implemented, screenshots of errors, and evidence demonstrating that the services paid for were not delivered. \n\n\n\nDiscovers Handling of the Dispute Despite this documentation, Discover declined to reverse the charge without substantively addressing whether the contracted services were delivered. Discover stated that no new information had been provided, even though the materials submitted directly addressed non-performance under the contract. \n\nSeparately, Discover ruled in my favor on disputes involving improper hosting fees charged by the same merchant, confirming billing irregularities and improper charges related to services that were not delivered. However, Discover did not apply the same standards of non-delivery to the primary website development charge involving the same merchant. \n\nThis dispute does not involve dissatisfaction, design preference, or subjective judgment. It concerns objective non-performance of contracted services that were paid for but not delivered. \n\n\n\nBasis for CFPB Review I relied on Discovers guidance that documentation of non-performance would preserve my dispute rights. I acted reasonably and in good faith by documenting non-delivery rather than restarting the transaction. Discovers refusal to meaningfully evaluate that documentation, while simultaneously acknowledging improper billing by the same merchant in related disputes, raises concerns regarding the fairness, consistency, and transparency of Discovers dispute handling process. \n\n\n\nResolution Requested Regulatory Standard Under applicable card network rules and consumer protection standards, a charge for services may be reversed when the merchant fails to deliver the contracted services as agreed, and documentation demonstrating non-delivery must be substantively evaluated. \n\n\n\nRelief Requested I am requesting regulatory review of Discovers dispute handling process and appropriate relief consistent with services not rendered, including reversal of the disputed charge or other corrective action deemed appropriate.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-17T20:00:23.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"786XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19565592","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2026-02-17T19:39:22.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB Complaint Narrative Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX/ XXXX XXXX XXXX : Discover Bank Product : Credit Card Billing Dispute ( Services Not <em>Rendered</em> ) Amount in Dispute : {$2200.00} Complaint Summary I am submitting this complaint regarding Discover Banks handling of a billing dispute <em>involving</em> non-delivery of contracted website development services by XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[14.258539,"19565592"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16714989","_score":13.9271145,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Fraud, Forgery & Identity Theft vs. Chase Bank and XXXX Description of the problem : I am the victim of identity theft and forgery involving a fraudulent debt originally created with Chase Bank and later transferred to XXXX ( XXXX ) through a balance transfer. \nIn 2022, a third party, XXXX XXXX, forged my XXXX signature on a lease agreement and completion report to make it appear that services had been rendered. These falsified documents were used by the merchant to convince Chase to reinstate a {$12000.00} charge that I had already disputed as goods and services not received. \nI supplied Chase, XXXX, and the credit bureaus with : A police report ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, # XXXX ) showing forgery and identity theft An FTC Identity-Theft Report ( IdentityTheft.gov ) Genuine XXXX certificates proving the disputed lease and completion report were never executed in my XXXX  account Chase has acknowledged the existence of forged documents but stated that the forgery occurred after the charge and therefore the charge is valid. \nThis is factually and legally incorrect. The merchant, XXXX XXXX, responded to my original dispute by forging a lease agreement and completion report to trick Chase into reinstating the charge. \nTherefore, the fraud directly influenced Chases decision to deny my dispute. That means the billing error and investigation outcome were both based on forged evidence a clear violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ) ). Under that law, once a consumer identifies a billing error ( goods/services not received ), any subsequent verification must be based on legitimate documentation. \nIf the evidence is forged, the merchants claim and the resulting balance is void. \nThe forged documents directly determined the outcome of my billing dispute and caused continued reporting of an invalid balancenow $ XXXX my XXXX account. Neither Chase nor XXXX has produced authentic authorization data proving I agreed to the disputed transaction.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-22T04:46:26.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"84405","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16714989","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-10-22T04:20:56.000Z","state":"UT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["That means the billing <em>error</em> and investigation outcome were both based on forged evidence a clear violation of the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ) ). <em>Under</em> that law, once a consumer identifies a billing <em>error</em> ( goods/services not received ), any subsequent verification must be based on legitimate documentation. \nIf the evidence is forged, the merchants claim and the resulting balance is void."]},"sort":[13.9271145,"16714989"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19882320","_score":13.845981,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Credit Card Dispute Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation This complaint concerns Citibanks handling of a Services Not Rendered credit card dispute involving charges from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  for an XXXX XXXX XXXX stay. \n\nThe dispute was timely filed due to the hotels failure to provide a functioning in-room television for the entirety of my stay despite prompt reporting and opportunity to repair. \n\nUpon check-in on XX/XX/XXXX, I reported that the television in my room was not functioning. The hotel front desk initially advised that the repair would be completed that evening. The following morning, I was informed that the technician would not return until XXXX, after my checkout. No alternate room with a functioning television was offered. \n\nOn the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted XXXX XXXX  Guest Relations for assistance and was advised to follow up after checkout to avoid risking cancellation of my second night. \n\nAfter my stay, hotel management left a voicemail on XX/XX/XXXX acknowledging a XXXX service outage and confirming that the vendor was unable to repair the issue during the weekend. A compensation offer of {$50.00} per night was made. I declined this as insufficient and requested a reasonable refund. After this, the hotel ceased responding to my emails and voicemails. XXXX XXXX  corporate had also offered XXXX rewards points, which I declined. The hotel later cited this points offer as justification for rescinding their cash offer and stopped communication. \n\nI filed a timely dispute with Citibank as a Services Not Rendered claim. \n\nAs part of the dispute, I submitted XXXX photographs clearly showing the non-functioning television. I also repeatedly referenced and offered to provide additional supporting documentation, including : Voicemail acknowledging the service outage Email correspondence confirming the issue Documentation of the compensation offer and subsequent rescission Citibank never requested these materials and never contacted me for clarification. \n\nProcedural History : Original dispute filed timely On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested proper classification as a service dispute On XX/XX/XXXX, I resubmitted documentation as instructed The dispute was closed citing no billing error On XX/XX/XXXX, a supervisor reopened the dispute I again referenced additional supporting evidence and offered to provide it Despite this, Citibank concluded that : Services were provided as intended. \n\nThis conclusion was reached despite photographic evidence submitted and without requesting additional corroborating evidence that was repeatedly offered. \n\nAdditionally : Citibanks document upload portal repeatedly failed to accept standard files across multiple browsers Fax submissions were unreliable Multiple case numbers were issued for the same dispute I am requesting review of whether Citibank fulfilled its obligation under the Fair Credit Billing Act to conduct a reasonable investigation of this Services Not Rendered dispute, given the photographic evidence provided, the merchants acknowledgment of a service outage, and the additional supporting documentation I repeatedly offered but was never asked to submit. \n\nI am prepared to provide any additional documentation upon request.