{"took":224,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":229,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21273926","_score":17.51714,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Supplemental/Related Complaint Against Chime Financial , Inc . Continued EFTA Violations, Pattern of Bad-Faith Dispute Handling, and Failure to Respond to Formal Demand Original Complaint ID : XXXX Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , I am writing to supplement and renew my previously filed complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against Chime Financial, Inc. ( Chime ) in connection with unauthorized fraudulent transactions totaling approximately {$400.00} that were made on my account without my knowledge or authorization. This supplemental complaint is necessitated by a continuing pattern of conduct by Chime that I believe constitutes clear and repeated violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005. Since my initial complaint, the situation has materially worsened. I respectfully request that the Bureau treat this correspondence as a related and supplemental complaint to my prior filing, and that it be incorporated into Chimes ongoing regulatory record. \n\nI. Background and Prior Complaint On or about the date of the XX/XX/year>, I discovered approximately {$400.00} in unauthorized charges on my Chime account. I reported the fraud to Chime within approximately one hour of discovering the transactions well within the reporting windows established under the EFTA. I also filed a police report documenting the fraud and provided Chime with a copy. Despite this, Chime denied my initial dispute. I filed a second dispute, which was also denied. Following those denials, I filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and sent formal written Notice of Demand letters to Chime Financial , Inc. via XXXX mail on XX/XX/year>, citing violations of the EFTA and demanding reimbursement. Chime never responded to those demand letters. \n\nII. New and Continuing Violations Since Initial Complaint Since the filing of my initial CFPB complaint, Chimes conduct has continued in a manner that strongly suggests bad faith, automated processing, and willful disregard of federal law. The following events have occurred and form the basis of this supplemental complaint : 1. Chime independently reopened one of my disputes on its own initiative and denied it within 24 hours, providing no written explanation of its findings. A meaningful investigation of a fraud dispute can not be completed in 24 hours. This conduct is facially inconsistent with the reasonable investigation standard required under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ).\n\n2. Chime also independently reopened a second, separate dispute and denied it as well, again without providing a written explanation of findings or the basis for denial.\n\n3. Chime has failed to provide me with written findings explaining the basis of any of its denials. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ), when a financial institution determines no error occurred, it must promptly deliver a written explanation of its findings and inform the consumer of the right to request the documents it relied upon. \n\n4. Chime failed to respond to XXXX XXXX  mail demand letters sent on XX/XX/year> to its principal address at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. These letters cited the EFTA by statute, included my police report, and provided a deadline for response. No response was ever received. \n\n5. In total, I have now been denied reimbursement XXXX times across XXXX separate disputes. The pattern of conduct rapid automated denials, failure to explain findings, failure to respond to formal legal demands, and failure to conduct genuine investigations suggests systemic noncompliance rather than isolated error. \n\nIII. Applicable Legal Standards The EFTA and Regulation E impose specific obligations on financial institutions that handle electronic fund transfers on behalf of consumers. Under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, when a consumer reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : ( 1 ) investigate the claim within 10 business days ( or issue a provisional credit while conducting a longer investigation of up to 45 days ) ; ( 2 ) conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation of the alleged error ; ( 3 ) provide written notice of its findings upon completion ; and ( 4 ) inform the consumer of their right to request the documents relied upon in the determination. Under 15 U.S.C. 1693g, the burden of proof rests with the financial institution to establish that the transfer was authorized. Chime has not met any of these obligations. It has not conducted reasonable investigations, has not provided written findings, has not offered provisional credit, and has not met its burden of proving authorization.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-15T19:07:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"121XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21273926","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-04-15T18:33:31.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, when a <em>consumer</em> reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : ( 1 ) <em>investigate</em> the claim within 10 business days ( or issue a provisional credit while conducting a longer <em>investigation</em> of up to 45 days ) ; ( 2 ) conduct a <em>reasonable</em>, good-faith <em>investigation</em> of the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em> ; ( 3 ) provide written notice of its findings upon completion ; and ( 4 ) inform the <em>consumer</em> of their right to request the documents relied"]},"sort":[17.51714,"21273926"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10386898","_score":17.289085,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2024 a charge from XXXX in the amount of {$99.00} was pending. XXXX was contacted and due to the software not being utilized since XX/XX/2024 the transaction was reversed on their end, as told by several representatives of the company. The charge remained pending until it posted. After waiting 10 business days, communication was sent to the merchant with a response stating that there would be no refund as the transaction was voided on their end and the charge should have reversed, resulting in the funds being returned to my available balance. Being that the merchant stated this information and the charge still reflecting as posted, a dispute was issued with Block Inc/Square Inc/Cashapp , hereby addressed as 'financial institution '. The dispute included the communication from the merchant stating the transaction was voided on their end. The dispute was denied and the supporting documentary evidence was disregarded. Further communication with the merchant referred to my financial institution for any further assistance due to the fact that the transaction was voided and nothing further on their end could be done. Several communication attempts with the financial institution resulted in the refiling of the dispute a total of 5 times along with 5 denials of said dispute, regardless of the communication directly from the merchant stating the transaction was voided and services were not rendered. Upon request of the information used to determine the decision, a timestamp of the posted transaction was provided with no additional supporting evidence relied upon to reach the conclusion of no error occurring. \n\nThe dealing of this issue has caused a great deal of stress, migraines, loss of sleep, mental anguish and XXXX  XXXX. Not including the time spent on various phone calls to attempt to have a proper investigation completed. All of this has been very stressful and without a proper investigation to be conducted, concluding that the funds for services not rendered by the merchant is deceptive, unfair, and unethical as per 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 1 ) and 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 2 ) as refusal to make a good faith investigation of the alleged error, nor did the financial institution provisionally credit the consumer 's account, nor was there reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in error. The financial institution also knowingly and willingly concluded that the consumer 's account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available at the time of investigation. Upon request of all information used during the course of the investigation, the financial institution failed to provide all documents relied upon to conclude such error did not occur, as per 15 USC 1693f ( d ). I have attached the communications from both the merchant and the financial institution as supporting documentary evidence.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-08T04:47:09.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"32714","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10386898","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-10-08T03:49:55.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All of this has been very stressful and <em>without</em> a proper <em>investigation</em> to be conducted, concluding that the funds for services not rendered by the merchant is deceptive, unfair, and unethical as per 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 1 ) and 15 USC 1693 ( f ) ( e ) ( 2 ) as refusal to make a good faith <em>investigation</em> of the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em>, nor did the financial institution provisionally credit the <em>consumer</em> 's account, nor was there <em>reasonable</em> <em>basis</em> for <em>believing</em> that the <em>consumer</em> 's account was not in <em>error</em>"]},"sort":[17.289085,"10386898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6993932","_score":16.042143,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Certified letter sent from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  addressing credit reporting errors of report # XXXX dated XXXX sent to Experian XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX I requested items be removed and requested proof of accurate reporting information. The incorrect information is damaging my credit score. The information on file references alleged collections which are NOT under Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x ) compliance. Law states companies listing inaccurate, outdated, invalid, and personal information is illegal and must be removed immediately due to non-validity. I presumed no proof of the alleged debt therefore exists. See Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc. XXXX XXXX ) et al, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating prima facie entitlement. \n\nIt is unfair those agencies wrote off debts decreasing their financial burden when unfairly increasing mine. XXXX prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, evidence of discharge of an obligation -- thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the \" absolute prohibition '' so carefully engineered into the XXXX. Per FRCA, agencies are required to complete a reasonable investigation and delete disputed information as I requested before the end of 30-days, it did not happen. Per U.S. CODE 1692 ( c ) and The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), if the alleged debts were acquired by a debt buyer, and closed, then proof of chain of title of the alleged debt must be from the original creditor to the current alleged owner without any break in chain. Per Gilbert Law Summaries ( XXXX ), no contract has been proven to have formed, as well as no defenses related said formation of contracts therein. Pursuant to the Parol Evidence Rule, agencies have not indicated any prior evidence of an oral or written agreement with my signature. Agencies provided material misrepresentation. There is no supplied proof under the doctrine of estoppel by silence. Credit agencies did not provide details on how the information was verified. \n\nA person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate, it is a violation of privacy. Per US CODE 15 U.S.C. 1681 B 2 ( a ) no entity can list information in my consumer report without my written permission. Per U.S. CODE 1028 ( a ) information furnished without my written permission is identity theft.\n\nThe Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ ECOA ], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Based upon the above conduct of agencies, I have been denied credit from XXXX XXXX. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State and individual for public or private Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Under The Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ ECOA ], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.\n\nI was asked to provide my Social Security number for the XXXX XXXX, and under The Privacy Act of XXXX, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a. AMEX and other agencies operated with adverse actions and are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( 2 ) ( k ).\n\nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act authorizes the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide original information about violations of the federal securities laws.\n\nIn conclusion, I request this matter be resolved via Injunctive Relief including, but not limited to, compensation without delay, and / or exhaustive court proceedings. I further demand RESTORATIVE and REPARATIVE actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-18T14:37:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07050","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6993932","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-05-18T14:37:17.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A person shall not furnish any information relating to a <em>consumer</em> to any <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if the person knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> that the information is inaccurate, it is a violation of privacy. Per US CODE 15 U.S.C. 1681 B 2 ( a ) no entity can list information in my <em>consumer</em> report <em>without</em> my written permission. Per U.S. CODE 1028 ( a ) information furnished <em>without</em> my written permission is identity theft."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[16.042143,"6993932"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6993933","_score":16.006895,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Certified letter sent from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX addressing credit reporting errors of report # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Trans Union XXXX I requested items be removed and requested proof of accurate reporting information. The incorrect information is damaging my credit score. The information on file references alleged collections which are NOT under Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x ) compliance. Law states companies listing inaccurate, outdated, invalid, and personal information is illegal and must be removed immediately due to non-validity. I presumed no proof of the alleged debt therefore exists. See Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc. XXXX XXXX ) et al, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating prima facie entitlement. \n\nIt is unfair those agencies wrote off debts decreasing their financial burden when unfairly increasing mine. XXXX prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, evidence of discharge of an obligation -- thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the \" absolute prohibition '' so carefully engineered into the Constitution. Per FRCA, agencies are required to complete a reasonable investigation and delete disputed information as I requested before the end of 30-days, it did not happen. Per U.S. CODE 1692 ( c ) and The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), if the alleged debts were acquired by a debt buyer, and closed, then proof of chain of title of the alleged debt must be from the original creditor to the current alleged owner without any break in chain. Per Gilbert Law Summaries ( 2008 ), no contract has been proven to have formed, as well as no defenses related said formation of contracts therein. Pursuant to the Parol Evidence Rule, agencies have not indicated any prior evidence of an oral or written agreement with my signature. Agencies provided material misrepresentation. There is no supplied proof under the doctrine of estoppel by silence. Credit agencies did not provide details on how the information was verified. \n\nA person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate, it is a violation of privacy. Per US CODE 15 U.S.C. 1681 B 2 ( a ) no entity can list information in my consumer report without my written permission. Per U.S. CODE 1028 ( a ) information furnished without my written permission is identity theft.\n\nThe Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ ECOA ], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Based upon the above conduct of agencies, I have been denied credit from XXXX XXXX. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State and individual for public or private Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Under The Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ ECOA ], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.\n\nI was asked to provide my Social Security number for the XXXX application, and under The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a. AMEX and other agencies operated with adverse actions and are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( 2 ) ( k ).\n\nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act authorizes the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide original information about violations of the federal securities laws.\n\nIn conclusion, I request this matter be resolved via Injunctive Relief including, but not limited to, compensation without delay, and / or exhaustive court proceedings. I further demand RESTORATIVE and REPARATIVE actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-18T14:37:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07050","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6993933","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-05-18T14:37:17.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A person shall not furnish any information relating to a <em>consumer</em> to any <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if the person knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> that the information is inaccurate, it is a violation of privacy. Per US CODE 15 U.S.C. 1681 B 2 ( a ) no entity can list information in my <em>consumer</em> report <em>without</em> my written permission. Per U.S. CODE 1028 ( a ) information furnished <em>without</em> my written permission is identity theft."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[16.006895,"6993933"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6993674","_score":16.006895,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Certified letter sent from XXXX NJ XXXX # XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/XXXX addressing credit reporting errors of report # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Trans Union . I requested items be removed and requested proof of accurate reporting information. The incorrect information is damaging my credit score. The information on file references alleged collections which are NOT under Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x ) compliance. Law states companies listing inaccurate, outdated, invalid, and personal information is illegal and must be removed immediately due to non-validity. I presumed no proof of the alleged debt therefore exists. See Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc. ( 2002 ) et al, and Miller Tax Information Services , LLC ( 2003 ), and Discover Bank v. Adam K. Kenney , HUCV 50193-16. Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating prima facie entitlement. \n\nIt is unfair those agencies wrote off debts decreasing their financial burden when unfairly increasing mine. HJR-192 prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, evidence of discharge of an obligation -- thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the \" absolute prohibition '' so carefully engineered into the Constitution. Per FRCA, agencies are required to complete a reasonable investigation and delete disputed information as I requested before the end of 30-days, it did not happen. Per U.S. CODE 1692 ( c ) and The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), if the alleged debts were acquired by a debt buyer, and closed, then proof of chain of title of the alleged debt must be from the original creditor to the current alleged owner without any break in chain. Per Gilbert Law Summaries ( 2008 ), no contract has been proven to have formed, as well as no defenses related said formation of contracts therein. Pursuant to the Parol Evidence Rule, agencies have not indicated any prior evidence of an oral or written agreement with my signature. Agencies provided material misrepresentation. There is no supplied proof under the doctrine of estoppel by silence. Credit agencies did not provide details on how the information was verified. \n\nA person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate, it is a violation of privacy. Per US CODE 15 U.S.C. 1681 B 2 ( a ) no entity can list information in my consumer report without my written permission. Per U.S. CODE 1028 ( a ) information furnished without my written permission is identity theft.\n\nThe Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ ECOA ], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Based upon the above conduct of agencies, I have been denied credit from XXXX XXXX. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State and individual for public or private Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Under The Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ ECOA ], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. \n\nI was asked to provide my Social Security number for the XXXX application, and under The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a. XXXX and other agencies operated with adverse actions and are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( 2 ) ( k ). \nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act authorizes the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide original information about violations of the federal securities laws.