{"took":882,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":11,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10386898","_score":26.480616,"_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 without a proper <em>investigation</em> to be <em>conducted</em>, concluding that the <em>funds</em> for services not <em>rendered</em> by the <em>merchant</em> is <em>deceptive</em>, <em>unfair</em>, 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 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"]},"sort":[26.480616,"10386898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20770891","_score":25.84831,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This correspondence serves as formal notice of a disputed transaction and potential legal claims arising from both the merchants conduct and the issuing banks failure to comply with governing law. \n\nI was charged {$2500.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX for a XXXX XXXX  scheduled for XX/XX/year>. The reservation was canceled prior to the service date, and no services were rendered. \n\nThe merchants own documentation reflects : Pre-service communication regarding cancellation A final charge processed at XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, followed by a cancellation call at XXXX XXXX, within minutes Additional written communication confirming cancellation intent Despite this, the merchant retained substantially the full amount and issued only a {$110.00} partial refund, confirming the transaction was adjustable and not strictly non-refundable. \n\nFederal Law Violations 1. Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) This charge constitutes a billing error as it involves : Charges for services not delivered as agreed Goldman Sachs is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct such errors. That has not occurred.\n\n2. Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) Goldman Sachs failed to comply with required billing error procedures, including : Failure to properly evaluate submitted evidence Reliance on inconsistent merchant claims Requiring repeated submissions without resolution 3. Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) The failure to properly resolve this billing dispute undermines the statutory protections afforded to consumers regarding fair and accurate billing practices.\n\nKentucky Law Violations 1. Kentucky Consumer Protection Act KRS 367.170 The merchants conduct constitutes : Unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts in trade or commerce Retaining full payment for services never rendered, while relying on technical interpretations of a cancellation policy, falls within prohibited conduct.\n\n2. Unjust Enrichment ( Kentucky Common Law ) The merchant has : Retained a benefit ( {$2500.00} ) Without providing any corresponding service This creates a valid claim for restitution.\n\n3. Breach of Contract / Failure of Consideration ( Kentucky Common Law ) No service was delivered Therefore, the basis for the charge failed Card Network Violations This dispute qualifies under Mastercard Reason Code 4855 ( Services Not Rendered/ Canceled Services ) : Service date : XX/XX/year> Cancellation occurred prior to service No benefit was received Merchant policy does not override network protections in these circumstances. \n\nLiability Position The facts establish : No services rendered Retention of funds without performance Inconsistent and self-serving merchant evidence Failure of Goldman Sachs to comply with federal dispute requirements Notice of Intent Absent immediate resolution, I am prepared to pursue all available remedies, including : Continued action through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaints to the Kentucky Attorney Generals Office Evaluation of claims under : KRS 367.170 ( Consumer Protection Act ) Unjust enrichment Failure of consideration Federal consumer protection statutes Demand for Cure To resolve this matter without escalation, I demand : Immediate reversal of the full {$2500.00} Written confirmation of compliance with : 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( FCBA ) 12 CFR 1026.13 ( Regulation Z ) Failure to cure this matter promptly will result in further action without additional notice.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-30T14:50:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"40245","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20770891","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2026-03-30T14:09:13.000Z","state":"KY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Kentucky Consumer Protection Act KRS 367.170 The <em>merchants</em> <em>conduct</em> constitutes : <em>Unfair</em>, false, misleading, or <em>deceptive</em> acts in trade or commerce Retaining full payment for services never <em>rendered</em>, while relying on technical interpretations of a cancellation policy, falls within prohibited <em>conduct</em>.\n\n2. Unjust Enrichment ( Kentucky Common Law ) The <em>merchant</em> has : Retained a benefit ( {$2500.00} ) Without providing any corresponding service This creates a valid claim for restitution.\n\n3."]},"sort":[25.84831,"20770891"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19967239","_score":19.98486,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Summary I am filing this complaint due to Currents repeated failure to properly investigate multiple dispute claims and their refusal to issue required provisional credits under federal law. \nThe disputes involve the following transactions : {$72.00} Movie ticket transaction ( service never rendered ; showing indicated location was closed ; order canceled immediately ) {$30.00} Related unresolved charge still not refunded {$150.00} XXXX XXXX  ( membership cancellation dispute ; merchant continued billing after cancellation ) {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( disputed charge ; goods/services not properly resolved ) {$1500.00} XXXX ( XXXX disputed transaction requiring full investigation ) Despite timely notice of these disputes, Current has either : Closed claims within days without meaningful investigation, Requested repetitive documentation without resolving the matter, Refused to issue provisional credits, or Failed to provide written findings explaining their determinations. \nRegulation E Violations ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), financial institutions must : Conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of an error.