{"took":179,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":8,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15162358","_score":28.304745,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year> I disputed a debit card transaction with PNC Bank involving an international merchant. About XXXX months into the dispute, the merchant emailed me stating that my order has been refunded, which is an acknowledgment that the original charge was not valid. However, no refund ever posted to my account, and the merchant provided no proof that a refund was processed. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX PNC Bank sent me a denial letter stating they did not find an error and that their explanation of determination for denying my dispute was attempt to recover funds from the merchant was unsuccessful at this time Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), the banks responsibility is to determine whether an error occurred, not whether they can recover funds from the merchant. A failed recovery attempt does not shift the loss to the consumer.PNC Bank in this instance decided the dispute based off of recovery and not the validity of the dispute which is required under Regulation E. By the merchant sending me an email telling me that my order had been refunded it was an admission on their part that the charge was not valid/ is in error and I was due a refund.\n\nI am requesting that PNC reopen the dispute, provide all documentation used in their investigation, and issue a credit for the disputed amount in compliance with Regulation E.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-08T22:07:15.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"21234","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15162358","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2025-08-08T21:33:50.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XXXX XXXX PNC Bank sent me a denial letter stating they did not find an <em>error</em> and that their <em>explanation</em> of <em>determination</em> for <em>denying</em> my <em>dispute</em> was <em>attempt</em> to <em>recover</em> funds from the merchant was unsuccessful at this time Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), the banks responsibility is to determine whether an <em>error</em> occurred, not whether they can <em>recover</em> funds from the merchant."]},"sort":[28.304745,"15162358"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15159339","_score":27.42915,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year> I disputed a debit card transaction with PNC Bank involving an international merchant. About two months into the dispute, the merchant emailed me stating that my order has been refunded, which is an acknowledgment that the original charge was not valid. I forwarded the email from the merchant directly to PNC 's Dispute Department at XXXX on XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EST However, no refund ever posted to my account, and the merchant provided no proof that a refund was processed even after repeated requests from myself. On XXXX XXXX PNC Bank sent me a denial letter stating they did not find an error and that their explanation of determination for denying my dispute was attempt to recover funds from the merchant was unsuccessful at this time Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), the banks responsibility is to determine whether an error occurred, not whether they can recover funds from the merchant. A failed recovery attempt does not shift the loss to the consumer.PNC Bank in this instance decided the dispute based off of recovery and not the validity of the dispute which is required under Regulation E. By the merchant sending me an email telling me that my order had been refunded it was an admission on their part that the charge was not valid/ is in error and I was due a refund. I am requesting that PNC reopen the dispute, provide all documentation used in their investigation, and issue a credit for the disputed amount in compliance with Regulation E.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-09T01:08:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"21234","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15159339","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2025-08-09T00:49:27.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XXXX XXXX PNC Bank sent me a denial letter stating they did not find an <em>error</em> and that their <em>explanation</em> of <em>determination</em> for <em>denying</em> my <em>dispute</em> was <em>attempt</em> to <em>recover</em> funds from the merchant was unsuccessful at this time Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), the banks responsibility is to determine whether an <em>error</em> occurred, not whether they can <em>recover</em> funds from the merchant."]},"sort":[27.42915,"15159339"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18894270","_score":23.269207,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I sent a XXXX XXXX transfer of {$230.00} from my XXXX XXXX account ( ending XXXX ) for a service that was promised but never provided. I later determined the transaction appears to have been a scam ( services never delivered ; no refund ). I promptly disputed the transaction with XXXX XXXX and requested an investigation and supporting records. \n\nXXXX XXXX closed my dispute as \" no error occurred '' and refused to re-open it. XXXX XXXX  explanation is that ( 1 ) they attempted to request a \" good-faith return '' through XXXX to the receiving institution ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the receiving institution declined ; ( 2 ) under \" XXXX rules, '' they can not compel a return ; ( 3 ) XXXX has XXXX no purchase protection '' and works like cash/wire once funds are sent ; and ( 4 ) XXXX XXXX  concluded the transfer was \" authorized '' and not due to an unauthorized transfer, system failure, or other \" error ''. \n\nXXXX XXXX position conflates recoverability with error-resolution compliance. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, when a consumer reports a potential error, the institution must investigate, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within required timelines. \n\n1. XXXX XXXX described \" investigation '' is primarily a recovery attempt via XXXX. Whether the recipient bank will voluntarily return funds does not determine whether an \" error '' occurred under federal law. EFTA requires an investigation and a determination, not merely a clawback request.\n\n2. The banks conclusion that the transaction was \" authorized '' is conclusory and unsupported. Regulation E defines \" error '' to include an unauthorized electronic fund transfer. XXXX XXXX insists it reviewed evidence and determined the transfer was authorized, but it has not provided the factual basis that supports that conclusion ( e.g., authentication/authorization evidence ). Instead, XXXX XXXX relies on generalized XXXX disclaimers about \" no purchase protection '' which do not satisfy the banks federal statutory duties. \n\n3. XXXX XXXX failed to provide \" documents relied upon '' / meaningful explanation of findings. Regulation E requires a written explanation of findings when the institution determines no error occurred and, upon request, production of the documents the institution relied upon. Instead, XXXX XXXX sent me screenshots/status records indicating \" delivered/no return, '' but those records do not demonstrate authorization. When I requested records supporting the \" authorized '' determination, XXXX XXXX stated that \" system level data, internal security logs, or proprietary fraud monitoring outputs '' may not be disclosed. This is problematic because those are the categories of records that would ordinarily be relied upon to reach an \" authorized '' conclusion. If XXXX XXXX relied on those records, the bank should provide consumer-reportable versions or an adequate explanation of the evidence supporting its determination, rather than refusing disclosure while maintaining a conclusory denial. \n\n4. XXXX XXXX dispute handling appears to be an unfair process that effectively denies Regulation E protections by substituting \" XXXX works like cash '' messaging for