\n\nIn conclusion, I request this matter be resolved via Injunctive Relief including, but not limited to, compensation without delay, and / or exhaustive court proceedings. I further demand RESTORATIVE and REPARATIVE actions.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-18T14:37:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"07050","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6993674","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-05-18T13:57:11.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A person shall not furnish any information relating to a <em>consumer</em> to any <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if the person knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> that the information is inaccurate, it is a violation of privacy. Per US CODE 15 U.S.C. 1681 B 2 ( a ) no entity can list information in my <em>consumer</em> report <em>without</em> my written permission. Per U.S. CODE 1028 ( a ) information furnished <em>without</em> my written permission is identity theft."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[16.006895,"6993674"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19974261","_score":14.778136,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Re : Consumer Complaint No. XXXX To the Cash App Complaint Operations Team, I am writing in response to your XX/XX/year> letter concerning my complaint submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding my Cash App account.\n\nYour response states that my account was found to be in violation of Cash Apps Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy, yet it also states that you are unable to provide any further details and that the decision is final.\n\nRespectfully, this response fails to provide a meaningful explanation for the restriction placed on my account and on my Social Security number. It leaves me in the position of being accused of violating a policy without any identification of what conduct allegedly occurred or which provision of the Terms of Service was violated.\n\nFor more than a year, I attempted to resolve this matter directly with Cash App support. I tried repeatedly to obtain a Cash App Card and restore full access to the services your platform offers. When those attempts went nowhere, I even closed my account and attempted to reopen one in the belief that doing so might clear any technical or administrative issue associated with my account. Your letter confirms that I initiated closure on XX/XX/year>. \n\nI ultimately filed my complaint with the CFPB on XX/XX/year> after exhausting normal support channels without receiving any explanation or resolution. \n\nDuring the time I used Cash App, my activity was entirely consistent with normal consumer use. I used the platform to file my taxes through your system, participate in promotional offers such as the {$10.00} XXXX incentive tied to qualifying purchases, and send or receive money with friends and acquaintances. At no time did I knowingly engage in activity that would violate Cash Apps Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy. I have carefully reviewed those policies and remain confident that I have not violated any provision. \n\nDespite this, your letter indicates that my account was restricted and that my Social Security number has effectively been blocked from opening future accounts. This is a significant action to take against a consumer without providing even the most basic description of the alleged violation. \n\nWhile I understand that companies may protect certain internal fraud detection procedures, refusing to identify the alleged policy violation entirely prevents a consumer from correcting a misunderstanding, addressing a potential error, or disputing an inaccurate determination. A statement that a violation occurred without identifying the conduct at issue is not a meaningful explanation. \n\nAdditionally, if this restriction is based on information about my identity, account history, or transaction behavior that has been used in a manner similar to a consumer report or risk profile, I would expect the determination to comply with the principles of transparency and accuracy that govern consumer financial services.\n\nAccordingly, I respectfully request that Cash App take one of the following actions : XXXX. Reinstate my ability to open and use a Cash App account, including eligibility to obtain a Cash App Card ; XXXX XXXX. Provide a clear written explanation identifying : The specific section ( XXXX ) of the Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy that you believe were violated The general nature of the activity that triggered the restriction ( for example : suspected fraud category, prohibited transaction type, dispute activity, or other policy category ) The approximate time frame during which the activity occurred To be clear, I am not requesting proprietary fraud detection methods or internal investigative procedures. I am simply requesting enough information to understand the basis for the decision affecting my access to financial services. \n\nI have attempted to resolve this issue patiently and in good faith for over a year. I have used Cash App as an ordinary consumer and have not engaged in prohibited activity. Being indefinitely restricted without explanation is not reasonable and does not reflect fair treatment of a customer. \n\nIf this matter can not be resolved through reinstatement or a clear explanation, I will consider pursuing additional review through the appropriate consumer protection channels so that the basis of this restriction can be properly evaluated. \n\nI respectfully request that this matter be escalated for a full internal compliance review and that I receive a substantive response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T19:22:32.000Z","issue":"Problem adding money","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"75219","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19974261","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2026-03-04T19:18:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is a significant action to take against a <em>consumer</em> <em>without</em> providing even the most basic description of the <em>alleged</em> violation. \n\nWhile I understand that companies may protect certain internal fraud detection procedures, refusing to identify the <em>alleged</em> policy violation entirely prevents a <em>consumer</em> from correcting a misunderstanding, addressing a potential <em>error</em>, or disputing an inaccurate determination."]},"sort":[14.778136,"19974261"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6063980","_score":14.733879,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Today XX/XX/2022 I'm filing this complaint only because the FTC routed me here first. I've tried to rectify the problem with this company several times. I opened a dispute for a plethora of unauthorized charges on XX/XX/2022, yes I have used the merchant before in the past, which is why I only disputed the unauthorized charges! Fast forward to XX/XX/2022 my claim was closed claiming no error were found. As I stated before on a previous complaint last time the investigation coincidently closed right before 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Reg E ) for my provisional credit to kick in. I did everything correctly. Reported the charges in a timely manner, mailed in Statement Of FrauXXXX via XXXX XXXX mail with a tracking number, and called multiply times to check on my dispute. Each time this company gave me the run around and/or blatantly hangs up in my face, asking for a callback number before every call just not to call you back. The only thing done partially right by this company is issuing me a refund for my replacement card that I ordered expedited, which took longer than advertised. To my surprise I learned that the investigation was reopened on XX/XX/2022 without any notification from this company. Had I not call in I would've never known. Extremely unprofessional but I digress. After finding out the investigation was reopened I rightfully inquired on my provisional credit as that is well within my consumer rights. I was told by one Representative since the investigation was reopened I would have to wait the full 90 days! Can you believe this? Neither can I. My last complaint I also requested proof or any documentation proving their finding on my dispute which is also within my consumer rights, so I can forward to my attorney take a look. Was my request granted? No. I suspect that I wasn't provided that information because they didn't really investigate anything, just decided to side with the merchant! Today XX/XX/2022 after finding out the investigation was reopened I asked for provisional credit as like everyone else I have bills. I was told that a request must be made to that department and it can take another XXXX business days to receive a response not to receive my credit but a response, you would think there would be some urgency since Wisely is already in violation of XXXXode of Federal Regulations. I asked for the department direct phone number or contact and was told that there is no numbers because its an \" Internal Department ''. 10 days have transpired since reopening the investigation Wisely By APD has failed to comply with Regulation E and is in Violation. There is no superiors/supervisor that you can be transferred to and every phone call is designed to make you give up on your hard earned money. The customer service agents each tell you a different lie. None of the agents are educated on consumer laws or customer service. I will be looking into filing a FTC complaint also. These people are borderline crooks, extremely miseducated, and need to be retrain expeditiously. I will end with this since rules, laws, and regulations seems foreign to the Financial Institution Wisely by ADP, 12 CFR 1005.11 - Procedures for resolving errors.\n\n( c ) Time limits and extent of investigation - ( 1 ) Ten-day period. A financial institution shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph ( c ), shall determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error. The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred.\n\n( 2 ) Forty-five day period. If the financial institution is unable to complete its investigation within 10 business days, the institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of a notice of error to investigate and determine whether an error occurred, provided the institution does the following : ( i ) Provisionally credits the consumer 's account in the amount of the alleged error ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. If the financial institution has a reasonable basis for believing that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer has occurred and the institution has satisfied the requirements of 1005.6 ( a ), the institution may withhold a maximum of {$50.00} from the amount credited. An institution need not provisionally credit the consumer 's account if : ( A ) The institution requires but does not receive written confirmation within 10 business days of an oral notice of error ; or ( B ) The alleged error involves an account that is subject to Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ( Securities Credit by Brokers and Dealers, 12 CFR part 220 ).\n\n( ii ) Informs the consumer, within two business days after the provisional crediting, of the amount and date of the provisional crediting and gives the consumer full use of the funds during the investigation; ( iii ) Corrects the error, if any, within one business day after determining that an error occurred ; and ( iv ) Reports the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation ( including, if applicable, notice that a provisional credit has been made final ).\n\n( 3 ) Extension of time periods. The time periods in paragraphs ( c ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section are extended as follows : ( i ) The applicable time is 20 business days in place of 10 business days under paragraphs ( c ) ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of this section if the notice of error involves an electronic fund transfer to or from the account within 30 days after the first deposit to the account was made.\n\n( ii ) The applicable time is 90 days in place of 45 days under paragraph ( c ) ( 2 ) of this section, for completing an investigation, if a notice of error involves an electronic fund transfer that : ( A ) Was not initiated within a state ; ( B ) Resulted from a point-of-sale debit card transaction ; or ( C ) Occurred within 30 days after the first deposit to the account was made.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-08T15:16:11.000Z","issue":"Trouble using the card","sub_product":"Payroll card","zip_code":"33179","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6063980","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ADP Inc.","date_received":"2022-10-08T15:09:27.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble getting information about the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If the financial institution has a <em>reasonable</em> <em>basis</em> for <em>believing</em> that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer has occurred and the institution has satisfied the requirements of 1005.6 ( a ), the institution may withhold a maximum of {$50.00} from the amount credited."]},"sort":[14.733879,"6063980"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7907374","_score":14.478602,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have filed at dozens of disputes for various accounts/tradelines in my Experian credit files over the past six ( 6 ) months. Experian specialists are modifying the disputes without examining the dispute statement or the documents submitted with disputes, leading to errors in which disputes are filed. For example, I have private student loans that were serviced by a bank and then contracted out to XXXX for servicing. I filed disputes for the accounts XXXX XXXX. The enclosed documentation has included a statement of exactly what account numbers are being disputed -- these are the same numbers used to identify the account in my Experian credit file. Moreover the account numbers are included in the documentation on a single page. Despite this, Experian '' specialists '' have modified the disputes simply to conduct automatic updates through eOSCAR, when the bank itself has been the source of the error. Moreover, these modified disputes have included accounts that are XXXX which have not been the subject of my disputes. Thus the results of the alleged ( re ) investigations simply show \" verified '' and or \" verified/updated '' and shows the same garbage data that was disputed to begin with. There is no way Experian believes the accounts are being reported with maximum possible accuracy. If a bank engages in unfair and/or unlawful acts and practices, and then uses the results of those unfair and unlawful acts and practices as the basis of the data they furnish to the CRAs, then the data is false/inaccurate/misleading because the data furnished gives a materially misleading impression. The harm/injury, derogatory indicators in the credit file, suppression in credit score, and in general defamation, are not reasonably avoidable by a consumer because the consumer does not have control over the unfair and unlawful acts and practices of the bank. The CRAs, having received disputes regarding the accounts/tradelines knows or should know the information it is reporting is false/misleading/inaccurate, and further WOULD know if it bothered to examine the enclosed documents, instead of blindly passing those documents on to the data furnisher to automatically \" verify. '' In the case of ( re ) invesigations, blindly passing the documents onto the data furnisher and failing to examine the results and compare with the documentation submitted with the consumer complaint, means the CRA has abandoned its responsibilities under 15 U.S. Code 1681e. The bank, as furnisher, knows or has reasonable cause to believe it is furnishing inaccurate information because in this case it tried to justify how its negligence DID NOT affect/harm the borrower and/or coborrower, by ignoring the issues rearding its failure ( s ) to provide timely information to borrower and co-borrower, and giving no regard for the timing overhead for its servicer to provided timely information to borrower and/or coborrower, resulting in conflicting streams of information. It has, before, reviewed the documents submitted by the consumer as part of the dispute, or should have reviewed the documents submitted with the dispute, and instead has chosen to continue to report the account with derogatory indicators to protect its interest including, vut not limited to perceived leverage over consumer, and minimization of exposure to litigation. In the process the bank runs afoul of its responsibilities as data furnisher under 15 U.S. Code 1681s2. When a bank 's unlawful and unfair practices preferentially target disadvantaged groups such as those who may be minorities, and/or XXXX, and or XXXX, the bank 's practices are additionally abusive and violate anti-discrimination laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-28T15:53:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48104","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7907374","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-11-28T14:49:56.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite this, Experian '' specialists '' have modified the disputes simply to conduct automatic updates through eOSCAR, when the bank itself has been the source of the <em>error</em>. Moreover, these modified disputes have included accounts that are XXXX which have not been the subject of my disputes. Thus the results of the <em>alleged</em> ( re ) <em>investigations</em> simply show \" verified '' and or \" verified/updated '' and shows the same garbage data that was disputed to begin with."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[14.478602,"7907374"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16747528","_score":14.413067,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer ID : XXXX NATURE OF COMPLAINT This complaint concerns violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., specifically regarding : Inaccurate Personal Identifying Information ( violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy ( violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) Disputed Account Abuse Report from U.S. Bank XXXX  ( violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS I. INACCURATE PERSONAL INFORMATION XXXX  ' consumer report dated XX/XX/XXXX contains multiple material inaccuracies in my personal identifying information : A. Incorrect Name Variations XXXX  lists the following names : \" XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ; '' DISPUTE : The name \" XXXX XXXX '' does not belong to me and has never been associated with me. This is a clear case of mixed files or erroneous data aggregation. \nLEGAL BASIS : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), consumer reporting agencies must \" follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' of consumer reports. The inclusion of \" XXXX XXXX '' demonstrates XXXX  ' failure to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent file mixing, which is a direct violation of the FCRA. \nCASE LAW SUPPORT : Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 ( 9th Cir. 1995 ) - holding that a consumer reporting agency violates 1681e ( b ) when it fails to follow reasonable procedures, resulting in inaccurate information. \nB. Incorrect and Duplicate Addresses XXXX  lists the following addresses : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( duplicate ) DISPUTE : These addresses in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  are NOT my addresses and have never been associated with me. My only valid address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. These duplicate, incorrect addresses must be permanently deleted. \nLEGAL BASIS : The inclusion of addresses I have never resided at violates 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) and creates a substantial risk of identity theft and file mixing. Furthermore, the duplication of the same erroneous address demonstrates systematic procedural failures.\n\nCASE LAW SUPPORT : Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc. , 158 F.3d 890, 895 ( 5th Cir. 1998 ) - stating that inaccurate addresses in consumer reports can constitute a violation of the FCRA 's accuracy requirements. \nC. Incorrect Telephone Number XXXX  lists : XXXX DISPUTE : This telephone number has NEVER belonged to me. I have never used, owned, or been associated with this phone number. \nLEGAL BASIS : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). The inclusion of a phone number that doesn't belong to me demonstrates negligent procedures and exposes me to potential harassment and privacy violations. \nD. Incorrect Email Address XXXX  lists : XXXX DISPUTE : This email address has NEVER belonged to me. I have never created, used, or been associated with this email account. \nLEGAL BASIS : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). This inaccurate email address suggests possible identity theft, file mixing, or data furnisher errors that XXXX  failed to verify. \n\nII. DISPUTED ACCOUNT ABUSE REPORT Source of Information : U.S. Bank XXXX Report Code : XXXX Date Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Narrative : \" CONSUMER DISPUTES- BELIEVES THIS ITEM IS INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE. '' Reason Reported : ACCOUNT ABUSE Account Type : DEPOSIT ACCOUNT Closing Date : XX/XX/XXXX DISPUTE : I categorically dispute and deny this \" account abuse '' report. I have NEVER abused any bank account, and this report is completely inaccurate, unverifiable, and defamatory. U.S. Bank XXXX has furnished false and misleading information to XXXX  without proper verification. \nLegal Violations and Demands A. FCRA 1681i - Dispute Procedures I previously disputed this item ( as evidenced by the Consumer Narrative on the report ), yet XXXX  has failed to conduct a reasonable investigation or delete this unverifiable information. \nUnder 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), upon notice of a dispute, XXXX must : Conduct a reasonable investigation Review all relevant information provided by the consumer Delete or modify inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information within 30 days CASE LAW SUPPORT : Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225 ( 3d Cir. 1997 ) - holding that a \" reasonable investigation '' requires more than simply relaying the consumer 's dispute to the data furnisher.