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-01T20:35:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"079XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19882320","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-03-01T20:13:37.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Additionally : Citibanks document upload portal repeatedly failed to accept standard files across multiple browsers Fax submissions were unreliable Multiple case numbers were issued for the same dispute I am requesting review of whether Citibank fulfilled its obligation <em>under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act to conduct a reasonable investigation of this Services Not <em>Rendered</em> dispute, given the photographic evidence provided, the merchants acknowledgment of a service outage, and the additional supporting"]},"sort":[13.845981,"19882320"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14089159","_score":13.517481,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Request for Reconsideration XXXX  Chargeback Denial To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for reviewing my complaint regarding the unresolved dispute with the merchant XXXX. I respectfully request reconsideration and further investigation based on the following material issues and violations of consumer protection laws : XXXX. XXXX  Classification and XXXX  Law My card issuer stated that the transactions in question were classified by XXXX as gambling-related, and therefore not eligible for dispute protection. However, I reside in XXXX, where such services, if accurately classified, may violate state law. Transactions involving services that are unlawful in a cardholders jurisdiction should not be considered valid or exempt from dispute protections. If XXXX classification is accurate, this raises the question of whether an illegal transaction was processed something neither XXXX nor the issuer should be facilitating. \nXXXX. Deceptive Misrepresentation False XXXX  Affiliation XXXX  claimed to be affiliated with the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) in its Terms of Service. Upon contacting XXXX, I was informed that no such affiliation exists. This constitutes a clear act of misrepresentation and a deceptive practice that violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ), which prohibits unfair or misleading business conduct. This false claim gave consumers a false sense of legal recourse.\n\n3. Protection Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) Under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z, consumers have the right to dispute charges for services not rendered as agreed or that were obtained through misrepresentation. In this case, the merchant is no longer reachable, and the service I paid for is no longer accessible or usable. I submitted my dispute in a timely manner, and these facts meet the criteria for a billing error under federal law.\n\n4. Evidence of Bad Faith Conduct by the Merchant XXXX  engaged in conduct that reflects clear bad faith, including : Falsely claiming a relationship with a legitimate arbitration body ( XXXX  ) ; Failing to deliver the promised service after payment ; Disappearing from public contact without recourse or refund ; Structuring transactions in a way that obscured their true nature and undermined dispute rights.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-15T09:56:47.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92886","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14089159","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-06-15T09:44:19.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Protection <em>Under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) <em>Under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) and Regulation Z, consumers have the right to dispute charges for services not <em>rendered</em> as agreed or that were obtained through misrepresentation. In this case, the merchant is no longer reachable, and the service I paid for is no longer accessible or usable. I submitted my dispute in a timely manner, and these facts meet the criteria for a billing <em>error</em> <em>under</em> federal law.\n\n4."]},"sort":[13.517481,"14089159"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21209699","_score":13.451192,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB FORMAL COMPLAINT : VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT ( FCBA ) TO : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) REGARDING : Capital One Bank ( USA ), N.A. \nDISPUTE AMOUNT : {$840.00} TRANSACTION DATE : XX/XX/XXXX MERCHANT : XXXX I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT I am filing this complaint against Capital One for their failure to honor my consumer rights under 12 CFR 1026.12 ( c ) ( Claims and Defenses ). Capital One has summarily rejected a valid dispute regarding a merchants breach of contract, incorrectly applying a XXXX \" billing error '' statute to a situation involving Services Not Rendered and Merchant in Possession of Property. \nXXXX. THE ONGOING BREACH The merchant, XXXX, has been in physical possession of my property since XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant admitted in writing ( Exhibit I ) that they have failed to meet multiple repair deadlines and \" can not guarantee a completion time. '' By refusing to investigate, Capital One is allowing a merchant to retain both my full payment ( {$840.00} ) and my physical property. Because the merchant is currently holding the merchandise and refusing a refund for a defective product, the breach is active and ongoing. \nXXXX. FAILURE OF BANK OVERSIGHT Capital Ones dispute department has refused to engage in a manual review of the \" Claims and Defenses '' standard. They have ignored the following facts : XXXX XXXX : The product suffered a catastrophic frame failure. The merchant admitted the design was flawed and the assembly involved over-torqued screws. \nFailed Remedy : The merchant attempted to force me to accept a used/refurbished unit as a \" cure, '' which I have legally rejected under Illinois UCC XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nRegulatory Violation : Under the FCBA, my right to assert a claim against the card issuer is preserved when the merchant fails to resolve a dispute regarding the quality of goods or services, provided the merchant is given an opportunity to cure. I have given the merchant XXXX days to cure ; they have failed. \nIV. RESOLUTION REQUESTED I request that the CFPB compel Capital One to : Recognize the \" Merchant in Possession '' status as a valid override to standard billing error timelines. \nIssue a permanent credit of {$840.00}, as the merchant is in total breach of the contract of sale.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-14T01:55:33.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"60004","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21209699","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-04-14T01:35:24.