the required investigation and substantiated findings. If XXXX XXXX markets or represents consumer protections for fraudulent transfers but then denies claims with conclusory statements and without providing the basis for an authorization determination, that XXXX implicate unfair/deceptive practices under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nI requested that XXXX XXXX re-open the dispute and provide a Regulation E-compliant investigation and documentation, including : XXXX. Evidence supporting its \" authorized '' conclusion ( channel used, timestamps, session IDs, device identifiers, IP/geo indicators, XXXX challenges/results XXXX and any anomalous access/risk flags ) XXXX. Recipient token/enrollment history and the basis for \" token not restricted '' findings referenced by XXXX records XXXX XXXX XXXX case notes and the specific steps taken in the investigation beyond the XXXX return request XXXX. A substantive written explanation of findings consistent with Regulation XXXX First Tech refused to re-open and responded that the Regulation XXXX process is \" complete, '' relying largely on XXXX lack of purchase protection and stating some internal security documentation will not be disclosed. \n\nHarm to me : XXXX. Financial loss of {$230.00} XXXX. Significant time and administrative burden spent pursuing basic evidence and a legally compliant error-resolution process XXXX. Ongoing inability to validate the banks \" authorized '' conclusion due to lack of supporting evidence and refusal to provide consumer-reportable documentation","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-21T17:25:45.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"98072","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18894270","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","date_received":"2026-01-21T17:13:03.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX position conflates <em>recoverability</em> with <em>error</em>-resolution compliance. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, when a consumer reports a potential <em>error</em>, the institution must investigate, determine whether an <em>error</em> occurred, and report the results to the consumer within required timelines. \n\n1. XXXX XXXX described \" investigation '' is primarily a recovery <em>attempt</em> via XXXX."]},"sort":[23.269207,"18894270"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12201850","_score":21.167719,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Against Chime Bank for Unresolved Unauthorized Transactions and Inadequate Dispute Resolution Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Chime Bank regarding their handling of unauthorized transactions on my account, their refusal to provide explanations for dispute denials, and their failure to issue provisional credits as required by law. \n\nDetails of the Incident : Account Holder : [ XXXX XXXX ] Bank : Chime Bank Date of Unauthorized Transactions : XX/XX/year>2025, to XX/XX/year>2025 Amount : {$1300.00} Merchant ( s ) : XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX Chronology of Events : XXXX. Unauthorized Transactions : Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>2025, I discovered unauthorized charges totaling {$1300.00} from XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX  on my Chime account. \n\nXXXX. Dispute Filing : I immediately contacted Chimes customer service on XX/XX/year>2025, to report these unauthorized transactions and submitted a formal dispute, providing all necessary documentation, including email confirmations from XXXX and XXXX stating that I did not authorize these charges. \nXXXX. Lack of Response and Provisional Credit : Despite multiple follow-ups, after multiple attempts to reopen my dispute and it being denied everytime, I have not received any substantive response from Chime. They promised a provisional credit by XX/XX/year>2025, which has not been provided to date. \n\nXXXX. Dispute Denial Without Explanation : On XX/XX/year>2025, I received an email from Chime stating that my dispute was resolved and closed without any explanation or documentation supporting their decision. \n\nXXXX. Inability to File a Police Report : Due to the nature of the unauthorized transactions being cyber-related, local law enforcement advised that they can not file a report without documentation from the bank, which Chime has refused to provide. \n\nRegulatory Concerns : Chimes actions appear to violate the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, which require financial institutions to : Investigate Unauthorized Transactions Promptly : Conduct a reasonable investigation upon notification of an error. \nProvide Provisional Credit : If the investigation can not be completed within 10 business days, provisionally credit the disputed amount to the consumers account. \nOffer Explanation for Denial : If the dispute is denied, provide a clear explanation and make available the documents relied upon in making the determination. \n\nChime has failed to adhere to these requirements, leaving me without recourse to recover the unauthorized funds. \n\nRequested Resolution : I seek the CFPBs assistance in : XXXX. Investigating Chime Banks Dispute Resolution Practices : Assess their compliance with EFTA and Regulation E concerning unauthorized transactions. \nXXXX. Facilitating the Reversal of Unauthorized Charges : Ensure that Chime credits my account for the disputed amount. \nXXXX. Mandating Transparency in Dispute Denials : Require Chime to provide clear explanations and necessary documentation when denying disputes. \n\nI have attached copies of all relevant correspondence, including emails with Chimes customer service, and communications from XXXX and XXXX confirming the unauthorized nature of the transactions. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt assistance in resolving this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-26T05:40:09.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"21212","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12201850","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-02-26T05:23:02.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Offer <em>Explanation</em> for Denial : If the <em>dispute</em> is <em>denied</em>, provide a clear <em>explanation</em> and make available the documents relied upon in making the <em>determination</em>. \n\nChime has failed to adhere to these requirements, leaving me without recourse to <em>recover</em> the unauthorized funds. \n\nRequested Resolution : I seek the CFPBs assistance in : XXXX. Investigating Chime Banks <em>Dispute</em> Resolution Practices : Assess their compliance with EFTA and Regulation E concerning unauthorized transactions. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[21.167719,"12201850"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22313992","_score":18.54892,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I formally dispute the conclusion reached regarding claim XXXX and request an immediate escalation and reinvestigation of this matter.\n\nYour response improperly characterizes this incident as a simple authorized merchant dispute while failing to adequately address the fraudulent and deceptive conduct used to induce the transfer. This was not a legitimate transaction dispute involving dissatisfaction with services. The funds were obtained through misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement.\n\nThe recipient represented themselves as a legitimate business/provider through XXXX and XXXX XXXX in order to obtain payment. After payment was sent, the account immediately changed identifying information and failed to provide the promised services/products. This behavior is consistent with intentional fraud and impersonation, not a routine contractual disagreement between consumer and merchant.\n\nYour determination appears to rely solely on the fact that I technically initiated the transfer. However, authorization obtained through deception, impersonation, or fraudulent misrepresentation should not automatically eliminate consumer protections or end the investigation. At no point did I knowingly authorize funds to be transferred to a fraudulent party operating under false pretenses.