\n\nJohnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, 357 F.3d 426, 431 ( 4th Cir. 2004 ) - establishing that a CRA violates 1681i when it conducts only a cursory investigation. \n\nB. FCRA 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy Requirements XXXX  has failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. The term \" account abuse '' is vague, unsubstantiated, and lacks any specific factual basis. ChexSystems can not verify : What specific actions constituted \" abuse '' Whether I was properly notified of any alleged violations Whether due process was provided before reporting Whether U.S. Bank had reasonable grounds for this characterization CASE LAW SUPPORT : Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1156 ( 11th Cir. 1991 ) - holding that 1681e ( b ) requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable investigation before reporting information.\n\nPhilbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957, 963 ( 3d Cir. 1996 ) - stating that a CRA may be liable when it reports information that it knows or should know is inaccurate. \n\nC. FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) - Duties of Furnishers U.S. Bank XXXX , as a furnisher of information, violated its duties under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) by : Failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of my dispute Continuing to report unverifiable and inaccurate information Failing to modify or delete the disputed information after investigation DAMAGES AND HARM SUFFERED As a result of XXXX  ' violations, I have suffered : Denial of Banking Services : I have been unable to open checking and savings accounts at financial institutions due to this false XXXX  report XXXX \nEmotional Distress : The false \" account abuse '' designation has caused significant stress, anxiety, and reputational harm. \nEconomic Harm : I have been forced to use costly check-cashing services and prepaid cards due to my inability to maintain a bank account. \nPrivacy Violations : The inclusion of addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses that don't belong to me exposes me to identity theft and harassment.\n\nTime and Resources : I have spent considerable time attempting to correct these errors without success.\n\nLEGAL DEMANDS Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I demand that XXXX  immediately : 1. DELETE ALL INACCURATE PERSONAL INFORMATION Remove \" XXXX XXXX '' from my file entirely Delete both XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX addresses permanently Delete telephone number XXXX Delete email address XXXX 2. DELETE THE U.S. BANK \" ACCOUNT ABUSE '' REPORT The \" account abuse '' report from U.S. Bank XXXX must be permanently deleted as it is : Unverifiable Inaccurate Defamatory Based on disputed and unsubstantiated claims 3. PROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION XXXX  must provide written confirmation of all deletions and corrections within 30 days, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\n4. FURNISH CORRECTED REPORT XXXX  must furnish a corrected consumer report to any entity that received the inaccurate report within the preceding six months ( or two years for employment purposes ), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( d ).\n\n5. IMPLEMENT REASONABLE PROCEDURES XXXX must implement and document reasonable procedures to prevent future occurrences of file mixing and inaccurate reporting. \n\nSTATUTORY REMEDIES SOUGHT I reserve all rights under the FCRA, including but not limited to : 15 U.S.C. 1681n - Willful noncompliance : Actual damages, statutory damages of {$100.00} to {$1000.00}, punitive damages, costs, and attorney 's fees 15 U.S.C. 1681o - Negligent noncompliance : Actual damages, costs, and attorney 's fees 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Failure to reinvestigate : Deletion of unverified information SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Enclosed/Attached : Copy of XXXX  Consumer Report dated XX/XX/XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-22T20:31:51.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"604XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16747528","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2025-10-22T20:12:12.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bank XXXX has furnished false and misleading information to XXXX  <em>without</em> proper verification. \nLegal Violations and Demands A. FCRA 1681i - Dispute Procedures I previously disputed this item ( as evidenced by the <em>Consumer</em> Narrative on the report ), yet XXXX  has failed to conduct a <em>reasonable</em> <em>investigation</em> or delete this unverifiable information."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[14.413067,"16747528"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6970511","_score":14.199017,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"As a consumer I have the right to privacy pursuant to 15 U.S.Code 1681 ( a ) ( 4 ).\n\nI am aware a consumer must be given a chance to direct whether they want the information about a transaction had to be reported or not, this is referenced in the GLBA and is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681a ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ).\n\nTransactions authorized by my credit card, and credit card is defined in both FCRA and has the same as the definition in TILA as any card, plate, coupon book or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit. This is my social security card. This credit card was authorized by my social security card and therefore must be excluded from my consumer report. This reported information on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX  XXXX is a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681a ( 2 ) ( B ).\n\nIf there is an account which comes back verified pursuant to 15 U.S.Code 1681a ( e ) there must be an investigative report with the source of the report coming from interviews of family and friends and the results can not contain factual information. I, the consumer, allege no such verification based on an investigative report exists. Please submit a certified copy of the existence of this report with a statement under penalty of perjury that this report was not altered or manufactured in any way. \n\nAs a consumer I am aware a consumer reporting agency needs written instructions by I, the consumer, to furnish a consumer report. Without written instruction this consumer reporting agency has committed fraud using my identifying information and does not have any lawful authority to furnish this information on my consumer report and this is a violation of 15 U.S.Code 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ).\n\nConsumer reporting agencies on a nationwide basis must maintain a joint notification system. I have reason to believe and do so believe, this is to be held to maintain 100 % accuracy amongst consumer reporting agencies. This information on my consumer report does not match other consumer reporting agencies which means your company has a failure in reasonable procedures to keep a jointly notification system and a violation of 15 U.S.Code 1681b ( e ) ( 6 ).\n\nA consumer reporting agency must maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of furnished information on my, the affiants consumer report.\n\nAccording to 15 U.S. Code 1681g, I the consumer, have the right to request a full file disclosure about the information within my consumer file which includes the sources of the information was used to verify the information before it was procured onto the consumer report. This includes the dates, original payees, and amounts of any checks, identification of each person ( including the end-users identified under section 1681e ( e ) ( 1 ) of title 15 ) that procured my consumer report, including their address and telephone number of the persons, a record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding my request in connection with the credit or insurance transactions not initiated by me, the consumer.\n\nIn accordance with 15 USC 1681i ( 7 ) I, the consumer has the right to know the description of the method used to verify the information furnished on my consumer report.\n\nEach requirement of the FCRA which Equifax fails to comply with holds the company liable for {$1000.00} each per action and pursuant to 15 U.S.Code 1681l when an investigative report is prepared no adverse information in a consumer report may be included in a subsequent consumer report unless the reported was verified. Each month this false information was incorrectly verified and holds Equifax liable for each account.\n\nNegligence is neglecting requirements that should be known. Due to Equifax business practices which you are aware of as well as the laws you should be aware of, and laws I, the consumer made you aware of prior to the continued failure of reasonable procedures I the consumer has reason to believe, and do so believe, Equifax actions are liable under 15 U.S. Code 1681o for the actual damages caused to me, the consumer in fact.\n\nAny person, which includes an organization such as Equifax who willfully and knowingly obtains information on a consumer, like I, from another consumer reporting agency, without the written instructions or authorization pursuant to 1681b is information obtained under false pretenses. You have no lawful authority, and this is a crime under Title 18.\n\nI the consumer, have put in a dispute Equifax I have made clear this information has not been verified and can not be accurate information relating to me as shown in my exhibits. Equifax has violated 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and proceeded to furnish my information without any verification or lawful authority.\n\nThis information has been disputed. After this procedure upon discovery, in my exhibits, the consumer report is still showing the information inaccurately. This is a direct violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nEquifax is a financial institution as defined under 15 USC 6827 ( 4 ) ( B ).\n\nAccording to 15 USC 6801 I, consumer, has the right to privacy and the right to know where and how to direct the disclosure of my nonpublic information. \n\nThese accounts have adversely affected my work opportunities which I have proof of. As a XXXX XXXX XXXX  veteran, the stress and defamation of my character through errors on my consumer credit file and negligence on behalf of Equifax knowingly and willingly reporting these errors have caused my migraines to intensify. \n\nI am requesting removal of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX account number XXXX be removed immediately and all remarks. \n\nIf my requests are not satisfied, I will be forced to take legal action in federal court for actual damages. This is my second attempt to have these erroneous accounts removed. You have 15 days to comply according to 15 usc 1681.\n\nSend proof of deletion via usps of updated credit file.\n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-12T20:47:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30044","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6970511","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-05-12T19:11:48.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If there is an account which comes back verified pursuant to 15 U.S.Code 1681a ( e ) there must be an <em>investigative</em> report with the source of the report coming from interviews of family and friends and the results can not contain factual information. I, the <em>consumer</em>, <em>allege</em> no such verification based on an <em>investigative</em> report exists."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[14.199017,"6970511"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6332180","_score":13.924085,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I contacted Bank of America regarding unauthorized transactions made on my XXXX debit card account for my CA Unemployment Benefits multiple times in XXXX and XXXX. When they were initially notified of the unauthorized transactions in XXXX, they denied my claim without properly conducting an investigation. I had to resubmit the claim in XXXX  after receiving a notification from them stating that they were reopening the claims which were previously denied. After the final time that the claims were resubmitted, I called to receive an update on the status of the claims in XX/XX/XXXX and was told by a representative that the claims were in a pending status. The representative filed a complaint regarding the claims due to them being in a pending status for a longer period than the legal limit allowed for an investigation. I called again to check the status of the claims two months later in XXXX XXXX XXXX  and was told by another representative that the claims were still in a pending status since XX/XX/XXXX. Another complaint was submitted on my behalf for these claims, in addition to an escalation request. I called again a month later and was told the same thing regarding the claims being in a pending status, and another complaint was submitted. Following the third call, after being told that the claims were in a pending status since XXXX XXXX  I reached out to my local senator 's office to request assistance, due to the claims involving XXXX CA XXXX funds which were stolen from my account using my stolen debit card. Back in XXXX, my mail was being stolen from my mailbox and fraudulently forwarded to an unknown address after a fraudulent change of address request was submitted for my address without my knowledge or consent. My mail was being forward for several weeks and months while I was away from home. This allowed the individual who stole my mail gain access to my XXXX debit card and make several unauthorized transactions on my account. I never received the debit cards which were mailed to me by Bank of America. After reviewing the unauthorized transactions made on my account, I saw several international transactions and other transactions which were clear indicators of fraud. My initial claims should have never been denied and after they were reopened, they should have never been in a pending status for several months. They have been in this same pending status since XX/XX/XXXX, which was six months ago. According to Regulation E, a bank has up to 90 days to complete an investigation regarding errors reported on checking account. These claims have surpassed that time frame and no provisional credit was ever issued for these claims despite them exceeding the legal time limit allowed for an investigation. I sent Bank of America several documents to prove that these transactions were fraudulent, including police reports for the unauthorized transactions, identity theft reports from the Federal Trade Commission, mail theft reports from the XXXX XXXX XXXX and the United States Postal Service, and written letters explaining the details of what happened regarding my stole mail. I was even hospitalized with COVID in XXXX when some of the unauthorized transactions were made with my stolen debit card and can provide doctor 's notes that I received when I was discharged from the hospital. This money that was stolen from my account using my stolen XXXX debit card are government benefits which were issued to me during the pandemic that I need to pay back rent owed to my landlord from the times I was unable to pay my rent due to being unemployed from the XXXX pandemic. I have been trying to resolve this matter directly with Bank of America for over a year now. With my claims being in a pending status for six months now, Bank of America is in violation of federal law and has violated my consumer rights. According to Regulation E 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) Ten-day period. A financial institution shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph ( c ), shall determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error. The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred. ( 2 ) Forty-five day period. If the financial institution is unable to complete its investigation within 10 business days, the institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of a notice of error to investigate and determine whether an error occurred, provided the institution does the following : ( i ) Provisionally credits the consumer 's account in the amount of the alleged error ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. If the financial institution has a reasonable basis for believing that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer has occurred and the institution has satisfied the requirements of 1005.6 ( a ), the institution may withhold a maximum of {$50.00} from the amount credited. My claim numbers which are currently in a pending status are claim numbers : XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-18T02:15:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"94103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6332180","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-12-18T02:12:18.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If the financial institution is unable to complete its <em>investigation</em> within 10 business days, the institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of a notice of <em>error</em> to <em>investigate</em> and determine whether an <em>error</em> occurred, provided the institution does the following : ( i ) Provisionally credits the <em>consumer</em> 's account in the amount of the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em> ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the <em>error</em> notice."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.924085,"6332180"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6332325","_score":13.918902,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I contacted Bank of America regarding unauthorized transactions made on my XXXX debit card account for my XXXX XXXX  Benefits multiple times in XXXX and XXXX. When they were initially notified of the unauthorized transactions in XXXX, they denied my claim without properly conducting an investigation. I had to resubmit the claim in XXXX after receiving a notification from them stating that they were reopening the claims which were previously denied. After the final time that the claims were resubmitted, I called to receive an update on the status of the claims in XX/XX/XXXX and was told by a representative that the claims were in a pending status. The representative filed a complaint regarding the claims due to them being in a pending status for a longer period than the legal limit allowed for an investigation. I called again to check the status of the claims two months later in XXXX of XXXX and was told by another representative that the claims were still in a pending status since XX/XX/XXXX. Another complaint was submitted on my behalf for these claims, in addition to an escalation request. I called again a month later and was told the same thing regarding the claims being in a pending status, and another complaint was submitted. Following the third call, after being told that the claims were in a pending status since XX/XX/XXXX, I reached out to my local senator 's office to request assistance, due to the claims involving XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX funds which were stolen from my account using my stolen debit card. Back in XXXX, my mail was being stolen from my mailbox and fraudulently forwarded to an unknown address after a fraudulent change of address request was submitted for my address without my knowledge or consent. My mail was being forward for several weeks and months while I was away from home. This allowed the individual who stole my mail gain access to my XXXX debit card and make several unauthorized transactions on my account. I never received the debit cards which were mailed to me by Bank of America. After reviewing the unauthorized transactions made on my account, I saw several international transactions and other transactions which were clear indicators of fraud. My initial claims should have never been denied and after they were reopened, they should have never been in a pending status for several months. They have been in this same pending status since XX/XX/XXXX, which was six months ago. According to Regulation E, a bank has up to 90 days to complete an investigation regarding errors reported on checking account. These claims have surpassed that time frame and no provisional credit was ever issued for these claims despite them exceeding the legal time limit allowed for an investigation. I sent Bank of America several documents to prove that these transactions were fraudulent, including police reports for the unauthorized transactions, identity theft reports from the Federal Trade Commission, mail theft reports from the XXXX XXXX XXXX and the United States Postal Service, and written letters explaining the details of what happened regarding my stole mail. I was even XXXX with XXXX in XXXX when some of the unauthorized transactions were made with my stolen debit card and can provide doctor 's notes that I received when I was XXXX from the XXXX This money that was stolen from my account using my stolen XXXX debit card are government benefits which were issued to me during the pandemic that I need to pay back rent owed to my landlord from the times I was unable to pay my rent due to being unemployed from the XXXX pandemic. I have been trying to resolve this matter directly with Bank of America for over a year now. With my claims being in a pending status for six months now, Bank of America is in violation of federal law and has violated my consumer rights. According to Regulation E 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) Ten-day period. A financial institution shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph ( c ), shall determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error. The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred. ( 2 ) Forty-five day period. If the financial institution is unable to complete its investigation within 10 business days, the institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of a notice of error to investigate and determine whether an error occurred, provided the institution does the following : ( i ) Provisionally credits the consumer 's account in the amount of the alleged error ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. If the financial institution has a reasonable basis for believing that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer has occurred and the institution has satisfied the requirements of 1005.6 ( a ), the institution may withhold a maximum of {$50.00} from the amount credited. My claim numbers which are currently in a pending status are claim numbers : XXXX and XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-18T02:10:57.