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Capital One has summarily rejected a valid dispute regarding a merchants breach of contract, incorrectly applying a XXXX \" billing <em>error</em> '' statute to a situation <em>involving</em> Services Not <em>Rendered</em> and Merchant in Possession of Property. \nXXXX. THE ONGOING BREACH The merchant, XXXX, has been in physical possession of my property since XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[13.451192,"21209699"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21640977","_score":13.286989,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint : Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation Under FCBA American Express I am filing this complaint against American Express regarding its handling of a billing dispute arising from a transaction with XXXX XXXX \n\nThis dispute involves a contract that was induced through material misrepresentation and failure to deliver promised services, including : - Promised XXXX % travel savings ( not delivered ; actual savings minimal ) - Promised flight credit ( never received ) - Promised booking availability ( consistently unavailable ) I submitted disputes for charges tied to this agreement, including an initial charge of {$15000.00} and recurring charges of {$2300.00}. \n\nAmerican Express has handled these disputes inconsistently and improperly : 1. Some recurring charges were credited, while othersarising from the exact same agreement and factswere denied 2. Certain disputes were rejected based solely on a 60-day limitation, without addressing that all charges stem from a single defective agreement 3. American Express failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the underlying validity of the transaction 4. I continue to receive balance due communications despite the account being under active dispute These actions suggest that American Express relied on procedural defenses rather than fulfilling its obligations under the Fair Credit Billing Act.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1666 and Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ), creditors are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of billing errors, including charges for services not rendered as agreed. \n\nBecause all charges stem from a single agreement induced by misrepresentation, limiting disputes based on a rolling 60-day window is improper and results in inconsistent and unfair outcomes.\n\nI am requesting the following : - A full reinvestigation of all charges tied to this agreement - Reversal of all charges, including those previously denied - Correction of any inaccurate balances or collection activity - A written explanation detailing how identical disputes were resolved inconsistently I have attached a full dispute packet with supporting evidence, including contract materials, communications, billing records, and proof of non-performance. \n\nI expect American Express to comply with its obligations under federal law. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-27T20:45:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94533","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21640977","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-27T20:28:22.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I continue to receive balance due communications despite the account being <em>under</em> active dispute These actions suggest that American Express relied on procedural defenses rather than fulfilling its obligations <em>under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act.\n\n<em>Under</em> 15 U.S.C. 1666 and Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ), creditors are required to conduct a reasonable investigation of billing <em>errors</em>, including charges for services not <em>rendered</em> as agreed."]},"sort":[13.286989,"21640977"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22405551","_score":13.244549,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Barclays for failing to properly investigate and process my credit card disputes with case no ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX involving purchases from XXXX XXXX / XXXX. \n\nThe disputed transactions were for in-game digital currency called XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX are used inside the X-Clash game to upgrade castles and heroes. The merchant advertises the game as a competitive XXXX XXXX environment. My dispute is not simply that the XXXX XXXX failed to appear in an account ledger. My dispute is that the virtual goods were sold for use in a materially misrepresented service environment. \n\nThe merchant marketed and sold participation in a fair, competitive PvP game. My evidence shows that the environment was not fair, organic, or as advertised. It was allegedly influenced by undisclosed automated bots, artificial engagement, and paid actors used to create artificial competition and spending pressure. I provided screenshots and logs supporting this claim, including statements from supposed players asking whether they were being paid by developers to hype up the server before later abandoning it. \n\nThis materially changed the value and utility of the XXXX XXXX. XXXX Diamonds in a legitimate PvP environment are not the same product or service as XXXX XXXX used in an artificially manipulated game environment. The merchants anticipated defense that the XXXX XXXX were technically credited ignores the actual dispute : the goods and services were not as described and were sold for use in a misrepresented service ecosystem. \n\nIn addition, the merchants own Terms of XXXX prohibit bots and unauthorized methods in the name of fair play, while the merchant failed to disclose its own alleged use of artificial engagement, bots, or paid actors. The merchants XXXX XXXX XXXX also acknowledges abnormal mechanics and unauthorized methods, supporting my position that the service environment was compromised. \n\nAs of XX/XX/year>, the merchant revoked my account access entirely while retaining my funds. Even if the merchant claims the XXXX XXXX were initially delivered, the merchant later removed my ability to access or use the account and purchased goods. This creates a separate basis for dispute : service not rendered / ongoing service interrupted. \n\nBarclays XXXX Barclays appears to have mishandled the dispute by focusing only on whether the digital currency was technically credited, rather than investigating whether the goods and services were delivered as agreed or as described. \n\nUnder Regulation Z, billing-error protections cover disputes involving goods or services that were not accepted or not delivered as agreed, including delivery of services different from what was agreed. A consumer also is not required to first resolve the dispute with the merchant before giving a billing-error notice to the creditor under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). \n\nBarclays was required to conduct a reasonable investigation. Regulation Z states that if a creditor determines no billing error occurred, it must conduct a reasonable investigation and explain its reasons ; for nondelivery of property or services, the creditor may not deny the claim unless it determines the property or services were actually delivered, mailed, or sent as agreed. \n\nBarclays approach appears inconsistent with Mastercards dispute framework as well. XXXX XXXX XXXX recognizes disputes where goods or services were either not as described or defective, including where goods and services did not conform to their description or where the merchant did not honor terms and conditions. XXXX also identifies digital goods as goods stored, delivered, and used electronically, including games, game pieces, and software. \n\nThe dispute should therefore have been evaluated under the proper framework for Goods or Services Not as Described, Defective/Not as Described, and/or Goods or Services Not Provided / interruption of ongoing service, rather than reduced to the narrow question of whether Red Diamonds appeared in the account. \n\nThis issue is further supported by the fact that another major card issuer, XXXX XXXX, reviewed materially similar evidence involving the same merchant and resolved the dispute in my favor. I understand that XXXX Ones decision is not binding on Barclays, but it demonstrates that my claim is bona fide, supported by evidence, and capable of being processed under card-network dispute rules. Barclays should not dismiss the claim using a superficial digital currency was delivered theory while ignoring the misrepresented service environment and subsequent account revocation. \n\nConsumer protections involved I believe Barclays failed to comply with the spirit and requirements of the following protections : XXXX. Regulation Z / Fair Credit Billing Act billing-error procedures under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, because Barclays did not reasonably investigate whether the purchased goods and services were delivered as agreed. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ), which allows a cardholder to assert claims and defenses against the card issuer when the merchant fails to resolve a dispute involving property or services purchased with a credit card. \nXXXX. XXXX dispute workflows, including Mastercards framework for goods or services not as described, defective, not provided, and digital goods disputes. \nXXXX. UDAAP concerns, because Barclays handling of the dispute appears unfair and potentially deceptive if it accepted my dispute evidence but then evaluated the claim under the wrong theory, effectively denying consumer dispute rights by ignoring the substance of the merchant misrepresentation. \n\nRequested resolution I request that Barclays : XXXX. Reopen and reprocess all disputed transactions involving XXXX XXXX / XXXX. \nXXXX. Evaluate the disputes under the proper chargeback basis : Goods or Services Not as Described, Defective/Not as Described, and/or Goods or Services Not Provided / service interruption, rather than merely asking whether XXXX XXXX were credited XXXX \nXXXX. Permanently credit all disputed amounts, including any related interest, fees, or charges. \nXXXX. Provide a written explanation identifying the exact XXXX dispute reason code or workflow Barclays used. \nXXXX. Provide copies of any merchant representment evidence Barclays relied upon. \nXXXX. Confirm whether Barclays submitted the disputes through XXXX and XXXX Barclays pursued XXXX or arbitration if the merchant/acquirer rejected the chargeback. \nXXXX. Remove or suppress any negative credit reporting, delinquency, fees, interest, or adverse account treatment connected to the disputed transactions. \nXXXX. Confirm that Barclays has preserved and reviewed all attached evidence, including Capital Ones favorable outcome, merchant PvP advertising, account revocation evidence, merchant statements, player/bot logs, and the merchants own Terms of Service and Fair Operation Statement. \n\nClosing statement This is not a case where I simply received digital currency and later changed my mind. The XXXX XXXX  were purchased for use in a PvP game environment that was materially misrepresented. The merchant advertised a fair competitive environment, allegedly used undisclosed artificial engagement and paid actors, and later revoked access to the account and purchased goods while retaining my funds. \n\nBarclays should not allow the merchant to avoid chargeback liability by claiming that virtual currency was technically credited while ignoring the misrepresented service environment and total loss of access. I respectfully request that the CFPB require Barclays to conduct a proper investigation and provide a full written response.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-20T21:36:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92656","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22405551","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2026-05-20T21:17:56.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Under</em> Regulation Z, billing-<em>error</em> protections cover disputes <em>involving</em> goods or services that were not accepted or not delivered as agreed, including delivery of services different from what was agreed. A consumer also is not required to first resolve the dispute with the merchant before giving a billing-<em>error</em> notice to the creditor <em>under</em> XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). \n\nBarclays was required to conduct a reasonable investigation."]},"sort":[13.244549,"22405551"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13690659","_score":12.849001,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am following up to dispute your XX/XX/year>, decision regarding the {$710.00} transaction to XXXX XXXX. Based on your response and the documentation provided, I am not convinced that a full or fair investigation occurred. \n\nYour reply fails to identify : Who at XXXX XXXX was contacted, if anyone ; What specific documentation was obtained from the merchant beyond your internal records ; What criteria or external validation was used to confirm that the flight was fulfilled properly ; Whether my claims about the discrepancy in the flight details were directly investigated with the airline. \n\nIt appears that your investigation relied solely on internal logs and whatever limited info I sent, without any third-party verification. This raises concerns about the integrity of your dispute process and whether it aligns with Regulation E under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. \n\nI am requesting a more detailed disclosure of how the investigation was conducted and any evidence obtained from XXXX XXXX to support your decision. If no such contact occurred, this constitutes a failure to perform a reasonable investigation as required under applicable law. \n\nI am prepared to escalate this further if necessary, including providing additional supporting documentation and filing with appropriate regulatory bodies, if you are unwilling to reconsider or transparently clarify your process. \n\nI expect a response that directly addresses the investigative steps you took, with supporting documentation. \n\n\nI am submitting this new complaint due to how Cash App handled my previous dispute regarding a {$710.00} charge from XXXX XXXX. While my initial concern was about a flight discrepancy, my new concern is about how Cash App responded to my dispute and whether they conducted a fair and lawful investigation. \n\nIn their XX/XX/year> response ( attached ), Cash App claims to have reviewed the dispute and denied it, stating that no error occurred. However, their reply does not provide any proof that they contacted XXXX XXXX or obtained documentation from the merchant to verify whether the service was actually provided. Instead, it appears they only reviewed internal records and what I submitted. There is no indication of any third-party verification or independent effort to confirm my claim. \n\nThis raises serious concerns under Regulation E, which requires a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes. I requested details on who they spoke to, what documentation they reviewed, and how they evaluated my claim, but none of this was addressed. \n\nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate whether Cash App met its legal obligations to conduct a proper dispute investigation and to ensure they are not improperly dismissing valid consumer claims without due process. \n\n\nXXXX. No Evidence of Merchant Contact Cash App did not indicate that they contacted XXXX XXXX at any point during the investigation. \nA proper investigation should involve direct communication with the merchant ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) to determine whether the service was rendered or if any refund/cancellation applied. \nWithout contacting the airline, there is no independent verification of whether the flight was used, refunded, or properly booked. \n\n\n\n2. Investigation Appears Limited to Internal Records Cash Apps response repeatedly refers to the information available in our system and the documentation we relied upon, without specifying the nature of those documents. \nThis strongly suggests that the investigation relied only on internal transaction logs, which only confirm that the charge was processednot whether the service was fulfilled. \nAn internal review does not satisfy the requirement of a reasonable, impartial investigation. \n\n\n\nXXXX. No Consideration of the Discrepancy in Services Rendered The original dispute raised concerns about a discrepancy with the flight, suggesting that the service received did not match what was paid for. \nCash Apps reply does not mention : Whether the details of the flight were reviewed, Whether boarding or refund records were requested from the airline, Or whether the nature of the disputed service was understood or evaluated.\n\n4. Lack of Transparency in the Investigation Process Cash App failed to : Identify who handled the investigation, Provide a timeline of investigative steps, Outline any communication with XXXX XXXX, Disclose the documents reviewed from either party. \nThis absence of transparency makes it difficult to believe that any meaningful effort was made to validate or reject the dispute. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Failure to Meet Regulatory Standards ( Regulation E ) Under Regulation E, financial institutions are required to : Conduct a reasonable investigation, Determine whether an error occurred, Report the results and correct any errors. \nWithout merchant contact, external document review, or analysis of service fulfillment, this investigation does not meet the threshold of reasonable. \n\n\n\nConclusion Cash Apps handling of this dispute demonstrates a lack of due diligence, inadequate investigation practices, and poor transparency. I am submitting this follow-up to request that the CFPB review whether Cash App is in compliance with Regulation E, and to advocate for a more thorough, fair investigation into my claim. \n\nThank you for continuing to advocate for fair financial practices. Please let me know if additional documentation is needed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-23T21:52:13.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"068XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13690659","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-23T21:41:20.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A proper investigation should <em>involve</em> direct communication with the merchant ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) to determine whether the service was <em>rendered</em> or if any refund/cancellation applied. \nWithout contacting the airline, there is no independent verification of whether the flight was used, refunded, or properly booked. \n\n\n\n2."]},"sort":[12.849001,"13690659"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3401538","_score":12.324601,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2019 XXXX XXXX charged my Bank of America Visa credit card {$6800.00}. I contacted Bank of America on XX/XX/2019 to discuss disputing this charge because of the poor service provided by their agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX NJ and XXXX XXXX. The issues included underestimating the total weight of the move by several thousand pounds from XXXX XXXX  to XXXX XXXX, not providing a moving van on the contracted pick up date, XX/XX/2019, selecting a 26 ft truck not large enough for all items to be moved, delaying 25 % of the delivery for over 3 weeks, and because of the multiple loading and unloading of the goods in their warehouse, damage to many items. \n\nI wanted compensation for the lack of communications, poor service, and lack of professionalism from the XXXX agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I spoke several times during the experience to XXXX customer service in XXXX XXXX, MO who, when delivery was finally made, offered me only {$100.00} compensation for my troubles. \n\nI spoke to Bank of America on XX/XX/2019 to discuss compensation for the poor service from XXXX XXXX covered under the Fair Credit Billing Act, which protects the cardholder in a dispute over goods or services purchased using the credit card. \nI was asked by the bank representative how much I was expected to be compensated and I stated {$1000.00}. A report was filed and I received the attached acknowledgement. \nOver a month later on XX/XX/2019, I was asked by Bank of America to provide additional details of the claim and to sign that I was disputing the charge from XXXX XXXX for {$1000.00}. I immediately complied with this request both by e-mail and US mail delivery. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019, Bank of America notified me they were unable to determine that a billing error occurred based on the information or documentation available to us and they can not intervene in situations involving a merchant 's contract. When a transaction involves a contract, the consumer has the opportunity to review the terms and conditions before agreeing to or signing. \n\nSince my dispute with the merchant did not involve a billing error and had nothing to do with the contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, I contacted Bank of America who reopened the investigation. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019 Bank of America notified me that they re-examined your recent inquiry of the {$1000.00} charge ( s ) from XXXX XXXX, and regrettably, we're unable to obtain credit ( s ) to your account from the merchant ( s ) and that We understand you weren't satisfied with the quality of the service the merchant provided ; however, the merchant has the right to request payment for any services that were rendered. \n\nAfter this letter, Bank of America told me verbally that they had never submitted a dispute charge through the Visa dispute process with the merchants acquiring bank. This is different than stating that they are unable to obtain credit from the merchant since they never notified the merchant of the dispute. \n\nBank of America did not fulfill their obligations for disputing the charge with the merchant ( which is covered under Regulation Z ) and their Visa advertising claims that they will assist cardholders with unsatisfactory service from Visa merchants. \n\nWhen requested, Bank of America could not provide any documentation explaining their procedures for a dispute claim and stating they have the right to decline to file a dispute charge with a merchant. Their correspondence never states they didn't even file a claim with the merchant 's acquiring bank. They have no right to be the judge on what should be a credit card dispute nor could they provide any definitions from Visa on what is a qualified claim. \n\nAfter the letter on XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America even transferred my call to their benefits department a third party provider group that has nothing to do with cardholder claims for services provided. Certainly, the multiple offices throughout the country within Bank of America dispute claims are poorly trained and lack the understanding of their product. \n\nBank of America misled me in believing that they were working with me to resolve this claim until the time period for filing a claim with the merchants acquiring bank had expired. Further, bank advertisements regarding the guarantees for credit card purchases are false and any compensation for protection covered by the Fair Credit Billing Act was not offered.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-10-10T16:13:53.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"28110","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3401538","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2019-10-10T15:51:14.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Since my dispute with the merchant did not <em>involve</em> a billing <em>error</em> and had nothing to do with the contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, I contacted Bank of America who reopened the investigation."]},"sort":[12.324601,"3401538"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8265912","_score":12.217524,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB. This letter serves as a formal request for CashApp compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$800.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX, XXXX And XXXX, in the amount of {$800.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. I appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX  representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \n\nCash App decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation.\n\n2. Financial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \n\nXXXX. Ethical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. \n\nThese regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \n\nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of XXXX, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \n\nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Cash App to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Cash App commitment to ethical banking standards. \n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Cash App to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. A prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \n\nXXXX. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. Under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \n\nXXXX. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T02:59:21.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8265912","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-02T02:18:30.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no <em>error</em> occurred. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[12.217524,"8265912"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8261432","_score":12.217524,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Bank of America. Bank of America correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Closed. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. \nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nBank of America denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E. \nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX commitment to ethical banking standards. \nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. \nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:49:12.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8261432","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-01-31T16:36:24.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no <em>error</em> occurred. \nBank of America denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[12.217524,"8261432"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18555242","_score":12.205218,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"LVNV Funding LLC and Resurgent Capital Services engaged in willful, coordinated post-notice violations of federal consumer protection law by acquiring, placing, and attempting to collect an account that was already legally barred from any further use as the result of verified identity theft. Prior to acquisition and placement, both entities had actual and constructive notice that the account and the personal identifiers associated with it were the product of identity theft, as established by FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX, nationwide consumer reporting agency disputes, and mandatory 605B block notices transmitted through the credit reporting system. That notice attaches to the data itself and follows the account downstream. It can not be ignored, reset, or cured through resale or reassignment. \n\nDespite this notice, LVNV Funding LLC acquired the account and placed it with its agent, Resurgent Capital Services, for collection. Resurgent then initiated collection activity using identity-theft-contaminated personal data, including a known fraudulent address variant that had already been identified in prior identity-theft submissions. This was not a clerical error or a timing issue. It was post-notice conduct involving data that federal law renders unusable for any purpose once identity theft is verified. \n\nOnce an account is subject to a mandatory block under XXXX5 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ), no entity may lawfully acquire it, place it for collection, service it, transfer it, or attempt to collect on it. There is no exception for debt buyers, servicers, or agents. LVNVs acquisition after notice and Resurgents collection activity after notice constitute per XXXX violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because the account is legally unenforceable due to identity theft, any attempt to collect also constitutes false representation of the legal status of a debt and unlawful collection activity. \n\nNeither company disputed the existence of identity theft. Neither produced certification that the account was lawfully exempt from 605B. Neither demonstrated that the account had been unblocked, cleared, or validated through a lawful process, because no such process exists once identity theft is verified. Instead, both companies proceeded as if federal law did not apply, relying on contaminated data to generate revenue. This reflects a systemic failure of due diligence and a business model that externalizes identity-theft risk onto consumers while monetizing data that the law requires to be suppressed.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T03:25:20.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"77449","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18555242","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2026-01-08T03:17:14.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This was not a clerical <em>error</em> or a timing issue. It was post-notice conduct <em>involving</em> data that federal law <em>renders</em> unusable for any purpose once identity theft is verified. \n\nOnce an account is subject to a mandatory block <em>under</em> XXXX5 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ), no entity may lawfully acquire it, place it for collection, service it, transfer it, or attempt to collect on it. There is no exception for debt buyers, servicers, or agents."]},"sort":[12.205218,"18555242"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8255451","_score":12.138927,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Navy Federal Credit Union Denial of Claims. Navy Federal Credit Union emails dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Resolved. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern Navy Federal Credit Unions compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice.\n\nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ).\n\nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms.\n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX XXXX services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX XXXX billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances.\n\nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX XXXX representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful.\n\nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship.\n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place Navy Federal Credit Union in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions.\n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning XXXX XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. XXXX XXXX XXXX  actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Navy Federal Credit Union to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Navy Federal Credit Unions commitment to ethical banking standards.\n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Navy Federal Credit Union to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer.\n\nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance.\n\nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards.\n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request.\n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery.\n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings.\n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit.\n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality.\n\nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:27:16.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8255451","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-01-31T15:52:22.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no <em>error</em> occurred.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[12.138927,"8255451"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10652758","_score":12.120867,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank regarding its handling of a credit card dispute involving a charge of {$1200.00}. I believe Chases actions have failed to uphold my rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( XXXX ), as it has unreasonably refused to accept sufficient evidence substantiating my claim and has shown bias toward the merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the Merchant ). \nOn XX/XX/year>, I made a payment of {$2500.00} to XXXX XXXX XXXX for a service. The payment was made using XXXX different cards. {$1300.00} was charged on my debit card and {$1200.00} to my chase credit card. When I picked up the car and drove it home, It was clear that not all the service requested and paid for was completed. The most critical issue which was the car vibrating with a loud noise when stationary and XXXX XXXX mode was unresolved. I reported the issue to the merchant abut they told me they can not fix the issue and recommended I go to the car dealer. At this point, I requested a refund, but the merchant refused. The XXXX failed to deliver the services as agreed. I initiated a dispute with Chase for {$1200.00} which was the cost for the unresolved issue. I believe that the charge was unauthorized due to non-performance by the XXXX. Chase required me to submit supporting evidence, which I did. \n\nI provided XXXX key documents to substantiate my claim : A Technical Service Bulletin issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>, which clearly indicated that I was at their location for an unresolved service issue beyond the date the initial service should have been completed. The XXXX acknowledgment