\n\nComplete the investigation within 10 business days XXXX XXXX credit the consumers account while the investigation continues ( up to 45 days in certain cases ). \nProvide written explanation of findings. \nCurrent has failed to provide provisional credit for these disputes despite exceeding the 10-business-day window. They have also refused to meaningfully investigate certain claims and have prematurely closed cases.\n\nFailure to follow these procedures constitutes noncompliance with federal consumer protection law. \nPattern of Improper Dispute Handling This is not an isolated incident. There appears to be a pattern of : Rapid claim closures without full review, Denial without detailed written explanation, Failure to issue provisional credits, Shifting the burden entirely onto the consumer.\n\nThese practices may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices ( UDAP ).\n\nFinancial Harm The total disputed amount exceeds {$1700.00}. The refusal to credit these funds has caused financial hardship and instability. One of the transactions alone ( {$1500.00} ) is substantial and should have triggered heightened investigative review.\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Current to : Immediately issue provisional credits for all disputed transactions.\n\nConduct full, documented investigations compliant with Regulation E.\n\nRefund the {$72.00} and {$30.00} charges related to the canceled movie service. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$150.00} XXXX XXXX dispute. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dispute. \nConduct a comprehensive review of the {$1500.00} XXXX transaction. \nProvide written documentation of all investigative findings. \nReview and correct their dispute-handling policies to ensure federal compliance. \nI am requesting regulatory intervention due to Currents repeated failure to follow federally mandated dispute resolution procedures.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T16:20:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77581","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19967239","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2026-03-04T16:03:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These practices may constitute <em>unfair</em> or <em>deceptive</em> acts or practices ( UDAP ).\n\nFinancial Harm The total disputed amount exceeds {$1700.00}. The refusal to credit these <em>funds</em> has caused financial hardship and instability. One of the transactions alone ( {$1500.00} ) is substantial and should have triggered heightened <em>investigative</em> review.\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Current to : Immediately issue provisional credits for all disputed transactions."]},"sort":[19.98486,"19967239"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17251980","_score":19.75066,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX Glittering XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX https : XXXX RE : Formal Complaint XXXX Chime XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX For Violations of Regulation XXXX, UDAAP, and State Consumer Law Account Holder : XXXX XXXX Chime XXXX Account : XXXX Total Disputed Amount : {$1900.00} To Whom It XXXX Concern : I am filing this formal complaint against my financial institution, Chime Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Chime '' ), and the merchant, XXXX, for a pattern of unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices that have resulted in {$1900.00} of unauthorized and erroneous charges. This complaint details how XXXX systematically billed me for undelivered services and how Chime has subsequently failed in its legal obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E to investigate these errors and provide provisional credit, causing me continued financial injury. \n\nI. Systematic Violations by the Merchant ( DoorDash ) My attached documentation, including detailed transaction logs for XXXX and XX/XX/year>, reveals that XXXX engaged in a persistent and illegal pattern of charging for services not rendered. The violations are twofold : Charges for Undelivered/Unaccepted Goods/Services : Across XXXX documented instances, XXXX charged my account for orders that were never delivered, were significantly incomplete, or were incorrect. Each time, I contacted XXXX directly, and my valid requests for refunds were systematically denied. This constitutes a fundamental breach of contract and violates : The Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) principles, which define charges for \" goods not delivered to the obligor as agreed '' as a billing error ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( b ) ( 3 ) ). \nThe Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), specifically XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) for \" knowingly failing to deliver goods or services as promised '' and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) for \" charging a customer without their consent. '' Duplicate Billing : My records show multiple instances of duplicate billing for single orders or services, a direct violation of the FCBA 's prohibition on charging \" an amount greater than the actual amount of the transaction '' ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( b ) ( 1 ) ). \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX Failures by Chime XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nDespite providing Chime with exhaustive evidence of this pattern, Chime has failed to meet its obligations under federal law, specifically the XXXX and its implementing regulation, Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ). \n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation : Regulation E requires financial institutions to conduct a \" reasonable investigation '' into disputed errors. Chime 's investigation was perfunctory at best. The bank relied solely on XXXX 's boilerplate responses without critically evaluating the voluminous, patterned evidence I provided that proved the charges were for non-rendered services. A reasonable investigation would have recognized the systematic nature of the merchant 's errors. \nFailure to Provide XXXX XXXX : This is Chime 's most serious violation. Pursuant to XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) ( i ), if a financial institution can not complete its investigation within XXXX ( XXXX ) business days, it must provisionally credit the consumer 's account for the disputed amount. I formally notified Chime of these errors in writing, yet they have willfully withheld the mandatory