\n\nAdditionally, I believe the investigation conducted was inadequate for several reasons : The response fails to explain what investigative steps were actually taken.\n\nNo evidence was provided showing how the recipient was determined to be legitimate.\n\nNo explanation was provided regarding whether account activity, profile changes, fraud indicators, prior complaints, or suspicious conduct were reviewed. \nXXXX XXXX delayed the dispute process by instructing me to first request a refund instead of immediately processing the fraud dispute, reducing my ability to recover funds promptly.\n\nThe response improperly shifts all responsibility to the consumer despite clear evidence of deceptive conduct by the recipient.\n\nI am requesting the following immediately : 1. A full reinvestigation of this claim under fraud and deceptive inducement standards rather than a standard merchant dispute framework.\n\n2. Copies of all records, investigative notes, findings, policies, and evidence relied upon in denying reimbursement.\n\n3. Clarification regarding what specific evidence was used to conclude no error occurred.\n\n4. Confirmation of whether the recipient account was reviewed for suspicious activity, prior fraud complaints, or account/profile changes after payment.\n\n5. Escalation of this matter to a senior investigator or executive review team.\n\nI acted promptly and in good faith upon discovering the fraud. I provided supporting evidence and attempted recovery through the channels instructed to me. The current response does not sufficiently address the fraudulent nature of this incident and fails to provide transparency regarding the investigation performed.\n\nIf this matter continues to be denied without meaningful review, I reserve the right to pursue additional complaints with state and federal regulatory agencies and explore all available legal remedies","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-18T18:49:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"98122","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22313992","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-18T18:43:00.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A full reinvestigation of this claim under fraud and deceptive inducement standards rather than a standard merchant <em>dispute</em> framework.\n\n2. Copies of all records, investigative notes, findings, policies, and evidence relied upon in <em>denying</em> reimbursement.\n\n3. Clarification regarding what specific evidence was used to conclude no <em>error</em> occurred.\n\n4."]},"sort":[18.54892,"22313992"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3402509","_score":11.816193,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2019, I made a moving reservation with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was told in a recorded call that if I cancelled my move, I would not receive a refund, and I agreed. I signed an estimate that listed all of my items and gave a price by weight to move my things that I was told was binding-it would be honored as long as I didnt change my inventory. As my things were in a storage unit already, I knew my inventory would not change. I emailed and clarified again that I would be charged by weight, not by cubic feet, and was assured by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that they would find a mover who would move my stuff for me with pick-up on either XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX, and all charges would be based solely on weight, not cubic feet. // On the day of the move ( XX/XX/XXXX ), the mover provided by the broker arrived at my storage unit and said he would not honor the binding estimate because he wouldn't charge by weight, only cubic feet. He offered to write a new estimate, but the new estimate would require that I pay an additional $ 300-500 immediately, and additional costs would be due upon delivery. I called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and they said the mover needed to charge by weight, but when I called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, they would not help me resolve the issue of the mover claiming he would not honor the estimate or charge by weight. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX told me I had 30 minutes to allow the mover to move my things or the driver would leave. The mover also spoke with them and told them that he needed a new estimate and additional funds, despite the original binding estimate being accurate and written to charge by weight. They refused to do anything to resolve the situation, refused to provide another mover who would honor the estimate and charge by weight, and refused to help me in any further way, including not answering any further calls. // The mover suggested I call my bank and ask about recovering the funds I had paid because he could not do the job as written ( in other words, he was refusing to provide the service ), and this was a frequent occurrence when he was sent on jobs for this moving broker ( meaning that the broker knew this was a problem with this moving company, and did not find or provide a mover who was able to do the movewhich was the exact service I had paid them to provide and the entire basis of the contract I had with them ). The mover told me that if Id used a credit card, I should have no issue getting my funds back, but since it was a debit card transaction, it would depend on my bank. I called First Bank in XXXX XXXX, and spoke with XXXX XXXX. I explained the situation, and the mover explained on speaker phone to both of us that he couldnt honor an estimate based on weight, and was refusing/unable to provide the services the estimate and deposit were for. XXXX told me that if services were not provided, I would not have to pay the charge and I should file a dispute that would recover the funds I had spent. // I tried repeatedly to contact XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and they would not answer my calls or return my messages. So I sent XXXX all of the documentation she requested ( per her request I sent them electronically through email ) : a link to the binding estimate I had signed ( I was unable to do more than screenshots as my computer was packed for the move and I was on my phone, and XXXX didnt want screenshots ), a written statement about what had happened, and the emails between myself and the company agreeing the move would be charged by weight. // More than a week later, I received a letter from First Bank saying a provisional credit had been placed in my account, and I would be notified upon final resolution before a date in XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Glacier Family of Banks stating that the bank had competed their investigation, and the bank did not find an error had occurred. The letter told me that the credit would be reversed from my account in 2 days, on XX/XX/XXXX. // I immediately called XXXX XXXX XXXX the dispute specialist who signed the letter, and was told that she did not find fraud had occurred because I had cancelled my move. I explained that I did not cancel, the mover had refused the job and left. The broker had refused to work with me or return my calls, and I had been unable to get the service that had been guaranteed to me ( the service I paid for was that the broker would provide a mover who would honor the estimate as written and move my things before XX/XX/XXXX as long as my inventory hadnt changed ). XXXX said that regardless of what happened, the bank 's decision was final. When I asked why the dispute had been filed as a cancellation when the issue was that services werent provided, XXXX just repeated that because the cancellation policy was posted on the brokers website, the claim had been denied. After speaking to someone with knowledge of the dispute process, I called XXXX back and again asked why when this wasnt filed as a services not provided dispute, and XXXX told me she didnt know. She then claimed that the entire decision was solely XXXX XXXX and she couldn't do anything but pass along their ruling, and she was bound by the bank policy for reversal of credit. // Ultimately I was told in three separate phone calls with two different employees ( XXXX XXXX with Glacier Bank and XXXX XXXX with First Bank ) that pre-arbitration was not an option, and I had absolutely no way of appealing the decision made by XXXX XXXX despite the decision being based on the erroneous dispute claim about cancellation. Additionally, the letter I received from Glacier Family of Banks states, You have the right to request documentation concerning the information the Glacier Family of Banks relied upon in making our determination. In all three phone conversations, I asked XXXX and XXXX to send me all the documentation for my case so I could understand why pre-arbitration wasnt an option, and why this had been filed as a cancellation rather than services not provided. I asked repeatedly for the communications from XXXX XXXXnd was told me there were absolutely no written communications in any form, and my file only contained the denial letter and a 2-page fax from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claiming to have ( but not providing any documentation of ) proof that I had cancelled my move prior to them attempting to send a mover, and there was nothing further she could send me. // According to XXXX  manual called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Glacier Bank would have been able to make a pre-arbitration attempt if they could provide new documentation or informationwhich would have included clarifying the dispute as services not provided rather than cancellation. The dispute stage process also says that the issuer-my bank-has to certify that they contacted me to review the Compelling Evidence and can provide an explanation of why the cardholder ( me ) continued to dispute the transaction. I was never, ever contacted to review the Compelling Evidence ; Ive still never seen the compelling evidence, and despite this provision, Glacier Bank is refusing to follow XXXX XXXX XXXX  and proceed to pre-arbitration. The table goes on to say that, if the Acquirer has not met the requirements specified in the XXXX XXXX ( which their compelling evidence absolutely did not ), then the issuer should file for arbitration. Again, Glacier Bank refused to do this, and denied me the right to fully dispute the transactions and recover my funds. // I believe First Bank misfiled my initial dispute as a cancellation dispute rather than a services not provided dispute, did not follow the procedure required by XXXX after that, and rather than correcting their error and informing me of the process in a timely manner, they delayed until the deadlines for pre-arbitration had passed. I believe that First Bank only realized they had completely messed up the filing and did not follow the process for pre-arbitration when I contacted them, and rather than own their mistake and make it right, they instead cut off all communication, have not sent me any of the paperwork or documentation related to this dispute, and will not answer my phone calls or return my phone messages, voicemails, or online attempts at communication. // ( Update to add : since this issue has continued, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have sent a claim to the XXXX  stating that the funds were returned to me through the dispute, and have not been returned to them with the settling of the claim, despite the full amount having been debited from my account a month ago. XXXX XXXX also stated in their XXXX response that I did NOT cancel, and they did not provide the services, which makes the evidence they submitted to XXXX  an outright lie, and further supports my case for continuing or reopening the dispute, since the facts are agreed on both sides : the services were not provided, and I did NOT cancel as Glacier Bank claims. XXXX XXXX also argued that I had signed a binding contract, however, XXXX XXXX states in their XXXX Response that I did NOT sign a contract, only an estimate, and so the bank 's claim that there was a contractual issue preventing them from disputing my claim is also completely false and has deprived me of almost {$XXXX} from a valid dispute for a month ).","date_sent_to_company":"2019-10-11T14:08:04.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"49037","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3402509","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Glacier Bancorp Inc.","date_received":"2019-10-11T12:39:40.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Again, Glacier Bank refused to do this, and <em>denied</em> me the right to fully <em>dispute</em> the transactions and <em>recover</em> my funds. // I believe First Bank misfiled my initial <em>dispute</em> as a cancellation <em>dispute</em> rather than a services not provided <em>dispute</em>, did not follow the procedure required by XXXX after that, and rather than correcting their <em>error</em> and informing me of the process in a timely manner, they delayed until the deadlines for pre-arbitration had passed."]},"sort":[11.816193,"3402509"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20193150","_score":9.753927,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Citibank for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) in connection with the handling and wrongful denial of XXXX billing dispute claims ( Case XXXX XXXX and XXXX ) involving {$190.00} each ( {$390.00} total ) charged by The XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, a sweepstakes merchant, for services that were never provided. \n\nI. THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE : SERVICE NOT PROVIDED UNDER XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, I made XXXX purchases of {$190.00} each on my Citi XXXX XXXX card ( account ending XXXX ) at XX/XX/XXXX. This dispute is properly classified as a \" services not provided as agreed '' billing error under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ). \n\nThe merchant 's anticipated defense that it delivered \" Gold Coins '' digitally and instantly fails under the Predominant Purpose Test. The merchant 's own Terms of Service ( Clause XXXX ) explicitly state that Gold Coins \" do not have any real money value '' and \" can not be redeemed for value or otherwise. '' The actual economic substance of the transaction the predominant purpose for which payment was made was the XXXX XXXX ( SC ) redemption service : the contractual right to redeem cash winnings. This is confirmed by the merchant 's own Sweepstakes Rules, which state SC coins are \" redeemable for real prizes including cash, '' and by the merchant 's own purchase interface, which lists SC Coin first above Gold Coins. Delivering valueless Gold Coins without completing the SC redemption service is equivalent to delivering a car with no engine the core contracted service was never rendered. \n\nThis legal framework is consistent with the regulatory direction taken by multiple U.S. jurisdictions, which have increasingly treated SC redemption rights as the primary economic product in sweepstakes casino transactions, directly undermining the \" digital goods delivered '' defense that merchants in this space routinely assert in chargeback proceedings. \n\nImmediately after my purchases, the merchant sent XXXX written automated email confirmations promising to \" verify and complete '' my redemption within \" XXXX business hours. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, merchant agent \" May '' confirmed in writing that my account was fully verified and nothing further was required. The merchant then refused to honor the XXXX promise, enforcing a hidden \" XXXX Business Day '' ( XXXX calendar day ) policy a timeline that expires exactlyXX/XX/XXXXdays after XXXX 's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant refused in writing to pay until XX/XX/XXXX, after my dispute window would close. \n\nThe merchant holds an F rating from the Better Business Bureau ( XXXX complaints filed ; failure to respond to XXXX : XXXX ). Hundreds of Trustpilot reviews document the identical non-payment pattern. The merchant publicly acknowledged on XXXX that redemptions may take \" XXXX business days XXXX XXXX '' an illusory term granting itself the right to withhold funds indefinitely. The merchant attempted to suppress negative reviews, flagging XXXX of themXX/XX/XXXXone-star ) ; XX/XX/XXXXof those flags were ruled invalid by XXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX tomorrow the merchant will have violated even its own stated XXXX XXXX XXXX policy in my specific case, eliminating its sole remaining defense. I am filing this complaint today, the day before that deadline, to document Citi 's denial on the record before this final merchant defense collapses entirely. \n\nXXXX. THE EVIDENCE I SUBMITTED TO CITI On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed XXXX disputes with Citi and submitted the following documentation to XXXX confirmed received : XXXX. A XXXX Formal Dispute Dossier with XXXX labeled exhibits ( A-J ), including : XXXX written merchant confirmation emails promising XXXX hour completion ( Exhibit B ) ; written verification confirmation from merchant agent \" May '' on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit H ) ; the merchant 's written refusal to pay until after my dispute rights expired ( Exhibit D ) ; transaction records ( Exhibit C ) ; the merchant 's own website screenshot showing XXXX redemptions totaling {$1000.00} all in \" Pending '' status, recovered before the merchant 's XXXX automated deletion window erased them ( Exhibit J ) ; Terms of Service excerpts proving Gold Coins have no monetary value ( Exhibit I ) ; Trustpilot graphs documenting complete service collapse from majority XXXX reviews in early XXXX to overwhelmingly XXXX by XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit F ) ; and the merchant 's own public admission of illusory terms ( Exhibit XXXX ). \n\nXXXX. A signed two-page Non-Receipt of Service Declaration executed under penalty of perjury. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX supplemental response forms, completed and returned upon request. \n\nThis constitutes exceptionally comprehensive cardholder evidence for a billing dispute of this nature. \n\nXXXX. CITI 'S FCBA NON-COMPLIANCE Violation XXXX Failure to Conduct a Reasonable, Substantive Investigation : Citi closed both disputes on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX calendar days after filing. Citi 's denial stated only that \" the services or merchandise were provided '' the merchant 's standard digital goods defense without any acknowledgment of, or engagement with, the XXXX dossier comprehensively rebutting that exact defense. The FCBA requires a substantive investigation, not a procedural one. A reasonable investigation of a dispute of this complexity, supported by XXXX pages of documentary evidence across XXXX separate submissions, can not credibly conclude in XXXX calendar days with a one-sentence determination that adopts the merchant 's position verbatim. The record strongly indicates that Citi relied exclusively on the merchant 's assertion that digital goods were delivered, without reviewing the cardholder 's evidence establishing that the SC redemption service the predominant purpose of the transaction was never provided. This is not a reasonable investigation under the FCBA. \n\nViolation XXXX Failure to Provide Required Post-Decision Documentation and Written Explanation : Upon denial, the FCBA requires Citi to provide : ( a ) a written explanation of why the billing error claim was rejected, including identification of the evidence relied upon ; and ( b ) upon request, copies of the documentation the merchant submitted. Citi 's denial letter contained no explanation of the evidence reviewed, no description of what the merchant submitted, and no analysis of the competing claims only a conclusory one-sentence finding. When I formally requested the merchant 's rebuttal documentation on XX/XX/XXXX via Citi 's chat service, the agent refused, directing me to the phone dispute line. The phone dispute line maintained holds exceeding XXXX hours on multiple prior occasions, making the required documentation effectively inaccessible. Under the FCBA, I have a XXXX window to respond to Citi 's denial a right that Citi is actively preventing XXXX from exercising by refusing to provide the merchant 's documentation through any accessible channel. Additionally, Citi 's automated notification stated a decision document would be available online ; as of XX/XX/XXXX, no such document exists in my online account. \n\nViolation XXXX Pattern of Redundant Information Requests Inconsistent with Genuine Review : After receiving and confirming receipt of XXXX pages of comprehensive evidence on XX/XX/XXXX, Citi subsequently issued XXXX paper response forms requesting information already thoroughly documented in the submitted dossier and signed declaration including a description of what was purchased, what was expected, when the merchant was contacted, and their response. All of this was documented in exhaustive detail across the prior submissions. Requesting duplicative information while simultaneously closing the dispute in 20 days without engaging with the submitted evidence, and then refusing to provide the merchant 's rebuttal, is procedurally inconsistent with a good-faith FCBA investigation. \n\nIV. CURRENT STATUS AND REQUESTED RELIEF On XX/XX/XXXX, I escalated this matter via Citi 's chat service. Citi confirmed an Executive Response Unit escalation with a XXXX response window and agreed to reopen both disputes. I have a full transcript of this session. I intend to submit additional supplemental evidence within XXXX hours confirming that as of XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant has violated its own XXXX XXXX XXXX policy in my specific case eliminating the sole basis on which Citi denied my claim. This complaint is being filed today, XX/XX/XXXX, deliberately XXXX day before that deadline to preserve the full record. \n\nI am requesting the CFPB compel Citi to : ( XXXX ) immediately provide all merchant rebuttal documentation so I may exercise my FCBA right to respond ; ( XXXX ) conduct a genuine, substantive re-investigation of both disputes that engages with the submitted cardholder evidence ; ( XXXX ) reverse both denials and issue permanent credits of {$190.00} each ( {$390.00} total ) ; and ( XXXX ) address the procedural deficiencies in its dispute handling process that prevented a lawful investigation from occurring. \n\nI retain all rights to pursue arbitration against Citi and will exercise those rights if this matter is not resolved through this regulatory process.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-12T05:40:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"23188","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20193150","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-03-12T05:14:18.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Violation XXXX Failure to Provide Required Post-Decision Documentation and Written <em>Explanation</em> : Upon denial, the FCBA requires Citi to provide : ( a ) a written <em>explanation</em> of why the billing <em>error</em> claim was rejected, including identification of the evidence relied upon ; and ( b ) upon request, copies of the documentation the merchant submitted."],"sub_issue":["Credit card company isn't resolving a <em>dispute</em> about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[9.753927,"20193150"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3193403","_score":3.6568513,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I opened a credit card with Chase and was approved for their Amazon credit card in XXXX for the purposes of utilizing the rewards for purchases on the Amazon.com website. I frequently purchase items on Amazon and was attracted to this card for the 5 % rewards that were offered. I used the card VERY sparingly and was only buying amazon items and then sending in a payment to pay those items off. After receiving this card, I discovered that my now ex girlfriend had been stealing the card out of my wallet and making purchases without my knowledge and then returning the card to my wallet so it was not missing. At no time was she ever given permission to access my card nor was she ever an authorized user. She was simply my girlfriend at the time and we shared a residence. Our agreement was to pay the bills and split them evenly. She took care of the finances in our house, so she would tell me how much money