on this document confirms that the service was not successfully rendered. \n\nAn invoice from a second mechanic who inspected my vehicle after the unresolved service. This invoice documents the issues and estimates the repair cost, thereby supporting my claim that XXXX did not complete the service I paid for. The second mechanic, however, declined to issue a letter, as they believed the invoice provided was sufficient, accurate, and professional documentation. \nDespite submitting this evidence, Chase closed the dispute and sided with the XXXX, requesting that I provide an additional letter from the second mechanic. This action effectively disregards valid documentary evidence, placing an unreasonable burden on me as a consumer to comply with arbitrary documentation requirements. Chases refusal to accept the invoice constitutes unfair treatment, violates my rights under the XXXX, and undermines my ability to recover my disputed funds. \nUnder the Fair Credit Billing Act, consumers are entitled to dispute billing errors on credit card statements, including charges for goods and services not delivered as agreed. The law requires that the creditor conduct a reasonable investigation and provide a fair and impartial review of the evidence presented by the consumer. Chases request for further documentation when sufficient evidence has already been submitted, and its dismissal of this evidence in favor of the XXXX assertions, is both unreasonable and biased. This conduct not only hinders my ability to resolve this dispute but also violates my consumer rights.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-02T01:48:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"20110","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10652758","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2024-11-02T00:59:46.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chases refusal to accept the invoice constitutes unfair treatment, violates my rights <em>under</em> the XXXX, and undermines my ability to recover my disputed funds. \n<em>Under</em> the <em>Fair</em> Credit Billing Act, consumers are entitled to dispute billing <em>errors</em> on credit card statements, including charges for goods and services not delivered as agreed. The law requires that the creditor conduct a reasonable investigation and provide a <em>fair</em> and impartial review of the evidence presented by the consumer."]},"sort":[12.120867,"10652758"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10605435","_score":11.577383,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Dispute of Inaccurate Credit Report Entry Related to Malpractice Case Request for Immediate Removal Dear Greensky , LLC ( Disputes ), XXXX, XXXX, & XXXX : This is not a complaint against the dental provider, as a mutual agreement has been reached. In my previous complaint, filed under Complaint ID numbers XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Greensky , LLC did not address the seriousness of this issue or offer a satisfactory solution. I have made every effort to resolve this matter, with the expectation that Greensky , LLC would honor its own policies and Bill of Rights. \n\nAs previously stated, I have reached a mutual agreement with my provider due to an unfortunate case of malpractice and inadequate completion of services that formed the basis of Greensky , LLC 's funding. Although this agreement does not directly name Greensky , LLC, it underscores the defect in the services that the loan was originally intended to finance. \n\nGrounds for Removal Under FCRA, CFPB Authority, and Greensky, LLCs Possible Practices Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) guidelines, and Greensky, LLCs own policies on consumer rights and dispute resolution, I am entitled to accurate and fair reporting. Additionally, Greensky , LLC required me to confirm, on my initial visit to the dental provider, that treatments were completed on that same day, which was not the case, the attached copy of my patient ledger reflects that the visit was for an evaluation and consultation only. This raises concerns that Greensky , LLC may have a practice of requesting confirmation of treatments prematurely, which could suggest a pattern of inaccurate reporting that misleads consumers and impacts their credit. \n1. Pattern of Potential Misrepresentation by Greensky , LLC Greensky, LLCs requirement for me to confirm treatments before they were actually completed suggests a possible culture within the company of prematurely verifying treatments, which could be used to expedite financing approvals or for other internal objectives. This practice could indicate a pattern of consumer misrepresentation, where Greensky , LLC may systematically request and rely on false information to report financing completion prematurely. \n2. FCRA, Section 611 Right to Dispute Inaccurate Information This debt, being tied to a malpractice case, no longer reflects a valid obligation due to the mutual agreement reached with the provider. Greensky, LLCs role in prematurely confirming treatments has only contributed to the inaccuracies now reported on my credit profile. I therefore request the removal of this entry to correct this misrepresentation.\n\n3. CFPB Investigation of Potential Widespread Conduct Given Greensky, LLCs actions in my case, I am requesting that the CFPB review Greensky, LLCs approach to verifying and reporting treatments and financing of XXXX XXXX. If my experience is indicative of broader practices, Greensky, LLCs conduct could represent a systemic issue, potentially violating consumer rights and CFPB guidelines.\n\n4. Dodd-Frank Act, Section 1031 Protection from Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts Greensky, LLCs insistence on confirmation of false information may constitute an unfair and deceptive practice under Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Their conduct in this instance, if representative of standard practices, suggests a lack of transparency that may harm consumers seeking fair and accurate financing for XXXX XXXX. \n5. Greensky , LLC Customer Bill of Rights or Policies on Dispute Handling and Accuracy I am requesting that Greensky , LLC adhere to their stated commitments to fair lending, transparent communication, and dispute resolution, particularly in cases involving XXXX XXXX. Given that the provider, Greensky, LLCs business partner, has acknowledged malpractice, I expect Greensky , LLC to take this into account and act according to their own policies on accuracy and consumer protection. \n\nGreensky , LLC 's actions appear to contradict several core principles typically outlined in their own Bill of Rights. By requiring premature confirmation of completed services, Greensky , LLC may have failed to maintain transparency in the loan process.\n\nAdditionally, their continued pursuit of collections and negative credit reporting-despite an unresolved malpractice situation and mutual agreement with the provider-raises questions about their commitment to fair treatment, customer resolution, and respect for consumer rights. I have made every effort to address this matter with Greensky , LLC in the expectation that their policies would be honored. \n\n6. CFPB Regulation V ( 12 CFR Part 1022 ) Consumer Right to Error Resolution and Accurate Reporting Greensky, LLCs requirement to confirm treatment completion prematurely has led to inaccurate reporting, inconsistent with CFPB Regulation V, which requires that furnishers ensure the accuracy of all information provided to credit bureaus. Greensky, LLCs actions here warrant immediate removal or correction of the debt on my credit profile. \n\n7. CFPB Bulletin 2014-31 Medical Debt Reporting Accuracy The CFPB has underscored the need for accuracy in medical debt reporting, recognizing it as an area often prone to errors. This debt involves a medical procedure now proven to be malpractice, and I request that CFPB take this into consideration and enforce fair reporting standards. \n\nRequest for Reinvestigation and Removal I am requesting an investigation of this matter under Section 611 ( a ) of the FCRA. I have attached documentation, including a copy of my mutual agreement with the provider, to support this request. Failure to act on this will leave me with no option but to escalate this dispute by filing a complaint against Greensky , LLC with the Division of Consumer Affairs, Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and, if necessary, pursuing further legal action in federal court.