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"94103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6332325","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-12-18T02:04:35.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If the financial institution is unable to complete its <em>investigation</em> within 10 business days, the institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of a notice of <em>error</em> to <em>investigate</em> and determine whether an <em>error</em> occurred, provided the institution does the following : ( i ) Provisionally credits the <em>consumer</em> 's account in the amount of the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em> ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the <em>error</em> notice."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.918902,"6332325"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6332263","_score":13.904133,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I contacted Bank of America regarding unauthorized transactions made on my XXXX debit card account for my CA Unemployment Benefits multiple times in XXXX and XXXX. When they were initially notified of the unauthorized transactions in XXXX, they denied my claim without properly conducting an investigation. I had to resubmit the claim in XXXX after receiving a notification from them stating that they were reopening the claims which were previously denied. After the final time that the claims were resubmitted, I called to receive an update on the status of the claims in XX/XX/XXXX and was told by a representative that the claims were in a pending status. The representative filed a complaint regarding the claims due to them being in a pending status for a longer period than the legal limit allowed for an investigation. I called again to check the status of the claims two months later in XXXX of XXXX and was told by another representative that the claims were still in a pending status since XX/XX/XXXX. Another complaint was submitted on my behalf for these claims, in addition to an escalation request. I called again a month later and was told the same thing regarding the claims being in a pending status, and another complaint was submitted. Following the third call, after being told that the claims were in a pending status since XX/XX/XXXX, I reached out to my local senator 's office to request assistance, due to the claims involving XXXX CA Unemployment funds which were stolen from my account using my stolen debit card. Back in XXXX, my mail was being stolen from my mailbox and fraudulently forwarded to an unknown address after a fraudulent change of address request was submitted for my address without my knowledge or consent. My mail was being forward for several weeks and months while I was away from home. This allowed the individual who stole my mail gain access to my XXXX debit card and make several unauthorized transactions on my account. I never received the debit cards which were mailed to me by Bank of America. After reviewing the unauthorized transactions made on my account, I saw several international transactions and other transactions which were clear indicators of fraud. My initial claims should have never been denied and after they were reopened, they should have never been in a pending status for several months. They have been in this same pending status since XX/XX/XXXX, which was XXXX months ago. According to Regulation XXXX, a bank has up to 90 days to complete an investigation regarding errors reported on checking account. These claims have surpassed that time frame and no provisional credit was ever issued for these claims despite them exceeding the legal time limit allowed for an investigation. I sent Bank of America several documents to prove that these transactions were fraudulent, including police reports for the unauthorized transactions, identity theft reports from the Federal Trade Commission, mail theft reports from the Post Master General and the United States Postal Service, and written letters explaining the details of what happened regarding my stole mail. I was even hospitalized with COVID in XXXX when some of the unauthorized transactions were made with my stolen debit card and can provide doctor 's notes that I received when I was XXXX from the hospital. This money that was stolen from my account using my stolen XXXX debit card are government benefits which were issued to me during the pandemic that I need to pay back rent owed to my landlord from the times I was unable to pay my rent due to being unemployed from the XXXX pandemic. I have been trying to resolve this matter directly with Bank of America for over a year now. With my claims being in a pending status for six months now, Bank of America is in violation of federal law and has violated my consumer rights. According to Regulation E 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) Ten-day period. A financial institution shall investigate promptly and, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph ( c ), shall determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error. The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred.\n\n( 2 ) Forty-five day period. If the financial institution is unable to complete its investigation within 10 business days, the institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of a notice of error to investigate and determine whether an error occurred, provided the institution does the following : ( i ) Provisionally credits the consumer 's account in the amount of the alleged error ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. If the financial institution has a reasonable basis for believing that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer has occurred and the institution has satisfied the requirements of 1005.6 ( a ), the institution may withhold a maximum of {$50.00} from the amount credited. \n\nMy claim numbers which are currently in a pending status are claim numbers : XXXX and XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-04T16:23:46.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"94103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6332263","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-12-18T01:09:13.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If the financial institution is unable to complete its <em>investigation</em> within 10 business days, the institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of a notice of <em>error</em> to <em>investigate</em> and determine whether an <em>error</em> occurred, provided the institution does the following : ( i ) Provisionally credits the <em>consumer</em> 's account in the amount of the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em> ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the <em>error</em> notice."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.904133,"6332263"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16456430","_score":13.89242,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear XXXX FTC/CFPB, I am submitting a second complaint against XXXX regarding an inaccurate report from Security Credit Services LLC on my credit report. This inaccuracy has caused me significant embarrassment and financial harm, including an inability to work in the field of XXXX XXXXnd a denial of a position that would accommodate my XXXX. \nI previously filed a report against XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, raising concerns about their investigation process. This process appears to be an electronic system that favors the creditor, as XXXX  seems to enter whatever response the creditor provides, regardless of the records I have submitted. \nTo resolve this matter, I offered my medical records and am willing to sign a release for XXXX and XXXXecurity Credit Services to obtain them, as I am currently unable to afford the records myself. XXXX  responded on XX/XX/XXXX, with specific results that were not transparent. The response did not include the entire investigation and only provided a summary of their conclusion, without detailing how they verified the information, which was the basis of my last complaint. \nBased on XXXX XXXX pattern and practice, it appears that they accept the creditor 's report without adequately reviewing the documents I provided. These documents included : * Proof of Security Credit Services ' untimely response. * Evidence that information was submitted to Security Credit Services prior to their letter being sent. * Proof that Security Credit Services never responded directly but instead sent information provided by XXXX XXXX, suggesting the account belonged to me. * Information that Security Credit Services made misrepresentations on my credit file by reporting that the file in question belonged to XXXX XXXX XXXX and making it appear as a new account.XXXX XXXX response I have filed a second complaint against Security Credit Services, XXXX XXXX ( the company they hired ), and XXXX. I believe Security Credit Services willfully and intentionally placed XXXX XXXX XXXX on my credit report, using an ID number I believe is unique to Security Credit Services, with the intent to harm me. I would like you to examine the demand document and the original account filed on all three of my credit files by Security Credit Services Inc. Then, please examine the credit file filed on my credit report, specifically with XXXX , which lists a different address but the same company number that leads back to Security Services . They also reported to XXXX that I made a payment on the account, which was a false misrepresentation. If it was an error, they could have corrected it, but did not. The pattern and practice, and disregard by Security Credit Services and XXXX have severely harmed me. Both agencies have the upper hand and have declined to compensate me for their negligence, which is also a pattern and practice by both agencies. A monetary sanction should be reviewed, as both agencies are responsible for credit reporting. I am being bullied by both the Creditor and, most importantly, XXXX As a Credit Reporting Agency, XXXX has the duty to make sure what it reports is accurate, rather than just relying on an electronic response. This matter has been raised and disputed XXXX times, at which time XXXX  should have picked up the phone and physically talked to someone. Both companies have a pattern and practice of bullying me based on my experience with them. For example, XXXX  is aware that this account is in dispute, and even though I disagree with XXXX XXXX 's findings. XXXX XXXX partially agreed to update the credit file for a dispute. XXXX  has more than once updated the file has been update, and the dispute is resolved, and the balance is owed and is correct. Both companies are aware that I suffer from a XXXX XXXX XXXX and if additional iformationis needed all they have to do is to contact me if additional information is needed and it is not ententionallyleft out. Based on XXXX XXXX 's response, they relied on database, payments were made form an account that I owned which I reported was compromised and chaged by my bank. They provided, through their collection company a copy of statements that were being rerouted to another State. Then they stated that my comments misrepresent what I told them when I explained I have a XXXX XXXX XXXX, and anything they question could have been cleared up. I have asked XXXX XXXX and XXXX what they are alleging I was dishonest about, and I offered my medical records under duress at this point so that they can verify for XXXX and for all that I was incapacitated. \n\nXXXX  can be found culpable if it fails to follow the proper dispute procedures required by the FCRA. This is a common basis for lawsuits and regulatory action. \nLiability typically arises in these situations : Failure to reasonably investigate : If a consumer disputes an error, XXXX  must conduct a reasonable investigation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has taken action against XXXX for failing to investigate consumer disputes properly and deferring excessively to the original creditor. \nImproper reinsertion : XXXX is culpable if it improperly reinserts previously deleted, inaccurate information back onto a consumer 's credit file. \nFailure to remove unverified information : If the furnisher of the information can not verify the disputed item, XXXX must remove it. \nIgnoring evidence : The CFPB has found that XXXX ignored consumer documents submitted with a dispute during reinvestigations. \nProcedural failure : In XXXX XXXX provided inaccurate credit scores to lenders due to a software coding error, leading to financial harm for consumers. XXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney General secured a settlement against XXXX for this fa Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-08T09:43:21.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"30058","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16456430","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Security Credit Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-10-08T08:53:44.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Liability typically arises in these situations : Failure to reasonably <em>investigate</em> : If a <em>consumer</em> disputes an <em>error</em>, XXXX  must conduct a <em>reasonable</em> <em>investigation</em>. The <em>Consumer</em> Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has taken action against XXXX for failing to <em>investigate</em> <em>consumer</em> disputes properly and deferring excessively to the original creditor. \nImproper reinsertion : XXXX is culpable if it improperly reinserts previously deleted, inaccurate information back onto a <em>consumer</em> 's credit file."]},"sort":[13.89242,"16456430"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8262626","_score":13.714564,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"After repeating countless times of requesting compliance with integrity for the accuracy in reports this letter will also serve as a definitive demand for immediate cessation of unauthorized information sharing and legal implications. \n\nI am compelled to address an issue of profound concern regarding the unwarranted dissemination of my confidential information by XXXX, Transunion, and XXXX, esteemed entities recognized as consumer reporting agencies under the aegis of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The ensuing elucidation articulates the intricacies of the infractions, delineates their legal implications, and unequivocally authorizes the enforcement of the stated claims : I recommend reading the ENTIRE act as it will only help your understanding because it seems from past attempts the nationwide reporting agencies seem to be incompetent of the policies that govern their industry 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\nAs you can see there is a NEED to protect the consumer right to privacy.\n\nImportant Definitions from 15 U.S. Code 1681a -Definitions ; rules of construction The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.\n\nThe term consumer means an individual.\n\nThe term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living ( 2 ) Exclusions ( A ) ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; Reporting Transaction history is illegal 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other ( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.\n\nThey need written consent to add anything to a consumer report if consumer did not give this authorization that is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act P.L 90-321 ( 82 Stat. 146 ) which is law that directly relates and supports the code is even stricter as it states that any agency can only get consumer report in response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency ( or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency ) 15 U.S. Code 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.\n\nNo adverse item besides the conviction of crimes should be on your report any item that is a derogatory mark is not allowed into consumer reports this is another violation 12 CFR 1022.3 Definitions Identity theft means a fraud committed or attempted using the identifying information of another person without authority.\n\nAnything added to consumer report without their written consent could be considered Identity theft 15 U.S. Code 1681c2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.\n\n( This report includes more than 1 of the receipts stated above, providing right of effectiveness from basis of claims ) 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nBy violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Following the last complaint, this letter provides determination of exercising protection and rights of a consumer credit report. This being 1 of many complaints in regards to the same disputes challenged, willful noncompliance is evidently displayed as the reporting agencies were made aware of and had a full understanding of the violations after the 1st initial complaint providing basis of claims of the reporting agencies willfully violated the act in which the consumers are entitled to at least 1,000 $ per violation plus any other damages the consumer have sustained as a result of their failure to follow the law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.\n\nOnce you notify the consumer agencies that there is inaccurate information they must immediately stop reporting that information until they can prove that it is valid.\n\nThose are a few violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that you can use in your complaint against not only the reporting agencies but the furnisher of that information to them.\n\nPrivacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S. Code 552a ) Important Definitions ( 4 ) the term record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph ; This includes consumer reports ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be ( 12 ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 ( e ) of title 31.\n\nAgain they need prior written instruction of the individual to whom it relates.\n\nSection 3711 ( e ) of title 31States ( 1 ) When trying to collect a claim of the Government under a law except the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U.S.C. 1etseq. ), the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall disclose to a consumer reporting agency information from a system of records that a person is responsible for a claim if ( E ) the head of the agency has established procedures to ( iii ) get satisfactory assurances from each consumer reporting agency that the agency is complying with all laws of the United States related to providing consumer credit information ; and Either way they have violated not only the Fair Credit Reporting Act but also the Privacy Act of 1974 Disclaimer : Furthermore, it is imperative to note that this identical complaint was formally submitted over 30 days ago. This temporal context serves as a basis for claims indicating that these companies are knowingly and willfully engaging in acts with a flagrant disregard for violating policies. Such practices are subjected to punitive measures, the results from the investigation displaying inconsistent reports between all 3 reporting agencies provide evidential basis of claims displaying violations in regards to The Fair Credit Reporting Act, a financial penalty of {$1000.00} per FCRA violation is justifiable, considering the tangible and intangible damages suffered by the aggrieved consumer.\n\nThis correspondence serves not only as an expression of concern but as a legally binding assertion of my rights and expectations. I hereby authorize and affirm the enforceability of all stated claims. I anticipate your immediate attention to this matter and a comprehensive rectification of the aforementioned infractions within its legally authorized time frame.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T05:59:38.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90019","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8262626","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-02-02T05:59:35.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to <em>consumer</em> reporting agencies ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of <em>errors</em> A person shall not furnish any information relating to a <em>consumer</em> to any <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if the person knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> that the information is inaccurate."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.714564,"8262626"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8262625","_score":13.709832,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"After repeating countless times of requesting compliance with integrity for the accuracy in reports this letter will also serve as a definitive demand for immediate cessation of unauthorized information sharing and legal implications. \n\nI am compelled to address an issue of profound concern regarding the unwarranted dissemination of my confidential information by XXXX, XXXX, and Experian, esteemed entities recognized as consumer reporting agencies under the aegis of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The ensuing elucidation articulates the intricacies of the infractions, delineates their legal implications, and unequivocally authorizes the enforcement of the stated claims : I recommend reading the ENTIRE act as it will only help your understanding because it seems from past attempts the nationwide reporting agencies seem to be incompetent of the policies that govern their industry 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\nAs you can see there is a NEED to protect the consumer right to privacy.\n\nImportant Definitions from 15 U.S. Code 1681a -Definitions ; rules of construction The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.\n\nThe term consumer means an individual.\n\nThe term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living ( 2 ) Exclusions ( A ) ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; Reporting Transaction history is illegal 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other ( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.