to pay her each money to cover these expenses. After several months, I noticed that my credit cards, once being Chase, had numerous unauthorized charges and were items such as our power bill, cable billl, water bill, her cell phone, her car insurance and many many other items that were not authorized by myself. When confronted, she admitted to making the charges without my permission and stated she \" just didn't have the money to pay those bills '' because she was spending the cash I provided her to pay those bills and used the card to cover her debts. I was very angry and threatened to report her to the police since she was using the cards without my permission. I gave her 30 days to pay them off in full or I would report her to the police. \n\nNaturally before the 30 days was over I calmed down and was able to speak to her in more open frame of mind. She explained she tried to borrow the money from her parents and they said it was her deception and wrongdoing and they weren't going to bail her out by giving her the money. She stated she tried to borrow money in other manners but could not get the funds. She asked me to allow her to simply make the payments and pay the card off, although, she could not do that within 30 days. She informed me that when she received her tax returns should could probably pay the entire amount off. This conversation occurred roughly 1 year after receiving the card before I discovered the fraud. I agreed to this arrangement for only a few reasons. # 1 we lived together and having her arrested would negatively impact me as much as her because I relied on part of her income to help pay the bills. # 2. We were dating and I would be having my own girlfriend locked up who I did care for romantically and we had been in a long term relationship which could possibly progress further # 3. I had supported her solely for 6 months while she was unable to work to attend XXXX school. I had invested a significant amount of time and effort to assist her getting into XXXX school as well as caring for her children while she attended classes and then also began working part time during the night to cover expenses. As a result, turning her in would have made her a felon and that would have stopped her from becoming a XXXX  and would have wasted all of my effort to help her get where she was trying to improve herself. Also, if she was unable to become a XXXX due to a possible criminal record, it may be nearly impossible to pay off the credit cards which she had used without my permission and knowledge. At the time of this discovery, the balances of all 3 cards she was using without my consent was in the area of {$16000.00}. \n\nI agreed to let her pay monthly payment until the time she received her lump sum from a combination of school loan money and tax returns. The only problem is that when both the tax returns and student loan money came in months later, she had spent it, without paying as agreed, and then later told me she couldn't follow through. So she once again said not to worry, they will all be paid off within 12 months if I just gave her time. I agreed as I did not have much chose at that time and still believed she would handle the charges as promised. \n\nI later bought a home in XX/XX/XXXX and my girlfriend and her children moved in with me. It was on or about XX/XX/XXXX that I discovered she had still be using my credit cards, even though I had physically removed them from my home. I immediatly terminated the relationship due to this continued lack of trust and theft and kicked her out of my home. I started to pull together statements and verify information and found out my accounts totaled nearly 23k in credit card charges and she had been using my cards electronically. The now ex girlfriend showed me a notebook where she had copied down my full credit card numbers, expiration dates, security codes, full name, social, and birth date in order to continue to use these cards. She did not state that was the original reason for collecting this information. she stated she did that to be able to call in and make payments over the phone on my credit cards so the minimum payments were being made. I did not think about how she was making the payments towards the cards, but that the cards themselves were being paid. It now dawned on me that she had stolen my information and personal identity and was continuing to use that to verify information when using these cards electronically without physical access to these cards. This allowed her to continue top use the cards and keep me in the dark on the balances and still make the minimum payments to prevent any type of collection calls or letter to be sent to me. \n\nI demanded payment in full on these cards as a matter of restitution from the ex girlfriend after breaking off the relationship of 5 years. She informed me she would be happy to do this and was going to once again send me her school money in XXXX of XXXX  which would be XXXX and estimated she would have another $ XXXX from her tax returns and then would have one final student disbursement that she could pay to me to mostly pay off the balances. She assured me she could pay the amounts off in 12 months and she would be a XXXX  soon so that total would not be an issue with her newer higher paying job. I agreed only because she swore the money would be repaid and that allowed her to remain a XXXX with no legal action. The months came and went and no money was paid. I began to demand payment in full and near XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX she stated she had \" changed her mind '' just as I had done in regards to our relationship and I could just do what I wanted as she had no intentions of paying anything any longer. She also informed me she had spoken to a lawyer previously in the year and he was prepared to defend her in the event I wanted to sue her. However, she also stated that he had determined that the statute of limitations had already expired the previous month and she was no longer liable in civil court and I could try and sue her, but nothing would come of the case. It then dawned on me the entire reasons for these delays was to buy more time to let this statute of limitations pass at the advice of her attorney before telling me she no longer intended to pay on them as promised. Although she had written up a \" contract '' which was never signed agreeing to repay certain amounts of money she felt she owed, it was never executed or signed and therefore could not be enforced. \n\nI was furious and believed I was now fully responsible for these cards and she had left me responsible for all of her fraud and I would have to repay the amounts or face a judgement against me on my house which I had just purchased. I am barely surviving on the income I have and the {$700.00} minimum payments needed to be paid each month was crushing me financially. However, I was also mistakenly under the impression that I only had a time frame of 90 days to report the fraudulent charges are they were no longer able to be disputed on my behalf. Since the original fraudulent charge made on one credit card appeared to have occurred around XX/XX/XXXX with my XXXX XXXX, I believe I could no longer purse relief through the credit card companies. I began to shoulder all the payments of the minimums which was financially unbearable with a full mortgage to pay alone at {$880.00} per month, all utilities, a $ XXXX/mo student loan payment, and now an additional {$700.00} per month minimum credit card payment that was 2/3rds interest by the time the money was applied. This was unbearable and I feared I was going to lose my home over this fraudulent debt which I was saddled with. \n\nFinally in about XX/XX/XXXX I decided to go out on a limb and see if there was ANY alternative to assist me in paying off the credit cards. I was already completely broke with no savings and no furniture other than an air mattress for a bed because the ex had taken all of the furniture in my home since she owned it, including all blankets, pillows, even toiletries and left me with literally nothing. I had a plastic lawn chair as my only chair and the air mattress using borrowed blankets and pillows because I didn't have any extra money to