\n\nAdditionally, I am requesting that Greensky , LLC, LLC provide the following : 8. Documentation of Loan Process : All records, including timestamps and terms that I was shown before being required to confirm treatment completion.\n\n9. Insurance Claims Verification : Confirmation of whether Greensky , LLC filed or received any insurance claims related to this loan. \n10. Compliance with Electronic Signature Laws : Evidence that Greensky , LLC 's process for obtaining my electronic signature was compliant with consumer protection laws, given that no completed treatments had actually been rendered.\n\nEmphasizing that the mutual agreement with the provider resolved the malpractice matter and serves to highlight that the initial loan arrangement led to an incomplete and defective service. Although Greensky , LLC is not directly implicated in our mutual agreement, the context could argue that Greensky , LLC 's loan terms became void or inappropriate due to the failure in services. \n\nHighlighting the fact that Greensky , LLC 's attempt to pursue payment is unfair in light of the malpractice, where I was effectively paying for services that were either incomplete and unsatisfactory. Since Greensky , LLC required me to prematurely confirm completed treatments, they contributed to the incomplete and misleading transition despite the extensive nature of the procedure, which would have made completion impossible in a single visit. Documentation submitted by the provider to Greensky , LLC for payment clearly outlined the scope of work yet to be completed, demonstrating that this was not a simple, quick procedure. This should have raised concerns with Greensky , LLC regarding anything unethical. \n\nHowever, Greensky , LLC either ignored these red flags or intentionally allocated funds for services not yet rendered. I have supporting evidence, including my patient ledger, confirming that the date Greensky , LLC requested confirmation for my electronic signature was inaccurate and misrepresented the true timeline of treatment completion. I ask that the credit bureau request all paperwork submitted to Greensky , LLC by the provider that aligns with my patient ledger, to confirm the inaccurate reporting. \n\n\nAttachments Mutual Agreement with Provider ( Acknowledging Malpractice ) Proof of Email from Greensky , LLC Requesting confirmation of completed Services Not Rendered A copy of my patient ledger outlining dates of alleged services. You will see that I had my initial consultation on XX/XX/XXXX, in which no treatment was provided or ( completed ). \nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I expect a written response within 30 days as mandated by law. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-28T04:11:55.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Medical debt","zip_code":"07017","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10605435","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GREENSKY OPERATIONS, LLC","date_received":"2024-10-28T04:11:53.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB Bulletin 2014-31 Medical Debt Reporting Accuracy The CFPB has underscored the need for accuracy in medical debt reporting, recognizing it as an area often prone to <em>errors</em>. This debt <em>involves</em> a medical procedure now proven to be malpractice, and I request that CFPB take this into consideration and enforce <em>fair</em> reporting standards. \n\nRequest for Reinvestigation and Removal I am requesting an investigation of this matter <em>under</em> Section 611 ( a ) of the FCRA."]},"sort":[11.577383,"10605435"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":106,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":106}]}},"product":{"doc_count":106,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":49,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":46},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":27,"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":25},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Medical debt","doc_count":5},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":2},{"key":"Check cashing service","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"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":2}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":106,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":25,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":25}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":25,"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":24},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":17,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":7},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":7},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":7,"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":3},{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":3},{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":4,"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":3},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":2},{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing issue","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"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 while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Advertising and marketing, including promotional offers","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive advertised or promotional terms","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Don't agree with the fees charged","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":"Card opened without my consent or knowledge","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":106,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":105},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":106,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":74},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":26},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":6}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":106,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":106}]}},"company":{"doc_count":106,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":16},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":14},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":12},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":6},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":6},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":4},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Colony Brands, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":2},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":2},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":2},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ditech Financial LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"GREENSKY OPERATIONS, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"GUARANTEED RATE INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Innovis","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Self Financial Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"State Collection Service, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"VYSTAR CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WAFD BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"World Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":106,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":18},{"key":"TX","doc_count":14},{"key":"CA","doc_count":13},{"key":"NY","doc_count":8},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":7},{"key":"MD","doc_count":6},{"key":"VA","doc_count":6},{"key":"MI","doc_count":5},{"key":"GA","doc_count":4},{"key":"IL","doc_count":4},{"key":"OH","doc_count":4},{"key":"OR","doc_count":4},{"key":"MS","doc_count":3},{"key":"RI","doc_count":3},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"DE","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"UT","doc_count":1},{"key":"WY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":106,"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":50},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":106,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":11},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":3}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[11.579018,"10605435"],"3":[8.427625,"18703484"],"4":[4.926634,"20213030"],"5":[4.002409,"12959229"]}}}