provisional credit of {$1900.00}, depriving me of the use of these funds and exacerbating my financial instability. \nEvidence of a Clear \" Error Ignored by Chime : The most stark evidence Chime ignored is documented in my XX/XX/year> statement. On XX/XX/year>, a XXXX charge for {$55.00} posted to my checking account. In response, I was forced to make an emergency transfer of {$56.00} from my savings account on the very same day to cover this illegitimate charge. Despite this transfer, my checking account was still left with a negative balance, which is mathematically impossible unless the XXXX charge was erroneous or double-posted. This single transaction is irrefutable proof of an \" error '' as defined by Regulation XXXX, yet Chime failed to acknowledge it. \nXXXX. The Documented Pattern of Financial Harm My bank statements are not merely records of transactions ; they are a ledger of the direct financial harm caused by these violations. The evidence shows a consistent, damaging cycle : An illegitimate XXXX charge posts. \nThis charge immediately causes my checking account balance to become negative or insufficient for essential expenses. \nI am forced to execute an emergency transfer from my Chime XXXX Account to cover a debt I do not rightfully owe. \nThis is not a pattern of discretionary spending but a documented sequence of financial injury caused by being billed for fraudulent and unauthorized transactions. \n\nIV. Conclusion and XXXX for XXXX Chime 's failure to adhere to the core consumer protections of XXXX XXXX the mandate for provisional credit and a reasonable investigationhas left me without recourse. Meanwhile, XXXX continues its deceptive practice of charging for undelivered food. \n\nTherefore, I respectfully request that the CFPB : Investigate Chime for its failure to comply with Regulation XXXX, including its refusal to provide a provisional credit and conduct a meaningful investigation. \nInvestigate XXXX for its unfair and deceptive practices under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and for violations of state law. \nFacilitate the full restitution of my {$1900.00}. \nEnsure that both Chime and XXXX correct their business practices to prevent this from happening to other consumers. \nI have attached all relevant documentation, including my bank statements, detailed dispute logs, and my formal correspondence with Chime. I am prepared to provide any further information required. \n\nThank you for your attention to this serious matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T19:24:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"89130","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17251980","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-11-14T19:07:49.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to <em>Conduct</em> a Reasonable <em>Investigation</em> : Regulation E requires financial institutions to <em>conduct</em> a \" reasonable <em>investigation</em> '' into disputed errors. Chime 's <em>investigation</em> was perfunctory at best. The bank relied solely on XXXX 's boilerplate responses without critically evaluating the voluminous, patterned evidence I provided that proved the charges were for non-<em>rendered</em> services. A reasonable <em>investigation</em> would have recognized the systematic nature of the <em>merchant</em> 's errors."]},"sort":[19.75066,"17251980"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22405551","_score":19.242432,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Barclays for failing to properly investigate and process my credit card disputes with case no ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX involving purchases from XXXX XXXX / XXXX. \n\nThe disputed transactions were for in-game digital currency called XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX are used inside the X-Clash game to upgrade castles and heroes. The merchant advertises the game as a competitive XXXX XXXX environment. My dispute is not simply that the XXXX XXXX failed to appear in an account ledger. My dispute is that the virtual goods were sold for use in a materially misrepresented service environment. \n\nThe merchant marketed and sold participation in a fair, competitive PvP game. My evidence shows that the environment was not fair, organic, or as advertised. It was allegedly influenced by undisclosed automated bots, artificial engagement, and paid actors used to create artificial competition and spending pressure. I provided screenshots and logs supporting this claim, including statements from supposed players asking whether they were being paid by developers to hype up the server before later abandoning it. \n\nThis materially changed the value and utility of the XXXX XXXX. XXXX Diamonds in a legitimate PvP environment are not the same product or service as XXXX XXXX used in an artificially manipulated game environment. The merchants anticipated defense that the XXXX XXXX were technically credited ignores the actual dispute : the goods and services were not as described and were sold for use in a misrepresented service ecosystem. \n\nIn addition, the merchants own Terms of XXXX prohibit bots and unauthorized methods in the name of fair play, while the merchant failed to disclose its own alleged use of artificial engagement, bots, or paid actors. The merchants XXXX XXXX XXXX also acknowledges abnormal mechanics and unauthorized methods, supporting my position that the service environment was compromised. \n\nAs of XX/XX/year>, the merchant revoked my account access entirely while retaining my funds. Even if the merchant claims the XXXX XXXX were initially delivered, the merchant later removed my ability to access or use the account and purchased goods. This creates a separate basis for dispute : service not rendered / ongoing service interrupted. \n\nBarclays XXXX Barclays appears to have mishandled the dispute by focusing only on whether the digital currency was technically credited, rather than investigating whether the goods and services were delivered as agreed or as described. \n\nUnder Regulation Z, billing-error protections cover disputes involving goods or services that were not accepted or not delivered as agreed, including delivery of services different from what was agreed. A consumer also is not required to first resolve the dispute with the merchant before giving a billing-error notice to the creditor under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). \n\nBarclays was required to conduct a reasonable investigation. Regulation Z states that