\n\nThey need written consent to add anything to a consumer report if consumer did not give this authorization that is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act P.L 90-321 ( 82 Stat. 146 ) which is law that directly relates and supports the code is even stricter as it states that any agency can only get consumer report in response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency ( or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency ) 15 U.S. Code 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.\n\nNo adverse item besides the conviction of crimes should be on your report any item that is a derogatory mark is not allowed into consumer reports this is another violation 12 CFR 1022.3 Definitions Identity theft means a fraud committed or attempted using the identifying information of another person without authority.\n\nAnything added to consumer report without their written consent could be considered Identity theft 15 U.S. Code 1681c2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.\n\n( This report includes more than 1 of the receipts stated above, providing right of effectiveness from basis of claims ) 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nBy violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Following the last complaint, this letter provides determination of exercising protection and rights of a consumer credit report. This being 1 of many complaints in regards to the same disputes challenged, willful noncompliance is evidently displayed as the reporting agencies were made aware of and had a full understanding of the violations after the 1st initial complaint providing basis of claims of the reporting agencies willfully violated the act in which the consumers are entitled to at least 1,000 $ per violation plus any other damages the consumer have sustained as a result of their failure to follow the law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.\n\nOnce you notify the consumer agencies that there is inaccurate information they must immediately stop reporting that information until they can prove that it is valid.\n\nThose are a few violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that you can use in your complaint against not only the reporting agencies but the furnisher of that information to them.\n\nPrivacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S. Code 552a ) Important Definitions ( 4 ) the term record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph ; This includes consumer reports ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be ( 12 ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 ( e ) of title 31.\n\nAgain they need prior written instruction of the individual to whom it relates.\n\nSection 3711 ( e ) of title 31States ( 1 ) When trying to collect a claim of the Government under a law except the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U.S.C. 1etseq. ), the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall disclose to a consumer reporting agency information from a system of records that a person is responsible for a claim if ( E ) the head of the agency has established procedures to ( iii ) get satisfactory assurances from each consumer reporting agency that the agency is complying with all laws of the United States related to providing consumer credit information ; and Either way they have violated not only the Fair Credit Reporting Act but also the Privacy Act of 1974 Disclaimer : Furthermore, it is imperative to note that this identical complaint was formally submitted over 30 days ago. This temporal context serves as a basis for claims indicating that these companies are knowingly and willfully engaging in acts with a flagrant disregard for violating policies. Such practices are subjected to punitive measures, the results from the investigation displaying inconsistent reports between all 3 reporting agencies provide evidential basis of claims displaying violations in regards to The Fair Credit Reporting Act, a financial penalty of {$1000.00} per FCRA violation is justifiable, considering the tangible and intangible damages suffered by the aggrieved consumer.\n\nThis correspondence serves not only as an expression of concern but as a legally binding assertion of my rights and expectations. I hereby authorize and affirm the enforceability of all stated claims. I anticipate your immediate attention to this matter and a comprehensive rectification of the aforementioned infractions within its legally authorized time frame.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T05:59:38.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90019","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8262625","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-02T05:59:35.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to <em>consumer</em> reporting agencies ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of <em>errors</em> A person shall not furnish any information relating to a <em>consumer</em> to any <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if the person knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> that the information is inaccurate."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.709832,"8262625"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8262709","_score":13.693006,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"After repeating countless times of requesting compliance with integrity for the accuracy in reports this letter will also serve as a definitive demand for immediate cessation of unauthorized information sharing and legal implications. \n\nI am compelled to address an issue of profound concern regarding the unwarranted dissemination of my confidential information by Equifax, XXXX, and XXXX, esteemed entities recognized as consumer reporting agencies under the aegis of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). The ensuing elucidation articulates the intricacies of the infractions, delineates their legal implications, and unequivocally authorizes the enforcement of the stated claims : I recommend reading the ENTIRE act as it will only help your understanding because it seems from past attempts the nationwide reporting agencies seem to be incompetent of the policies that govern their industry 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. \n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. \nAs you can see there is a NEED to protect the consumer right to privacy. \nImportant Definitions from 15 U.S. Code 1681a -Definitions ; rules of construction The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. \nThe term consumer means an individual. \nThe term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living ( 2 ) Exclusions ( A ) ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; Reporting Transaction history is illegal 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other ( 2 ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.\n\nThey need written consent to add anything to a consumer report if consumer did not give this authorization that is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act P.L 90-321 ( 82 Stat. 146 ) which is law that directly relates and supports the code is even stricter as it states that any agency can only get consumer report in response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency ( or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency ) 15 U.S. Code 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. \nNo adverse item besides the conviction of crimes should be on your report any item that is a derogatory mark is not allowed into consumer reports this is another violation 12 CFR 1022.3 Definitions Identity theft means a fraud committed or attempted using the identifying information of another person without authority. \nAnything added to consumer report without their written consent could be considered Identity theft 15 U.S. Code 1681c2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.\n\n( This report includes more than 1 of the receipts stated above, providing right of effectiveness from basis of claims ) 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\nBy violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Following the last complaint, this letter provides determination of exercising protection and rights of a consumer credit report. This being 1 of many complaints in regards to the same disputes challenged, willful noncompliance is evidently displayed as the reporting agencies were made aware of and had a full understanding of the violations after the 1st initial complaint providing basis of claims of the reporting agencies willfully violated the act in which the consumers are entitled to at least XXXX $ per violation plus any other damages the consumer have sustained as a result of their failure to follow the law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. \nOnce you notify the consumer agencies that there is inaccurate information they must immediately stop reporting that information until they can prove that it is valid. \nThose are a few violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that you can use in your complaint against not only the reporting agencies but the furnisher of that information to them.\n\nPrivacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S. Code 552a ) Important Definitions ( 4 ) the term record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph ; This includes consumer reports ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be ( 12 ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 ( e ) of title 31.\n\nAgain they need prior written instruction of the individual to whom it relates.\n\nSection 3711 ( e ) of title 31States ( 1 ) When trying to collect a claim of the Government under a law except the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U.S.C. 1etseq. ), the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall disclose to a consumer reporting agency information from a system of records that a person is responsible for a claim if ( E ) the head of the agency has established procedures to ( iii ) get satisfactory assurances from each consumer reporting agency that the agency is complying with all laws of the United States related to providing consumer credit information ; and Either way they have violated not only the Fair Credit Reporting Act but also the Privacy Act of 1974 Disclaimer : Furthermore, it is imperative to note that this identical complaint was formally submitted over 30 days ago. This temporal context serves as a basis for claims indicating that these companies are knowingly and willfully engaging in acts with a flagrant disregard for violating policies. Such practices are subjected to punitive measures, the results from the investigation displaying inconsistent reports between all 3 reporting agencies provide evidential basis of claims displaying violations in regards to The Fair Credit Reporting Act, a financial penalty of {$1000.00} per FCRA violation is justifiable, considering the tangible and intangible damages suffered by the aggrieved consumer. \n\nThis correspondence serves not only as an expression of concern but as a legally binding assertion of my rights and expectations. I hereby authorize and affirm the enforceability of all stated claims. I anticipate your immediate attention to this matter and a comprehensive rectification of the aforementioned infractions within its legally authorized time frame.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T05:59:27.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90019","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8262709","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-02-02T05:49:53.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to <em>consumer</em> reporting agencies ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of <em>errors</em> A person shall not furnish any information relating to a <em>consumer</em> to any <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if the person knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> that the information is inaccurate."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"]},"sort":[13.693006,"8262709"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8887836","_score":13.677929,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"1. ) Violations : Identified Inaccurate Information Resulting From Identity Theft : Account Name : XXXX ; Account number : XXXX ; Status : Charged Off ; Balance : {$1800.00} ; Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX ; I am a victim of identity theft. Experian has made four major violations of FCRA regarding the above identified inaccurate information resulting from identity theft : 1 ) Experian failed to block the identified information resulting from identity theft within 4 business days pursuant to 15 USC 1681c-2. Experian received the notice to block the in formation on XXXX XXXX XXXX, but the item was not blocked untill 27 days later on XXXX XXXX, XXXX as shown in the attachments. \n\n2 ) Once Experian blocked the information and reinserted it, Experian failed to provide me a notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( ii )- ( iii ) that the previously deleted information has been reinserted in my credit file.\n\n3 ) Experian accepted an unverified statement from the furnisher used to reinsert the inaccurate information after determining the unverified statement from the furnisher was also a certified statement. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1601.3 and 28 USC 1746, a certified statement is the same as a verified statement and therefore must be made under penalty of perjury which the furnisher has failed to do. A certified statement can not at the same time be an unverified statement because the terms are both interchangeably used for the signor to attest to what they believe is true under penalty of perjury, opposed to just making statements which have no criminal liability for being false. A statement with no liability for being false can not be deemed as certified. So, since a certification from the furnisher must be made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 29 CFR 1601.3 and 28 USC 1746, there was no true certification provided to Experian to allow them to reinsert the information. A true certification can only be a verified certification pursuant to 29 CFR 1601.3 and 28 USC 1746. In addition, they did not have a certification because pursuant to 28 U.S. Code 1746, a certification if executed without a notary, must contain the following phrase I declare ( or certify, verify, or state ) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on ( date ). ( Signature ). Since the certificate was not executed under penalty of perjury with this exact phrasing. There is no proper certification that exist.\n\n4 ) In violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 15 USC 1681 ( b ), and 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), Experian failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate. There was no reasonable reinvestigation because when determining weather they would reinsert the inaccurate information, Experian did not take into consideration that I had already sent certified documents under penalty of perjury, [ including signed by police officers and myself, the police report, the FTC identity theft report, and proof of address different than what was on the account at the time of account opening ], which certify that I am a victim of identity theft regarding the inaccurate information reporting on my Experian credit report ; that the information reporting to my credit report is inaccurate because it belongs to an unknown perpetrator of identity theft who opened the account and made transactions on the basis of my personal information. [ such as name, date of birth, social securirty number, drivers license, and forged signature ] without my knowledge or consent, and that the inaccurate information identified is not related to any transaction made by the consumer. It is unreasonable, to completely ignore the evidence that I submitted under penalty of perjury that proves that I am a victim of identity theft regarding the account, pursuant to 15 USC 1681g ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) and 15 USC 1681c-2 but rather to accept the unverified false certification provided by the furnisher as evidence that I am not a victim of identity theft. It is a well established fact that consumers have only a limited proof of claim for identity theft, and therefore a consumers certification that they are a victim of identity theft should be prioritized over a furnishers certification that a consumer is not a victim of identity theft, when the furnisher has no firsthand knowledge of the fact and are not willing to submit a statement under penalty of perjury. When in opposition, the consumer has been identified as a victim of identity theft by the police officer by a signed statement under penalty of perjury, the consumer signs an identity theft affidavit under penalty of perjury, the consumer signs an FTC affidavit under penalty of perjury, and provides proof of address different than what was on the account under penalty of perjury which opens the consumer up to the full liability of perjury. When the furnisher has no liability whatsoever for making false statements about weather the consumer is a victim of identity theft regarding the account which the person signing for the furnisher has no firsthand knowledge. \n\n\n\n2 ). Timeline : XX/XX/XXXX : A perpetrator of identity theft applies for and opens an account with XXXX on the basis of my personal information without my knowledge or consent committing identity theft. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX : This perpetrator of identity theft makes transactions and makes disputes with XXXX and Experian on the basis of my personal information, identification documents, and a forged signature without my knowledge or consent, committing identity theft. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : I sent the first CRA dispute notice ( block request ) to Experian with the required proof of claim of identity theft pursuant to 15 USC 1681g ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : First direct dispute notice sent directly to XXXX requesting to remove the identity theft account, with the required proof of claim of identity theft pursuant to 15 USC 1681g ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : Experian receives the first Dispute Notice signed by return receipt. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX receives first direct dispute notice direct from me w/ signed return receipt. \n\nXXXX XXXX, XXXX : XXXX fails to carry out reasonable investigation of my direct dispute within 30 days pursuant to 15 USC 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( E ) sending the results directly to me and therefore is required to delete the identity theft account. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Identity Theft Account was deleted from credit report. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Identity Theft Account was reinserted because XXXX XXXX to Experian ( under a false representation ) that I was not a victim of identity theft even after receiving my proof of claim of identity theft described in 15 USC 1681g ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ), because they claim that there was a prior dispute filed under my name for the same account not alleging identity theft. ( But this is incorrect because the criminal made the communications with them between XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX on the basis of my information by identity theft ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : Experian Receives second dispute notice from me responding to their reinsertion, asserting the list of violations due to providing the required proof of claim of identity theft to delete the account and proof of address at the time of the fraud which does not match the address on the account. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : I sent XXXX a third Direct Dispute-Investigation Request in writing, in which I provided additional evidence, and proof I did not provide any correspondences regarding the account before my first correspondence sent XX/XX/XXXX certified by a police officer and the FTC as required as proof of claim in 15 USC 1681g ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ). I also sent a Request for production of certain documents as required in 15 USC 1681g ( e ) which they failed to provide any documents. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX : XXXX fails to carry out reasonable investigation of my direct dispute within 30 days pursuant to 15 USC 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( E ) sending the results directly to me and is required to delete the identity theft account. This is the third time XXXX failed to carry out a reasonable investigation of identity theft within 30 days. \n\n3 ). Certification of Inaccurate Information On Consumer Report : I, XXXX XXXX, the consumer, certify : That the account and subsequent information identified within this notice is not related to any transaction made by the consumer. That the account and related information was opened by an unknown perpetrator of identity theft without my knowledge or consent on the basis of my personal information such as name, date of birth, social security number, and a forged signature by a criminal pretending to be me. That I have attached additional certification from Police Officers in a Police Report, an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, an FTC report, a notarized identity theft report, and proof of address different than what was used at the time the account was opened as further proof of claim of identity theft as required under 15 USC 1681g ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ). That the inaccurate information reporting is the account number, the date opened, balance, account status, and credit history because the account was opened without my knowledge or consent on the basis of my personal information by an unknown perpetrator of identity theft, and any transactions on the account were made by the unknown perpetrator of identity theft without my knowledge or consent. That I did not authorize anyone to use my personal information to obtain money, credit, loans, goods, or services or for any other purpose as described in this notice and certification. That I did not receive any money, goods, services or other benefits as a result of the events described in this certification. That I believe that an unknown perpetrator of identity theft who uses forged signatures, my personal information, and identification documents to open new accounts, use my existing accounts, commit other fraud, and enter into agreements with institutions without my knowledge or consent is the person responsible for committing the identity theft and fraud described in this certification. That any signature provided to Experian by the furnisher is not actually my signature but a forgery executed by the perpetrator of identity theft using a forged signature. That any notice of dispute, request for investigation, or any other communication regarding the account made to Experian or the Furnisher between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was not made by me, but rather an unknown perpetrator of identity theft who used my personal information without my knowledge or consent to communicate with Experian at the time committing identity theft, Experian is therefore required to only use the communications provided to Experian from XX/XX/XXXX to present day about the account and related inaccurate information. That every detail of the events written in this certification is on specific knowledge and information. That all of the events described in this certification has caused inaccurate information, information that is the result of identity theft, and information resulting from transactions of someone other than me to be reported to the credit reporting agencies and the internal database of the furnisher without my knowledge or consent. That my address was XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX TX XXXX at the time the account was opened which does not match the address on the account and I have attached such proof of address. That the information was not blocked in error nor was the block requested by the consumer in error because the consumer has provided all possible evidence to prove that I was a victim of identity theft, from the Police Officers, from the FTC affidavit, from my notarized statement under oath, and from my proof of address different than what was on the account. That the information was NOT blocked on the basis of a material misrepresentation, NOR was a block requested by the consumer on the basis of a material misrepresentation because the consumer has provided all possible evidence to prove that I was a victim of identity theft, from the Police Officers, from the FTC affidavit, from my notarized statement under oath, and from my proof of address different than what was on the account. \n\n\n\nNotes : I have attached for proof of claim : 1 ). the attached proof of address at the time of account opening which does not match the address on the account ( sublease agreement ) ; 2 ). A copy of a police identity theft report with identity theft affidavit evidencing the claim of the victim of identity theft signed by a law enforcement officer and myself under penalty of perjury ; 3 ). An FTC affidavit of identity theft ; 4 ). A Furnisher Provided Notarized Affidavit of Identity Theft ; 5 ) The dispute notice, which states that the account was opened as a result of identity theft and that the information on my Experian credit report regarding XXXX is not related to any transaction made by the consumer. 6 ) Proof that Experian Received the request to block the information on XXXX XXXX 7 ) Proof that the begun the Investigation on XXXX XXXX 8 ) Proof that instead of blocking the information within XXXX business days, it took them 27 days to block the information 9 ) Return Receipts for Experian and XXXX evidencing their violations 10 ) A prior CFPB complaint for the furnisher XXXX 11 ) Proof of Identity and Current Address 12 ) Proof that the information was reinserted after being identified as identity theft and inaccurate information by a Police officer and FTC 15 USC 1681a ( q ) ( 4 ) - The term identity theft report has the meaning given that term by rule of the Bureau, and means, at a minimum, a report ( A ) that alleges an identity theft ; ( B ) that is a copy of an official, valid report filed by a consumer with an appropriate Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, including the United States Postal Inspection Service, or such other government agency deemed appropriate by the Bureau ; and ( C ) the filing of which subjects the person filing the report to criminal penalties relating to the filing of false information if, in fact, the information in the report is false.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-30T02:24:05.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77346","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8887836","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-04-30T01:57:59.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX fails to carry out <em>reasonable</em> <em>investigation</em> of my direct dispute within 30 days pursuant to 15 USC 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( E ) sending the results directly to me and is required to delete the identity theft account. This is the third time XXXX failed to carry out a <em>reasonable</em> <em>investigation</em> of identity theft within 30 days. \n\n3 )."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an <em>error</em> on your report"]},"sort":[13.677929,"8887836"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7255483","_score":13.617687,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Money Network Financial , LLC, is in charge of the management and distribution of the MCTR payment to California residents. It was distributed as a prepaid debit card and was received by me in the Winter of XXXX. Because I was unaware of what it was at the time, I left the envelope in my office and told myself I would get around to it, which I did in XXXX. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX I called the number listed in the envelope to activate my account to try to access the {$350.00} that was supposed to be part of my Middle Class Tax Refund. On that day, the person who I spoke to said that there was no money on my account, someone had already setup a pin, which I did not know, and that there were no funds in the account. The funds had been transferred out without my knowledge. She went over the transactions, which demonstrate a clear pattern of fraud. They are listed here. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  - attempt to use at XXXX, denied XXXX XXXX XXXX  - attempt to use at XXXX multiple times, all denied XXXX XXXX XXXX - attempt to use at XXXX XXXX, denied XX/XX/XXXX - attempt to transfer funds to XXXX, denied XXXX XXXX XXXX  - funds were successfully transferred to a XXXX account for {$350.00} ( the entirety of the funds ) to an account belonging to XXXX XXXX, affiliated with a phone number XXXX. This is a toll-free number which I have no association with. Furthermore, I have no association with XXXX XXXX and have never heard of this name. \n\nAll of this occurred before I had even tried to active the card myself on XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nOn that date, I filed a fraud report verbally over the phone while discussing the above. The representatives at Money Network stated that it would take 45-90 days and did not say or bring up that a written notice was required or recommended. At that time, I did not know about 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Regulation E ), specifically the section on \" Procedures for Resolving Errors. '' Based on these laws, they are required to investigate within 10 business days and if needing an extension to 45 days, are to \" Provisionally credits the consumer 's account in the amount of the alleged error ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. If the financial institution has a reasonable basis for believing that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer has occurred and the institution has satisfied the requirements of 1005.6 ( a ), the institution may withhold a maximum of {$50.00} from the amount credited. '' Neither of these things were accomplished. Their investigation took 90 days and I never received a provisional credit. \n\nFurthermore, the results of this investigation are to be made available to the consumer in a written explanation : \" Written explanation. The institution 's report of the results of its investigation shall include a written explanation of the institution 's findings and shall note the consumer 's right to request the documents that the institution relied on in making its determination. Upon request, the institution shall promptly provide copies of the documents. '' This was not granted to me as well. I received no information regarding when the investigation was completed and what the results were. I had to callback multiple times, each time taking 30 minutes of time ( most of which were spent on hold ). Finally, on XXXX, after calling their customer service line, they stated that the claim was denied because there was electronic authorization on the transaction. They instructed that I can dispute this in writing by submitting a form ( attached ) to their dispute email, which I completed on XXXX \n\nToday, on XX/XX/XXXX, I called back request an update on the dispute and investigation as it had been more than 10 business days. Once again, they had not completed their investigation and I did not receive any provisional credits. On the phone today, I was escalated to a supervisor twice. The first time, they hung up on me in the middle of the conversation without a call back, wasting nearly and hour of my time. I had to call back, get placed on hold again, in order to get escalated again to another supervisor. I discussed with this supervisor at length the rights granted to me by 12 CFR Part 1005, which this representative completely dismissed. She stated that per their policy, they take 45-90 days to conduct an investigation or a dispute. This is clearly not the timeline established by federal protection for consumers. \n\nFurthermore, I believe their investigation to be inadequate. The results of that investigation only yielded that the transaction was electronically authorized. Obviously, this must have been the case for the transaction to go through. The history of multiple failed transactions several days before, and the transaction to a XXXX account which has no association to me clearly demonstrates a pattern of failed fraud, followed by once successful fraudulent transaction. \n\nThis entire process has taken hours of my time throughout the course of months. It has been very frustrating not having my concerns addressed just to get my stolen money re-credited. I have had to pay taxes on these funds, which has resulted in additional losses. The representatives are not helpful and only state and repeat what their company policy is, which is not helpful and not aligned with federal protection guidelines and laws. \n\nI have documented all the events above. If call records are needed, I can obtain them from my cell phone carrier.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-15T04:48:26.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Refund anticipation check","zip_code":"958XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7255483","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FISERV FINXACT CORE","date_received":"2023-07-15T04:21:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At that time, I did not know about 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Regulation E ), specifically the section on \" Procedures for Resolving <em>Errors</em>. '' Based on these laws, they are required to <em>investigate</em> within 10 business days and if needing an extension to 45 days, are to \" Provisionally credits the <em>consumer</em> 's account in the amount of the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em> ( including interest where applicable ) within 10 business days of receiving the <em>error</em> notice."]},"sort":[13.617687,"7255483"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9346849","_score":13.4184,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"The account in regards to XXXX  that is being reported on my consumer report is directly related to identity theft. I have notified EXPERIAN on multipld occasions regarding this matter i recently submitted a CfPB complaint to get this account removed. After submitting my complaint I received a response from XXXX. In that response a agent for XXXX stated that they did an investigation into the matter and they also believe the account is fraudulent. They also stated in that same response notice that they will stop reporting amd notify all XXXX credit bureas to remove the account. However EXPERIAN then responded to my complaint pf the account stating the furnisher of information verified the account as accurate. This would mean that EXPERIAN is making false claims and not following reasonable procedures. How can it be accurate and when XXXX told me it wasnt accurate it was fraudulent. EXPERIAN is knowingly reporting XXXX account that is fraudulent to my consumer report. EXPERIAN is now participating in the fraud. XXXX XXXX Code XXXX ( A ) ( XXXX ) A states \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. EXPERIAN have reasonable cause to believe the information is inaccurate due to the fact that I the consumer have notified them that this account is related to identity theft. I have also filed an identity theft report and have notified CFPB and FTC of this situation. 15 U.S. Code 1681e states '' Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. ( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. \nAs you can see there is a need to protect the consumers right to privacy. \n\nImportant Definitions from 15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. \n\nAs you can see it is XXXX of EXPERIAN to maintain reasonable procedures which protects the accuracy of my consumer report and proper utilization of my consumer reports. They are not maintaining these procedures due to the fact they claim the furnisher verified the account as accurate while the furnisher contacted me directly and stated it was not accurate. \n\nBeing that as I stated earlier in this complaint this account is DIRECTLY related with Identity Theft. According to 12 CFR 1022.3 Definitions Identity theft means a fraud committed or attempted using the identifying information of another person without authority. Anything added to your report without your written consent could be considered Identity theft.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681c2 - Block of information resulting from identity theft Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than XXXX business days after the date of receipt by such agency This law just stated that anything I the consumer identify as identity theft MUST be removed from my consumer report no later than 4 DAYS. I expect this account to be removed no later than 4 days from the receipt of this complaint if not then that would be another violation added to the long list of many violations involving the reporting of this account. ( XXXX ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( XXXX ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( XXXX ) the identification of such information by the consumer; and ( XXXX ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer. This clearly states that once I have notified the consumer reporting agencies which are EXPERIAN, XXXX, and XXXX that this account is Identity Theft that the account MUST be removed from my consumer report within 4 DAYS of the receipt of this notice. I will provide pictures of my ID along with a picture of my SOCIAL SECURITY CARD as proof that I am the consumer to whom this Consumer report relates. Along with the Identity Theft Report. By violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; If I can prove they wilfully violated the act I am entitled to at least XXXX $ per violation plus any other damages I have sustained as a result of their failure to follow the law. If I have to file more than XXXX complaint, wilful noncompliance can easily be proven as they had a full understanding of the violations after I complained the XXXX time. Which I complained about this account more than 3 times now. Every company in their agreements with consumers said they would follow the law and agreed to do so.They are aware that they are breaking the law. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX liability for negligent noncompliance In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( XXXX ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure Negligent noncompliance means the law was violated not on purpose but just due to a lack of knowledge on the required reporting procedures. Furthermore XXXX XXXX Code XXXX - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \n\nEXPERIAN has cause to believe the account is inaccurate because i the consumer as well as the furnisher of information SELF have stated that the account i fraudulent. I have attached all supporting documents and evidence with this complaint. I will reiterate that the account in regards to SELF that is being reported on my consumer report is NOT MINES IT IS FRAUD. FURTHERMORE i also am asking EXPERIAN to not lie to consumers regarding disputes as they did in this situation and that they follow protocol and handle this matter and others with honesty and respect to the consumers whos information and data they are responsible for let this be a learning moment for all the dispute team at EXPERIAN so that they can better serve consumers.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-27T02:34:53.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9346849","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-06-27T02:22:35.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore XXXX XXXX Code XXXX - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to <em>consumer</em> reporting agencies ( XXXX ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of <em>errors</em> A person shall not furnish any information relating to a <em>consumer</em> to any <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if the person knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> that the information is inaccurate."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.4184,"9346849"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8437133","_score":13.255572,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I have received your initial response to confirm that I did in fact file the complaint with the CFPB and, YES, I XXXX XXXX did file a complaint regarding the issues and circumstances that are mentioned. \n\nThe claims were not given a proper investigation and definitely can not be called \" Reasonable effort ''. The claims department obviously is still using the Automated Fraud Filter that was found to by the CFPB to be an \" unfair act or practice '' and is a violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U S.C. Subsection 553 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; ( 2 ) Bank of America Claims Department FAILED to conduct reasonable investigations of my XXXX XXXX benefit prepaid card claim and the Notice of Error is in violation of Sections 908 and 909 of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTAO ), 15 U.S.C. 1693f and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E. The practices used to determine the validity of my claims which was deemed an \" Abusive Act ''.\n\nThe reason I was unable to advise Bank of America sooner is due to the fact I was impeded by being given untrue information regarding my account status and it took over a XXXX XXXX XXXX to finally gain access to my account after physically going into the local branch to verify my identity not XXXX  or XXXX  but on XXXX separate occasions and XXXX of those visits were on the SAME DAY! At that point I learned of the status of my account and filed my claim immediately after my review of the transactions. This Impediment is in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U S.C. Subsection 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nAs a \" Affected Consumer \" I fall under the protections of the ORDER that was executed on XX/XX/XXXX by the CFPB that has jurisdiction over this matter under Sections 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. Subsection 5563, and Section 918 ( a ) ( 5 ) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. Subsection 1693o ( a ) ( 5 ). Due to the fact my account was froze or blocked.\n\nThe consequential harm I have suffered due to the incorrect determination that no errors had occurred based solely on the results of Bank of Americas Fraud Filter. I am certain that the Error Resolution Investigation procedures and practices REQUIRED of financial institutions as described in 12 C.F.R. Subsection 1005.11 were not followed in accordance with that policy. As it is the duty of this financial institution to investigate unauthorized EFT transactions Under EFTA, upon receiving notice of error, financial institutions may not determine NO ERROR had occurred without conducting a \" good faith investigation of the alleged error '' and without \" a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in error. '' 15 U S.C. Subsection 1693f ( e ).\n\nFurther, under Regulation E, when conducting an Error Resolution Investigation, a financial institution must conduct, at minimum, a \" review of its own records regarding [ the ] alleged error. '' 12 C.F.R. Subsection 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ), and the Error Resolution Investigation '' must be reasonable, '' 71 Fed. Reg 1638, 1654 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ).\n\nThe term \" Good Faith Investigation '' has been overlooked in my claims, obviously, because the number of transactions and the amount of claim ( s ) we are reviewing is very lengthy and numerous cards were issued and the transactions were spread out over as MANY as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX states, to reference Arizona, Nevada, California, and possibly more. The time it would take to give a claim of that size a Good Faith Investigation, I would say a minimum of XXXX weeks possibly XXXX if I wanted to be SURE and FAIR. And upon filing my claims I was told that the actual claim investigation department probably would not receive the claim for at least XXXX to XXXX businesses days. So with that knowledge, how was the reconsideration of my claims filed on XX/XX/XXXX and then just XXXX ( XXXX ) days later DENIED on XX/XX/XXXX??? \n\nThat XXXX simple fact, dated and completed by Bank of America, helps validate and provide significant evidence of the deliberate and willfully disregarded policies that are instituted by our Government and Governing Bureaus to maintain a procedural due process of law ensuring each citizen of our Great Country FAIR and HONEST treatment in our financial process. The negligence to conduct a investigation and determine that NO ERROR OCCURRED is a show of Abuse and Unprofessional. \n\nDuring my research I discovered that Bank of America, upon filing a claim of fraud, would send out a fraud packet consisting of an Affidavit in which the claimant declared under penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge of nor benefitted, from any unauthorized transactions, regarding the claim. The claimant was required to fill it out and return it within a set period disclosed by representative who initiated the claim. I was NEVER advised of this unspoken requirement, however, concerning Regulation E and provisional credit it's a stipulation. So I took it up on myself to find an Affidavit of Fraud and completed it to the best of my ability, under penalty of perjury, and submitted, via fax, when i requested the claims be reconsidered on XX/XX/XXXX along with other documents supporting my claims. \n\nAs Bank of America has provided the protection of the XXXX Liability Guarantee found in the cardholder agreement, it's plainly stated that XXXX cardholder will incur NO LIABILITY for UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS up to the amount of the Unauthorized Transactions, provided the cardholder notify Bank of America within a Reasonable amount of time. Yet the disconnections and excessively long wait and inaccurate information provided when I was able to speak to a representative, I wasn't able to inquire about my account until my verification was done, yet first I I was referred back to XXXX as Bank of America advised me that in fact they were responsible for the blocked account and they would have to verify my identity first and then XXXX would forward the verification to Bank of America and I was required to verify through the bank as well. Impossible and I believe intended to evade the XXXX XXXX XXXX. The unavailable harm caused by the extensive hold times, dropped calls, and the misinformation and intentional misdirected information implying that XXXX initiated the account be frozen, which was NOT the XXXX order at all. \n\nIt is evident that my claims were not processed nor properly investigated and as a direct result of this financial institutions intentional disregard for the required due process of law that I have been forced to suffer undue hardships and the loss of ALL my XXXX  benefits as a direct result of the failure of this financial institution to follow the guidelines set forth by the CFPB. As a result Bank of America has engaged in unfair acts or practices, in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. Subsection 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).\n\nTo further the placement of Liability regarding my claims allow me to remind you of a Executive Order from President Obama, on XX/XX/XXXX titled \" Improving the Security of Consumer Financial Transactions '' in paragraph \" ( c ) The Secretary of the Treasury shall take necessary steps to ensure that XXXX XXXX prepaid debit cards for administering Government benefits have enhanced security features, and by XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of the Treasury shall develop a plan for the replacement of XXXX XXXX prepaid debit cards without enhanced security features. '' This was a Presidential Executive Order published roughly XXXX years prior to the date Bank of America decided to begin using the XXXX chip security standards on the XXXX benefits card, yet ALL other accounts handled by Bank of America were in compliance with the order, again, deliberately neglected to secure the accounts and left them a target for fraudulent transactions from a lack of security standards. This is against the compliance orders provided to U.S. financial institutions. In support of the order, the XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly outlined the \" XXXX and Credit Card Liability '' asserting that \" During the transition, major financial institutions that dont provide chip-enabled cards to their cardholders remain accountable for fraudulent purchases. According to XXXX XXXX, a technology and business reporter for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Transactions still can be performed using the old card technology after the transition, but banks will be liable for any payment fraud if they do not issue a card containing a smart chip, and merchants will be liable if their teller machines do not accept the chip cards. Further stating \" Government-based purchasing and benefits cards are also shifting to chip-enabled cards. In late XXXX, President Obama signed an executive order requiring that this technology be used in all government-issued credit and debit cards. The XXXX initiative requires the use of chip-and-PIN security on government-issued cards through the General Services Administration. '' Bank of America was aware yet made a conscious decision to use a less secure card for Government benefits and in doing this, knowingly and deliberately disregarded the current Minimum Requirement of Security Standards of the XXXX chip and as a financial institution of its capacity and legal advisors surely knew the grounds and protocols if such a unsecure card was used, and knowing that, \" the issuing bank IS LIABLE '' it should be understood as well that Bank of America was prepared to take full accountability and responsibility of issues involving unauthorized transactions. With the decision to use outdated and unsecure debit cards is clear that they fully understood the liability their decision. \n\nI apologize for the length of this, however, i could continue to outline the many other issues supporting my claim but I feel this is enough to influence the decision and result in a decision in my favor and funds credited to my account.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-28T13:43:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"92394","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8437133","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-02-28T13:29:48.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As it is the duty of this financial institution to <em>investigate</em> unauthorized EFT transactions Under EFTA, upon receiving notice of <em>error</em>, financial institutions may not determine NO <em>ERROR</em> had occurred <em>without</em> conducting a \" good faith <em>investigation</em> of the <em>alleged</em> <em>error</em> '' and <em>without</em> \" a <em>reasonable</em> <em>basis</em> for <em>believing</em> that the <em>consumer</em> 's account was not in <em>error</em>. '' 15 U S.C. Subsection 1693f ( e )."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.255572,"8437133"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20602721","_score":13.047756,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Complaint False Collections Reporting, Unauthorized Attribution of Debt, and Failure to Correct XXXX/XXXX  Account I am filing a formal complaint regarding an unresolved billing and collections issue involving my account with XXXX. \nOn or around XXXX, my account balance was fully paid off. However, XXXX continued billing me through XXXX in error and subsequently placed the account into collections. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with a manager who acknowledged that my balance had already been paid. A credit of {$110.00} was applied, and I paid {$10.00} as instructed. I was told this was the maximum credit he could apply at that time and that the remaining issue would be resolved through the collections department. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted XXXX again and was instructed to file a dispute with the collections department. A ticket was created, and I was explicitly told the issue would be fully resolved by XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called at approximately XXXX XXXX  and remained on the phone until approximately XXXX XXXX. During that time, I was transferred multiple times between agents, was provided incorrect contact numbers for the collections department, was unable to reach the appropriate department, and the issue remained unresolved despite prior assurances. \nAdditionally, I have recordings of these calls documenting inconsistent information, misdirection, and failure to properly assist. \nThis situation has caused incorrect reporting to collections, a XXXX drop in my credit score for an account that should not have been reported at all, potential ongoing damage to my credit profile and financial standing, and significant time loss and distress. \nLegal and Regulatory Violations I did not open any account with Waypoint Resource Group LLC. Any reporting, furnishing, or collection activity identifying Waypoint as the original creditor, or otherwise attributing a debt directly to Waypoint without competent proof of authority, is false and misleading. \nNeither XXXX nor Waypoint has provided any competent documentation establishing a lawful basis for this collection activity. No purchase agreement, no forward-flow agreement, no assignment, no placement authorization, and no other competent record has been provided showing that this alleged debt was validly sold, assigned, or transferred ; that Waypoint was authorized to collect on behalf of XXXX ; that Waypoint had any lawful right to furnish information concerning this account to any consumer reporting agency ; or that I ever opened, authorized, or became contractually obligated on any account with Waypoint. \nXXXX acknowledged that the balance had already been paid, yet the collection account remained unresolved and continued to be reported. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher may not provide information to a consumer reporting agency if it knows or has reasonable cause to believe the information is inaccurate, and after receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency must investigate, review relevant information, and correct or delete inaccurate information as required by law. Consumers also have the right to dispute inaccurate information with consumer reporting agencies, which must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, XXXX. \nTo the extent Waypoint acted as a third-party debt collector, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt and also prohibits unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. Reporting or attempting to collect a debt without proving the right to do so, or misidentifying the creditor, raises serious FDCPA concerns. XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, XXXX. \nFlorida law also prohibits a person collecting consumer debts from asserting a legal right that does not exist, communicating information known to be false, and engaging in conduct that can reasonably be expected to harass a debtor. A violation of Florida XXXX XXXX can support actual damages, additional statutory damages up to {$1000.00}, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys fees. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX. \nBecause XXXX is a communications provider, unjust or unreasonable billing and account-handling practices may also raise issues under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), which requires charges and practices in connection with communications service to be just and reasonable. \nStated plainly : I paid the account. XXXX acknowledged that fact. Yet a collection account remained on my credit file through Waypoint, an entity with whom I never opened an account and whose authority was never proven to me. The resulting reporting caused a XXXX drop in my credit score for an account that should not have been reported at all. This is not a minor billing error. It is a serious credit-reporting and collection failure that requires immediate correction. \nRequested Resolution I demand the following immediately : Immediate deletion of this collection account from all consumer reporting agencies. \n\n\nWritten confirmation that the account balance is {$0.00}. \n\n\nWritten confirmation that XXXX has instructed Waypoint to delete the account and cease all collection and furnishing activity.\n\nWritten confirmation that Waypoint has deleted the tradeline and will not continue reporting, verifying, or furnishing this account to any consumer reporting agency. \n\n\nWritten confirmation of the specific basis on which Waypoint furnished this account to the credit bureaus.\n\nComplete documentary proof of any claimed authority Waypoint asserts it had to collect or report this account, including any placement authorization, assignment, purchase agreement, forward-flow agreement, bill of sale, and any account-level schedule or data identifying my specific account. \n\n\nWritten confirmation that all collection activity has ceased permanently with respect to this account. \n\n\nBecause this account was not supposed to be reported at all, deletion, not correction, is the required remedy. I do not consent to continued furnishing, verification, updating, or reinsertion of this account with any consumer reporting agency. \nIf this matter is not corrected immediately, I will pursue other appropriate federal and state regulators, and I will preserve all recordings, account records, and credit-reporting evidence for further action. \n\nI did everything a consumer is supposed to do. I paid the account. I followed up. I called repeatedly. I relied on what I was told. And after all of that, I was still left carrying the consequences of an error that was not mine. \nInstead of correcting the problem once it was identified, I was forced to spend hours being transferred from person to person, given incorrect information, and sent in circles while a collection account that never should have been reported continued damaging my credit. XXXX acknowledged that the balance had already been paid, yet I was still left to deal with the fallout. That is not just frustratingit is deeply unfair. \nThe harm here is real. My credit score dropped by XXXX points because of reporting that should not have existed at all. That kind of damage can affect a persons ability to obtain housing, financing, transportation, and other basic opportunities. It creates stress, uncertainty, and a loss of confidence in whether your financial record is being handled honestly and lawfully. \nWhat makes this worse is that I did not open any account with Waypoint, yet my credit was still impacted through reporting tied to that entity, without any competent proof ever being provided to me showing a lawful basis to do so. I have been put in the position of having to fight to correct something that should never have happened in the first place. \nNo consumer should pay an account, be told the issue is resolved, and then be forced to spend days trying to undo false collection reporting while their credit suffers. I have lost time, peace of mind, and financial standing because of this. I have been forced to carry the burden of a problem created by XXXX billing error and then made worse by the failure to properly correct the collection reporting afterward. \nThis matter has caused real hardship, and it requires immediate and complete correction. Deletion of the collection account is not a courtesy. It is the only proper remedy for harm that should never have occurred. \n\n\n\n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-26T00:07:57.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Telecommunications debt","zip_code":"33579","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20602721","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Waypoint Resource Group, LLC","date_received":"2026-03-26T00:07:30.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a furnisher may not provide information to a <em>consumer</em> reporting agency if it knows or has <em>reasonable</em> cause to <em>believe</em> the information is inaccurate, and after receiving notice of a dispute from a <em>consumer</em> reporting agency must <em>investigate</em>, review relevant information, and correct or delete inaccurate information as required by law."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[13.047756,"20602721"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18886905","_score":12.838364,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint to report Pentagon Federal Credit Union ( PenFed ) for what I believe is improper mishandling of my consumer disputes and chargeback requests related to multiple transactions made between approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX  involving online sweepstakes casino merchants. They have own right refused to investigate, I was notified by a XXXX XXXX that works in CARD services who is instructed by Pentagon Federal credit union to not investigate my disputes, they will not provide any documentation, they wont provide the required requested documents Ive asked for which I believe I have rights to review, including all evidence reviewed, all evidence not reviewed, a copy of the merchants position, how they arrive to their decision, the credit card rules, and exclamation as to why they close my account based on unsound judgment when they authorized every transaction. Authorization was either by text message, or phone call or I did not disguise or lie as to what type of app I was on they were fully aware, and then when I discovered their illegality, meaning the sites represented themselves as legal, and in fact, were illegal, therefore not allowing me to get the goods that I thought I was purchasing and agreed to purchase. Those being legal, virtual coin/entertainment when in fact I was sold illegal counterfeit/entertainment. Its impossible to get what you agreed to pay for when they, the merchants disguise, their legal status and their terms of service, in their live chats, and in while enrolling always given the presentation that they are legal and not prohibited in Minnesota. Frankly and undisputedly summed up is, I would never agree to purchase illegal goods or services or products. I was scammed, and I relied on the federal protections and consumer protections available to me where Ive been completely ignored, had my account closed, and complete lack of response as well as complete disregard for my protections and rights as a consumer. \nHowever, the Attorney General came out and said that they are in fact illegal, and Ive been working with law-enforcement, Special Agent with XXXX AGE, filed a complaint with the Attorney General, and the FTC. XXXX disclosed to law-enforcement, as soon as I learned these sites were illegal. And submitted chargeback disputes for the legal services that were sold to me under the premise of being legal. \n\nThese merchants marketed and represented their services in a manner that induced purchases under the impression of lawful entertainment. I later discovered information and enforcement warnings indicating these operators are not lawful/regulated in Minnesota and may be operating as illegal gambling or illegal lottery activity. \n\nXXXX has failed to conduct a fair, unbiased, complete investigation, has closed disputes without meaningful review, has demanded unreasonable/impossible documentation, and has obstructed my ability to obtain chargeback remedies and dispute appeal rights regarding the XXXX complaint which had to do with the same merchants however, at that time, I didnt know they were illegal, so it was just a double billing dispute due to the number of charges that I did not recognize. They provide provided nothing to the XX/XX/year> complaint which was an amended complaint as soon as I learned the companies were operating illegally. \n\nB. Transaction Window and Dispute Trigger Transactions occurred approximately XXXX XXXX, including XXXX Pay transactions. \nI initiated disputes around early XX/XX/year>, after learning of the alleged illegality/misrepresentation and after making reports/complaints. \nThis dispute is not buyers remorse. It is based on misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, and illegal/unregulated activity that materially altered the nature of what I believed I was purchasing. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Issue : Misrepresentation / Goods Not as Described The controlling basis of my dispute is misrepresentation : the merchants represented the services as lawful/available entertainment, when Minnesota authorities have publicly warned that these online gambling/sweepstakes operations are unlawful and unregulated. \n\nMy dispute basis includes : Misrepresentation of legality and inducement into transactions that are void/unfair Goods/services not as described ( illegal gambling instruments sold as lawful entertainment ) Duplicate processing/double billing ( where applicable ) Misleading billing descriptors and other fraud indicators ( where applicable ) D. PenFeds Improper Conduct ( Complaint Allegations ) PenFeds conduct includes, but is not limited to : 1. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigati\n\non PenFed closed disputes and/or denied disputes without a complete review of evidence and without issuing a fair written rationale tied to the substance of the dispute.\n\n2. Improper closure of disputes / inconsistent handling PenFed has issued inconsistent and contradictory communications regarding dispute status and handling, creating an obstructive process rather than a compliant investigation. \nXXXX. Unreasonable documentation demands/ impossible requirements PenFed directing me to return to websites that are allegedly illegal or websites from which I have been banned, and then using that as a basis to deny claims. In a prior dispute related on by merchants. In XXXX billing error dispute was closed, however, after learning the sites were illegal I submitted another dispute in XX/XX/year>, which they have outright ignored, refused to investigate and are unwilling to cooperate whatsoever in providing me requested documents. Such as evidence they reviewed they considered, evidence they didnt review didnt consider, instructions as to how they derived their decision and several other requests that have gone ignored. \nXXXX. Failure to evaluate disputes under proper misrepresentation frameworks My disputes involve misrepresentation and illegal/unregulated activity. PenFed has treated them as routine authorized transactions and refused to evaluate them under a consumer-protection framework consistent with misrepresentation and goods/services not as described.