purchase these basic items due to the credit card minimum payments. I was doing everything I could to survive, but the payments were too much burden on me to survive. I finally broke down and began to call the credit card companies involved including Chase, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, I was overjoyed at first contact because all three cards informed me through their fraud department that I was NOT liable for charges I did not authorize and that were made by the ex. They stated my mistaken assumption of only having 90 days to report her fraud was incorrect and that they all had a zero fraud liability policy and they would make sure to remove those charges from my card and do a thorough fraud investigation on my behalf to hold her liable for her theft. \n\nI immediately began gathering evidence as requested by the fraud team members and provided statements with highlighted charges that were unauthorized on my cards. Within days of submitting these unauthorized charges, my accounts were being refunded and the charges were being taken off. Chase was the very first card to remove all charges from my account and I was at an approximately balance of negative {$10000.00}!!! I could not believe how any charges had been made by her over a 3 year period an discovered most of these charges were made by her in a shorter time frame of a year and a half due to the card only being open since XXXX. The negative balance was available to me to use as my refund and I was informed by a customer service operator that I could still use the card and any charges would come off as credited towards the negative balance. I was even told I could use the card to withdraw money as a \" cash advance '' but would be limited to my limit of {$600.00}. As a result, I requested a PIN number to be sent to me so that I could withdraw some cash and pay bills such as rent and other utilities that had been crushing me financially for so long. I used some of the money to get basic necessities like stock up on my groceries and get food in my freezer, buy items from XXXX and XXXX XXXX, and pay my mortgage and light bill without being completely broke for the first time in a long time. I also used some of the money to buy into a few small investments that I could not touch. Unfortunately, during the month of XXXX, my card suddenly stopped working when I still had a balance of negative XXXX. When I called into card services, I was transferred a department that then transferred me to a supervisor without ever explaining to me why I had no use of my card. Finally the supervisor in the card services explained my card had been shut off for excessive use of my credit line and the card had been cancelled! I asked why this was even possible since Chase still owed me {$2500.00} for my REFUND of fraudulently charged items, payments, and interest which had accrued and that my balance was as low as negative XXXX! The gentleman on the phone took a few minutes to review my account and then stated he saw what I was referring to and it appeared someone had made a mistake and cancelled the card believing I was running up and excessive balance on my card, when in reality, he could see I was using my refunded credit amount. I told him how I was told I could simply use the card as normal until my negative balance was exhausted and was doing exactly what I was instructed to do. I was trying to get back my refunded money that was stuck on that card. The supervisor stated he understood and was going to submit a request for my account to have a \" reconsideration '' to review the closure and that he would document that it was a misunderstanding and my account was not being excessively used other than to attempt to withdraw my refunded amount. He informed me the review process can take approximately 7 to 10 days, but to check back in a few more days. I did not check back on the status immediately, but instead, received a call on or about XX/XX/XXXX from a superior stating my card had been reviewed and they were reinstating my usage of the card. I had also previously asked what would become of my negative {$2500.00} when the card was \" cancelled '' and was informed that they would wait 7 days and the company would send me the refunded credit as a check to ensure any pending charges were posted to my account. I thanked them for their help and waited to receive my check. Once my card was reinstated, I realized that they were not going to send the check since I now had access to the balance and there for used it to pull {$1500.00} off towards another small investment and would later request they company mail me a check for the remaining {$1000.00} which would leave the card with a balance of {$0.00}. I was finally stress free and realizing I could not get my furniture I so desperately needed and would not have to stress about how to buy food when I could barely afford my mortgage with these credit card payments. \n\nUnfortunately my happiness and excitement did not last long because I received another phone call Monday afternoon from a woman who identified herself as the fraud investigator assigned to my case. I can not remember the womans name, but I was given her contact information as XXXX, extension XXXX. This fraud investigator stated she had concluded \" her '' investigation and decided that the charges reported were NOT FRAUD because my ex was \" given access to these cards by me because she lived with me ''. I immediately stopped her and informed her that I had NEVER given her access and she was mistaken, someone obviously had made a mistake on the file. The investigator stated that she had NOT made any mistake, and that since the person who committed this fraud lived with me, she naturally would have had access to my cards by simply going into my dresser or wallet to take these cards and use them, even if I didn't give her permission to do so. \n\nAfter hearing this comment, I was LIVID with such as careless point of view that she was suggesting I was to blame for this fraud because simply LIVING with someone was enough grounds to determine they \" might '' take your card some day and use it without your permission and put it back. As a result, by them living in your residence, it is now your fault even though we have NEVER been married and she was NEVER an authorized user on my card. This made no sense to me and I immediately told this supervisor I could not believe someone could steal a credit card from me, use it, and put it back and it was acceptable simply because she lived at my residence. This would mean that absolutely ANYONE who had a roommate or child, or even just a friend living with them would be exposed to this same credit card fraud because she is blaming the victim for someone living in their home! The investigator stated that \" Well sir, we are a financial institution and we simply can not refund these charges because you allowed her to use them since she was living there and as a result she knew how to gain access to the cards. '' I wish that this phone conversation had not been as devastating as it was, but then the investigator continued to tell me she had more bad news. The investigator stated that Chase had \" mistakenly double refunded the charges and as a result we are putting approximately {$13000.00} back on your card because we accidentally made a {$6000.00} mistake ''. I tried to stop her and ask for more of an explanation of HOW could this POSSIBLY HAPPEN! How can a financial institution make such a stupid error and tell me they made a {$6000.00} mistake and were telling me that they were now going to add this back onto my card along with all charges she whimsically decided to deny refunds on for a balance of {$13000.00} on a single credit card that only had a maximum credit limit of {$3500.00}!! This means that if she would follow through with this decision, the banks unforgivable mistake would end up making me look like I had a balance that exceeded my credit limit by over {$10000.00} and absolutely DESTROY my credit rating in the process! They would also be charging me the feels that would make withdrawing the money from the ATM 's as my refund appear to be cash advances at the rate of 27 % on top of 23 % for the fraudulent charges. The minimum