if a creditor determines no billing error occurred, it must conduct a reasonable investigation and explain its reasons ; for nondelivery of property or services, the creditor may not deny the claim unless it determines the property or services were actually delivered, mailed, or sent as agreed. \n\nBarclays approach appears inconsistent with Mastercards dispute framework as well. XXXX XXXX XXXX recognizes disputes where goods or services were either not as described or defective, including where goods and services did not conform to their description or where the merchant did not honor terms and conditions. XXXX also identifies digital goods as goods stored, delivered, and used electronically, including games, game pieces, and software. \n\nThe dispute should therefore have been evaluated under the proper framework for Goods or Services Not as Described, Defective/Not as Described, and/or Goods or Services Not Provided / interruption of ongoing service, rather than reduced to the narrow question of whether Red Diamonds appeared in the account. \n\nThis issue is further supported by the fact that another major card issuer, XXXX XXXX, reviewed materially similar evidence involving the same merchant and resolved the dispute in my favor. I understand that XXXX Ones decision is not binding on Barclays, but it demonstrates that my claim is bona fide, supported by evidence, and capable of being processed under card-network dispute rules. Barclays should not dismiss the claim using a superficial digital currency was delivered theory while ignoring the misrepresented service environment and subsequent account revocation. \n\nConsumer protections involved I believe Barclays failed to comply with the spirit and requirements of the following protections : XXXX. Regulation Z / Fair Credit Billing Act billing-error procedures under XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, because Barclays did not reasonably investigate whether the purchased goods and services were delivered as agreed. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( c ), which allows a cardholder to assert claims and defenses against the card issuer when the merchant fails to resolve a dispute involving property or services purchased with a credit card. \nXXXX. XXXX dispute workflows, including Mastercards framework for goods or services not as described, defective, not provided, and digital goods disputes. \nXXXX. UDAAP concerns, because Barclays handling of the dispute appears unfair and potentially deceptive if it accepted my dispute evidence but then evaluated the claim under the wrong theory, effectively denying consumer dispute rights by ignoring the substance of the merchant misrepresentation. \n\nRequested resolution I request that Barclays : XXXX. Reopen and reprocess all disputed transactions involving XXXX XXXX / XXXX. \nXXXX. Evaluate the disputes under the proper chargeback basis : Goods or Services Not as Described, Defective/Not as Described, and/or Goods or Services Not Provided / service interruption, rather than merely asking whether XXXX XXXX were credited XXXX \nXXXX. Permanently credit all disputed amounts, including any related interest, fees, or charges. \nXXXX. Provide a written explanation identifying the exact XXXX dispute reason code or workflow Barclays used. \nXXXX. Provide copies of any merchant representment evidence Barclays relied upon. \nXXXX. Confirm whether Barclays submitted the disputes through XXXX and XXXX Barclays pursued XXXX or arbitration if the merchant/acquirer rejected the chargeback. \nXXXX. Remove or suppress any negative credit reporting, delinquency, fees, interest, or adverse account treatment connected to the disputed transactions. \nXXXX. Confirm that Barclays has preserved and reviewed all attached evidence, including Capital Ones favorable outcome, merchant PvP advertising, account revocation evidence, merchant statements, player/bot logs, and the merchants own Terms of Service and Fair Operation Statement. \n\nClosing statement This is not a case where I simply received digital currency and later changed my mind. The XXXX XXXX  were purchased for use in a PvP game environment that was materially misrepresented. The merchant advertised a fair competitive environment, allegedly used undisclosed artificial engagement and paid actors, and later revoked access to the account and purchased goods while retaining my funds. \n\nBarclays should not allow the merchant to avoid chargeback liability by claiming that virtual currency was technically credited while ignoring the misrepresented service environment and total loss of access. I respectfully request that the CFPB require Barclays to conduct a proper investigation and provide a full written response.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-20T21:36:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92656","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22405551","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2026-05-20T21:17:56.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I respectfully request that the CFPB require Barclays to <em>conduct</em> a proper <em>investigation</em> and provide a full written response."]},"sort":[19.242432,"22405551"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8261432","_score":13.012136,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Bank of America. Bank of America correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Closed. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. \nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nBank of America denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E. \nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX commitment to ethical banking standards. \nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. \nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:49:12.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8261432","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-01-31T16:36:24.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I appreciate the due diligence performed by your <em>investigation</em> team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nBank of America denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[13.012136,"8261432"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8255451","_score":12.9129715,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB for Navy Federal Credit Union Denial of Claims. Navy Federal Credit Union emails dated XX/XX/XXXX, entitled Your Claim is Resolved. This letter serves as a formal request for CFPB to govern Navy Federal Credit Unions compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the amount of {$5000.00} and {$4200.