\n\n5. Failure to provide transparent evidence review and appeal process I requested all documentation and information PenFed relied on to deny disputes, along with appeal instructions. PenFed has not provided adequate transparency or a meaningful appeal pathway. \nXXXX. Refusal to treat credit and debit disputes consistently As originally reported in early XXXX, these disputes involve both credit and debit card transactions, and XXXX handling has failed to address the full scope. \n\nXXXX Harm to Consumer PenFeds mishandling has caused : ongoing financial loss and inability to recover disputed funds prolonged administrative burden and repeated follow-ups denial of fair dispute resolution procedures severe stress and ongoing uncertainty F. Relief Requested I request that the FTC : 1. Review PenFeds dispute/chargeback practices for unfair handling and obstruction of consumer remedies.\n\n2. Require PenFed to provide the full dispute investigation file ( all evidence reviewed, communications, decision rationale, and internal notes where applicable ).\n\n3. Require PenFed to provide a compliant appeal process and re-evaluate disputes under misrepresentation / goods not as described frameworks.\n\n4. Require PenFed to issue written findings and consistent procedures for disputes involving illegal/unregulated merchant conduct. \nXXXX. Allow me my right to arbitration which Ive requested multiple times. \nXXXX Review all evidence Ive uploaded to their secure message portal. \nXXXX. Stop impeding on my consumer protection, federal law, and state law, consumer rights, and protections. \n\nXXXX Supporting Evidence Available I can provide : dispute letters and appeal submissions formal notice narrative with Minnesota enforcement quotations screenshots of marketing claims ( e.g., No purchase necessary ) Minnesota enforcement warning screenshot ( ag.state.mn.us ) ( uploaded image ) proof of FTC reporting confirmation and case reference screenshots Electronic Signature : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-21T12:37:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"56007","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18886905","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-01-21T12:09:52.000Z","state":"MN","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":["Failure to conduct a <em>reasonable</em> investigati\n\non PenFed closed disputes and/or denied disputes <em>without</em> a complete review of evidence and <em>without</em> issuing a fair written rationale tied to the substance of the dispute.\n\n2. Improper closure of disputes / inconsistent handling PenFed has issued inconsistent and contradictory communications regarding dispute status and handling, creating an obstructive process rather than a compliant <em>investigation</em>. \nXXXX."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[12.838364,"18886905"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6322501","_score":12.618701,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I XXXX XXXX checked my consumer report and noticed there were fraudulent accounts reporting to my consumer report. I reached out to Transunion to notify them about the accounts and to no avail I did not receive a solution. I reached out to Transunion for a second time and the representative stated the accounts were verified. I asked Transunion to send me their method of verification and they refuse to send me the verification letter. This is a federal violation because according to 15 USC 1681i ( 7 ) I, the consumer have the right to know the description of the method used to verify the information furnished on my consumer report within 15 days of the request. If a description of the method used can not be provided, information associated with US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MUST BE REMOVED. I have uploaded some documents which shows where Transunion allegedly verified the account and also shows where the account had been deleted. However, according to my credit monitoring system the US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ACCOUNTS ARE CURRENTLY REPORTING ON MY CONSUMER REPORT. TRANSUNION HAS VIOLATED SEVERAL FCRA GUIDELINES. I HAVE UPLOADED A DOCUMENT LISTED AS EXHIBIT ( A ) WHICH SHOWS WHERE TRANSUNION IS CURRENTLY REPORTING THE INACCURATE ACCOUNTS AFTER ALLEDGLY REMOVING THE ACCOUNTS. TRANSUNION IS IN VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( e ) ( 6 ) - Consumer reporting agencies on a nationwide basis must maintain a joint notification system. I have reason to believe and do so believes, this subsection was enacted to maintain maximum possible accuracy amongst consumer reporting agencies. This information for US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION XXXX, AND US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-15008160 DOES NOT MATCH OTHER CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES SHOWN IN EXHIBIT ( A ) WHICH MEANS YOUR COMPANY HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN REASONABLE PROCEDURES TO KEEP A JOINT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM AND IS IN VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( e ) ( 6 ). THESE ACCOUNTS MUST BE REMOVED. I never gave Transunion the authority to furnish my consumer report. Consumer reporting agencies need written instructions by I the consumer to furnish a consumer report. Without written instructions this consumer reporting agency ( TRANSUNION ) has committed fraud by using my identifying information without any lawful authority to furnish this information on my consumer report. BY DEFINITION TRANSUNION HAS COMMITTED IDENTITY THEFT. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) AS SEEN IN EXHIBIT ( A ) AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MUST BE REMOVED. As you can see in Exhibit ( C ) the US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ACCOUNT HAD BEEN UNDER INVESTIGATION AND CAME BACK VERIFIED. AS PERVIOSULY STATED I REQUESTED A METHOD OF VERIFICATION AND TRANSUNION DENIED THE METHOD OF VERIFICATION WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE FCRA. FUTHERMORE, IF THERE IS AN ACCOUNT WHICH COMES BACK VERIFIED PURSUANT TO 15 USC 1681a ( e ) THERE MUST BE AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT WITH THE SOURCE OF THE REPORT COMING FROM INTERVIEWS OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND THE RESULT CAN NOT CONTAIN FACTUAL INFORMATION. I, THE CONSUMER ALLEGE NO SUCH VEIRIFCATION BASED ON AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT EXISTS. THEREFORE TRANSUNION HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED 15 USC 1681a ( e ). EXHIBIT ( B ) SHOWS WHERE US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WAS DELETED BUT EXHIBIT ( A ) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS CURRENTLY REPORTING. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MISLEADING WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1692e. I have filed another identity theft report, and according to 15 USC 1681c-2 ( a ) if I, the consumer provides a consumer reporting agency such as TRANSUNION with appropriate proof of identity, a copy of an identity theft report, and a statement by I, the consumer stating the information in connection with US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-XXXX XXXX US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-XXXX  XXXX is not relating to any transaction by myself, TRANSUNION is required to place a block on my consumer report on the information associated with US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONXXXX, AND US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-XXXX. THIS INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE BLOCKED IN ERROR IF YOU FEEL THERE IS MISREPRESENTATION OR THERE WAS ANY POSSESSION OF GOODS, SERVICES, OR MONEY OBTAINED PLEASE SEND ME A STATEMENT SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY WITH EVIDENCE OF THIS COUNTERCLAIM. This derogatory information on my report is causing me stress, anxiety, and defamation of character. EACH REQUIREMENT OF THE FCRA WHICH TRANSUNION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH, HOLDS THE COMPANY LIABLE FOR {$1000.00} PER ACTION AND PURSUANT TO 15 USC 1681i WHEN AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT IS PREPARED NO ADVERSE INFORMATION IN A CONSUMER REPORT MAY BE INCLUDED IN A SUBSEQUENT CONSUMER REPORT. EACH MONTH THIS FALSE INFORMATION WAS INCORRECTLY VERIFIED MAKING TRANSUNION LIABLE FOR EACH CONSECUTIVE REPORTING SHOWN IN EXHIBIT ( A ). I have also submitted to TRANSUNION via certified mail # XXXX a Notarized Affidavit of Truth and uploaded the Affidavit of Truth. An Affidavit of Truth stands truth in commerce if it goes unrebutted line for line. I also sent remaining supporting documents that are currently uploaded to Transunion via certified mail.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-14T17:46:41.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"317XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6322501","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2022-12-14T17:46:34.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TRANSUNION IS IN VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( e ) ( 6 ) - <em>Consumer</em> reporting agencies on a nationwide <em>basis</em> must maintain a joint notification system. I have reason to <em>believe</em> and do so <em>believes</em>, this subsection was enacted to maintain maximum possible accuracy amongst <em>consumer</em> reporting agencies."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[12.618701,"6322501"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6322600","_score":12.606857,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I XXXX XXXX checked my consumer report and noticed there were fraudulent accounts reporting to my consumer report. I reached out to Transunion to notify them about the accounts and to no avail I did not receive a solution. I reached out to Transunion for a second time and the representative stated the accounts were verified. I asked Transunion to send me their method of verification and they refuse to send me the verification letter. This is a federal violation because according to 15 USC 1681i ( 7 ) I, the consumer have the right to know the description of the method used to verify the information furnished on my consumer report within 15 days of the request. If a description of the method used can not be provided, information associated with US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MUST BE REMOVED. I have uploaded some documents which shows where Transunion allegedly verified the account and also shows where the account had been deleted. However, according to my credit monitoring system the US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ACCOUNTS ARE CURRENTLY REPORTING ON MY CONSUMER REPORT. TRANSUNION HAS VIOLATED SEVERAL FCRA GUIDELINES. I HAVE UPLOADED A DOCUMENT LISTED AS EXHIBIT ( A ) WHICH SHOWS WHERE TRANSUNION IS CURRENTLY REPORTING THE INACCURATE ACCOUNTS AFTER ALLEDGLY REMOVING THE ACCOUNTS. TRANSUNION IS IN VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( e ) ( 6 ) - Consumer reporting agencies on a nationwide basis must maintain a joint notification system. I have reason to believe and do so believes, this subsection was enacted to maintain maximum possible accuracy amongst consumer reporting agencies. This information for US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION -15008147, AND US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-15008160 DOES NOT MATCH OTHER CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES SHOWN IN EXHIBIT ( A ) WHICH MEANS YOUR COMPANY HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN REASONABLE PROCEDURES TO KEEP A JOINT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM AND IS IN VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( e ) ( 6 ). THESE ACCOUNTS MUST BE REMOVED. I never gave Transunion the authority to furnish my consumer report. Consumer reporting agencies need written instructions by I the consumer to furnish a consumer report. Without written instructions this consumer reporting agency ( TRANSUNION ) has committed fraud by using my identifying information without any lawful authority to furnish this information on my consumer report. BY DEFINITION TRANSUNION HAS COMMITTED IDENTITY THEFT. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( a ) ( 2 ) AS SEEN IN EXHIBIT ( A ) AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MUST BE REMOVED. As you can see in Exhibit ( C ) the US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ACCOUNT HAD BEEN UNDER INVESTIGATION AND CAME BACK VERIFIED. AS PERVIOSULY STATED I REQUESTED A METHOD OF VERIFICATION AND TRANSUNION DENIED THE METHOD OF VERIFICATION WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE FCRA. FUTHERMORE, IF THERE IS AN ACCOUNT WHICH COMES BACK VERIFIED PURSUANT TO 15 USC 1681a ( e ) THERE MUST BE AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT WITH THE SOURCE OF THE REPORT COMING FROM INTERVIEWS OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND THE RESULT CAN NOT CONTAIN FACTUAL INFORMATION. I, THE CONSUMER ALLEGE NO SUCH VEIRIFCATION BASED ON AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT EXISTS. THEREFORE TRANSUNION HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED 15 USC 1681a ( e ). EXHIBIT ( B ) SHOWS WHERE US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WAS DELETED BUT EXHIBIT ( A ) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS CURRENTLY REPORTING. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MISLEADING WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1692e. I have filed another identity theft report, and according to 15 USC 1681c-2 ( a ) if I, the consumer provides a consumer reporting agency such as TRANSUNION with appropriate proof of identity, a copy of an identity theft report, and a statement by I, the consumer stating the information in connection with XXXX DEPARTMENT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEPARTMENT OF XXXX XXXX XXXX not XXXX to any transaction by myself, TRANSUNION is required to place a XXXX on my consumer report on the information associated with XXXX DEPARTMENT OF XXXX, AND XXXX DEPARTMENT XXXX XXXX. THIS INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE BLOCKED IN ERROR IF YOU FEEL THERE IS MISREPRESENTATION OR THERE WAS ANY POSSESSION OF GOODS, SERVICES, OR MONEY OBTAINED PLEASE SEND ME A STATEMENT SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY WITH EVIDENCE OF THIS COUNTERCLAIM. This derogatory information on my report is causing me stress, anxiety, and defamation of character. EACH REQUIREMENT OF THE FCRA WHICH TRANSUNION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH, HOLDS THE COMPANY LIABLE FOR {$1000.00} PER ACTION AND PURSUANT TO 15 USC 1681i WHEN AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT IS PREPARED NO ADVERSE INFORMATION IN A CONSUMER REPORT MAY BE INCLUDED IN A SUBSEQUENT CONSUMER REPORT. EACH MONTH THIS FALSE INFORMATION WAS INCORRECTLY VERIFIED MAKING TRANSUNION LIABLE FOR EACH CONSECUTIVE REPORTING SHOWN IN EXHIBIT ( A ). I have also submitted to TRANSUNION via certified mail # XXXX a Notarized Affidavit of Truth and uploaded the Affidavit of Truth. An Affidavit of Truth stands truth in commerce if it goes unrebutted line for line. I also sent remaining supporting documents that are currently uploaded to Transunion via certified mail.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-14T17:46:21.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"317XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6322600","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2022-12-14T16:26:35.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TRANSUNION IS IN VIOLATION OF 15 USC 1681b ( e ) ( 6 ) - <em>Consumer</em> reporting agencies on a nationwide <em>basis</em> must maintain a joint notification system. I have reason to <em>believe</em> and do so <em>believes</em>, this subsection was enacted to maintain maximum possible accuracy amongst <em>consumer</em> reporting agencies."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[12.606857,"6322600"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":229,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":229}]}},"product":{"doc_count":229,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":151,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":151}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":27,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":27}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":22,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":17},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":4},{"key":"Telecommunications debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":4},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":2},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Refund anticipation check","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":2},{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Payroll card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"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":3}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit 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":"Payday 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":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":229,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":121,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":119},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":31,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":17},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":10},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":17,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":17}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":16,"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":16}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":12,"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":12}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company explaining amount owed","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Contacted you instead of your attorney","doc_count":1},{"key":"Talked to a third-party about your debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"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":"Charged fees or interest you didn't expect","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"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":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem adding money","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}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using the card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trouble getting information about the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"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":[]}},{"key":"Unexpected or other fees","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":229,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":226},{"key":"No","doc_count":3}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":229,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":141},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":88}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":229,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":229}]}},"company":{"doc_count":229,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":55},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":53},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":49},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":9},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":6},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"Colony Brands, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"FISERV FINXACT CORE","doc_count":2},{"key":"PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":2},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":2},{"key":"Self Financial Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":2},{"key":"ADP Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aldridge Pite, LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"CBC Companies, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Certified Credit Reporting, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Consumer Adjustment Company Incorporated","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Systems International, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Exeter Finance, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FactorTrust, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"HW Holding, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NCB Management Services Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Credit Adjusters, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Oliphant United, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PDQ Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rent Recovery Solutions","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ria Envia, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rowland Avenue Management, Inc. A/KA Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC d/b/a Genesis","doc_count":1},{"key":"Security Credit Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"VYSTAR CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WLCC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Waypoint Resource Group, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"World Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":229,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":58},{"key":"GA","doc_count":29},{"key":"TX","doc_count":26},{"key":"CA","doc_count":24},{"key":"MO","doc_count":11},{"key":"MI","doc_count":8},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":7},{"key":"NM","doc_count":7},{"key":"HI","doc_count":5},{"key":"MN","doc_count":5},{"key":"NY","doc_count":5},{"key":"PA","doc_count":5},{"key":"SC","doc_count":5},{"key":"LA","doc_count":4},{"key":"NC","doc_count":4},{"key":"TN","doc_count":4},{"key":"VA","doc_count":4},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":3},{"key":"NV","doc_count":3},{"key":"RI","doc_count":3},{"key":"KS","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"IA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":229,"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":125},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":229,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":8},{"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":[12.606857,"6322600"],"3":[11.205963,"17510472"],"4":[10.436802,"12140546"],"5":[9.95151,"11564451"],"6":[9.549081,"8347716"],"7":[9.193568,"13948782"],"8":[8.02617,"6197435"]}}}