payments on this card would absolutely bankrupt me and I was the victim of fraud! How could this even be acceptable for someone to be the victim of fraud, try to resolve the situation on behalf of the credit card companies by making payments and even trying to get thief to pay the funds back in full, and then victimize me a second time by taking all the money back, hitting me with THEIR {$6000.00} mistake because someone miscalculated and told me that money was mine to use, and then now want it back after it has been spent? All while I was promised in the beginning that these fraudulent charges would not be my responsibility from the very day I called! If I had known this is how terrible the service was and that the credit card companies could not even figure out how to do their own refunds properly without making any mistakes, I would never have opened the card to begin with. That way I could never have been victimized through the fraud by Chase and their guarantee that I had \" zero fraud liability '' and was protected. That is apparently not true because their investigator simply wanted to find a way to blame ME for the charges when they could't find any other way to deny the claim, she would make a ridiculous conclusion that simply living with her negated the fraud and was now my responsibility. I did not receive these  same statements from XXXX XXXX XXXX nor XXXX XXXX and XXXX lost FAR more money than Chase in the theft in the amount of nearly {$31000.00} alone. Yet, they have refunded the amounts and asked for affidavits of fraud and any assistance of criminal prosecution of my ex girl friend. Chase did not even so much as offer me an affidavit to sign for fraud and I have offered on numerous occasions to assist them with any criminal charges should they choose to pursue that avenue. I once again informed this same fraud investigator that I would be willing to assist with a criminal investigation to assist them as I was doing the same with XXXX card, yet she said to her this was entirely civil and they were not going to refund any money. She did not care that her decision was unfounded and had no compassion that her decision is going to wreck my financially and destroy my credit. So, I immediately told the investigator that I wanted this decision appealed to a supervisor for review as I did not feel her determination was one based on any factual reasoning that was a legitimate law or policy. She stated that she could try to get a supervisor on the phone but they were busy, or she could resubmit this case to a department but that they would need to do another full investigation. I told her that would be find as I knew that these charges were fraudulent and I would not allow her to call these unauthorized charges my responsibility based on her statement my ex-girlfriend could make those charges simply because she lived in the same house hold. Why would ANYONE ever need an authorized user card then? Apparently she believed you can just take someone's card behind their back and use it and it would be perfectly acceptable! So, I stated I wanted the review done on my decision and the account to be looked at by another person above her with more authority. I told her I wanted this account left alone since adding this XXXX back onto my card was an unfair burden on both me and my credit and that would cause me even further damage. The investigator simply stated that \" The file will be submitted for review and further investigation '' and my full belief is she understood I was appealing her decision and asking for someone else to review this account and stay her reversal onto my card. I am now looking at my account today and realizing that this investigator did the exact opposite and I now have all charges put back onto my card with a balance of {$13000.00} with no available credit and over the limit by {$9500.00}!. My credit rating which was severely harmed from the fraudulent credit card charges will not be even FURTHER destroyed just as I began to recover. There is no possible way I can in good conscience make payments on charges I know are both fraud due to theft and also mistakes made by the same company that promised to protect me should this happen. Instead both parties are further harming me financially by making me liable for them and I am the victim! It is unimaginable to me to think any reputable company would be so callous, reckless, and irresponsible to the victim of a crime and then further harm them by claiming they \" accidentally '' made a mistake of {$6000.00}! That is not MY fault that they made that mistake as they were the ones who informed me I could spend this money as it was MINE! I would NEVER charge {$6000.00} on a credit card in this manner as I am far more financially responsible that this and I feel as they have now baited me into a trap and are trying to wash their hands of their own responsibility for both the fraud and their \" error '' of double refunding me charges. I am NOT able to pay this money back and I do not have the the ability to make the massive monthly payments their error will incur on me. This is simply not something I can ever forget and I will likely be forced to switch my credit card accounts to another company in the future as I feel there was never any intention to help me with being defrauded by this investigator. I will make sure to tell everyone I know to cancel any credit card, bank account, investment product and any other item they may have with Chase or any Chase bank due to how I was treated and how they have proven their word of \" zero fraud liability '' really doesn't actually apply and superficial reasons will be made up that do not even exist in their card polices. \n\nSo in other words, Chase will make up whatever story they want and try to blackmail you into paying off someone else 's illegal charges while offering NO protection and threaten damage to your credit, employment, liens and judgments on your home, and ultimately the shame of having a destroyed credit report committed by someone who was never held responsible for their fraudulent charges to begin with. I have never felt more violated in my life than I do right now and I have never felt more hopeless and depressed than I do now because I can not possibly pay this money back and nor should I have to. I am the victim not the criminal!","date_sent_to_company":"2019-04-02T16:02:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27530","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3193403","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2019-03-27T23:35:19.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I tried to stop her and ask for more of an <em>explanation</em> of HOW could this POSSIBLY HAPPEN! How can a financial institution make such a stupid <em>error</em> and tell me they made a {$6000.00} mistake and were telling me that they were now going to add this back onto my card along with all charges she whimsically decided to <em>deny</em> refunds on for a balance of {$13000.00} on a single credit card that only had a maximum credit limit of {$3500.00}!!"]},"sort":[3.6568513,"3193403"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":8,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":8}]}},"product":{"doc_count":8,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":8,"issue":{"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":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":8,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":8}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":8,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":6},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":8,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":8}]}},"company":{"doc_count":8,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","doc_count":1},{"key":"Glacier Bancorp Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":8,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"WA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":8,"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":4}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":8,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_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":{}}}