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice.\n\nI appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in Maryland 's Professional Conduct Rules, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ).\n\nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms.\n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX XXXX services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation. \nFinancial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX XXXX billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances.\n\nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX XXXX representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful.\n\nEthical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship.\n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place Navy Federal Credit Union in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions.\n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \nIn the matter concerning XXXX XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. XXXX XXXX XXXX  actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Navy Federal Credit Union to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Navy Federal Credit Unions commitment to ethical banking standards.\n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Navy Federal Credit Union to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer.\n\nA prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance.\n\nII. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. \nUnder the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards.\n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request.\n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery.\n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings.\n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit.\n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality.\n\nIII. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-31T16:27:16.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8255451","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-01-31T15:52:22.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I appreciate the due diligence performed by your <em>investigation</em> team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred.\n\nNavy Federal Credit Unions denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[12.9129715,"8255451"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8265912","_score":12.512184,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB. This letter serves as a formal request for CashApp compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$800.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX, XXXX And XXXX, in the amount of {$800.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. I appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). \nThe services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX  representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. \n\nCash App decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. \n\nI. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. \nBreach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation.\n\n2. Financial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. \nNegligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. \n\nXXXX. Ethical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. \n\nPlease be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. \n\nThese regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. \n\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.\n\nThe term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. \n\nIn the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of XXXX, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. \n\nFailure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Cash App to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Cash App commitment to ethical banking standards. \n\nGiven that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Cash App to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. A prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. \n\nXXXX. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. Under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. \n\nThe documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. \n\nFee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. \n\nCourt Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. \n\nAttorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. \n\nTransaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. \n\nXXXX. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-02T02:59:21.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8265912","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-02T02:18:30.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I appreciate the due diligence performed by your <em>investigation</em> team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service <em>rendered</em>."]},"sort":[12.512184,"8265912"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17340775","_score":10.438645,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"To whom it may concern : I am requesting that CIT Bank and XXXX XXXX  treat the {$20000.00} I paid to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as what it is : money obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and the unauthorized practice of law by a suspended attorney, not a legitimate legal-services transaction. \n\nXXXX. A suspended attorney can not legally practice law or collect retainers in any state Under nationwide attorney-licensing and disciplinary rules, including the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, a lawyer who has been suspended is prohibited from practicing law, giving legal advice, or assisting others in practicing law in any jurisdiction. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX expressly prohibits a lawyer from practicing law where doing so violates that jurisdictions regulation of the legal profession, or from assisting another in doing so. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX defines professional misconduct to include violating the rules of professional conduct, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. States, including California and others, have adopted parallel rules that bar unauthorized practice of law and assisting it, and that treat such conduct as disciplinable misconduct.\n\nOnce suspended, an attorney is legally considered not authorized to practice anywhere, not just in the suspending state. Any retainer taken under those conditions is inherently suspect and may be considered void, unenforceable, and obtained by fraud and false pretenses. \n\nXXXX. A suspended attorney can not run or profit from a law firm Under state and national ethics rules, a suspended attorney must cease all legal operations. They can not act as principal, founder, or managing attorney of a firm, can not direct staff in the practice of law, can not solicit clients or negotiate fee agreements, and can not collect legal fees or retainers through a law group or subsidiary entity. These principles flow from the same unauthorized-practice and misconduct rules, which prohibit lawyers from circumventing discipline through the acts of another or by assisting others to violate professional rules.\n\nPublic disciplinary records show that attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX has been suspended from the practice of law in XXXX  for five years by order of the Supreme Court XXXX Pennsylvania, effective XX/XX/XXXX, following a Disciplinary Board recommendation. The XXXX  Disciplinary Boards public attorney profile lists his current status as Suspended. In XXXX, the XXXX  State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked his privilege to practice law in that state effective XX/XX/XXXX, for violations of professional rules governing diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping property, terminating representation, supervisory responsibilities, and misconduct. \n\nDespite these disciplinary actions, his law-brand entities ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) have continued to advertise nationwide legal services and student/education defense representation through websites and marketing materials that present him as an active, lead attorney. That continuing operation, combined with his suspension, raises serious concerns of ongoing unauthorized practice of law and illegal fee collection. \n\nXXXX. What I paid and how it was represented There were two key transactions, processed by two banks : XXXX. XXXX XXXX  {$350.00} consultation fee I was charged {$350.00} for a one-hour consultation specifically with attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX That consultation never occurred as represented. Instead, I received approximately XXXX minutes with someone who was not clearly identified as a licensed attorney, and certainly not the attorney I paid for. I never received the one-hour consultation I was promised. \nXXXX. CIT Bank approximately {$20000.00} retainer on or about XX/XX/XXXX CIT Bank processed a phone transfer of approximately {$20000.00} to an external account identified on my statement as a transfer to XXXX XXXX around XX/XX/XXXX. This was presented to me as a fee retainer for assistance with a contingency case : I was told that the underlying lawsuit would be handled on a contingency basis, but that I had to pay a large upfront retainer so the firm could take the case and prepare filings. This structure is highly irregularpaying a massive retainer for a supposed contingency caseespecially where there is no valid, signed written fee agreement, no clear trust-account disclosures, and a suspended attorney involved. \n\nIn other words, both the {$350.00} and {$20000.00} were induced by misrepresentations about who would provide legal services, the attorneys licensing and disciplinary status, the nature of the case ( contingency vs. fee-based ), and the existence of any lawful fee agreement or trust arrangement. \n\nI later learned that no valid written retainer agreement governing the {$20000.00} existed, I received no meaningful legal work in return, and the attorney whose name was used to solicit these funds was not authorized to practice law at all due to suspension and disciplinary action described above. \n\nXXXX. Evidence that this is not a normal fee dispute, but fraud I now have written confirmation from the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of XXXX  that my complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX has been filed and logged. The Disciplinary Boards public pages and the Supreme Courts disciplinary order confirm his five-year suspension and prior discipline. The XXXX  XXXX XXXX also publicly reports revocation of his privilege to practice in that state for serious professional violations. \n\nAdditional evidence includes : Public disciplinary orders from Pennsylvania and other jurisdictions showing suspension and prior discipline. \nAttorney-status records showing that his XXXX  license is currently suspended. \nMarketing and website content from his law entities holding out nationwide XXXX XXXX and student/education defense services despite his suspension. \n\nIn short, this is not a situation where I simply changed my mind about a lawyer. It is a case where : A suspended attorney continued to act as a lawyer, His operation collected money under false pretenses, I was never given the consultation or representation I was sold, and There is no valid fee agreement or bill justifying the {$20000.00}. \n\nXXXX. Why this is fraud from a banking and consumer-protection standpoint From a banking and consumer-protection perspective, this situation involves misrepresentation and omission of material facts ( including the attorneys suspended status ), services paid for but not rendered, unauthorized practice of law, and collection of fees under false pretenses. These are precisely the kinds of unfair or deceptive acts that consumer financial regulators and courts view as fraud. \n\nA suspended attorney can not lawfully accept retainers or operate a law firm. Therefore, any authorization I gave to Discover or XXXX was fraud-induced authorizationI only approved those transactions because I relied on false claims about the attorneys status, authority, and services. When authorization is obtained by deception, regulators and courts often treat resulting transfers in a similar manner to unauthorized or improper transactions, particularly in the context of electronic fund transfers and card payments. \n\nXXXX. The banks obligations, even when a customer authorized the transfer Even when a customer technically initiates or authorizes an electronic transfer, banks still have obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E to investigate alleged errors and unauthorized electronic fund transfers, and to respond within specific time frames. Regulation Es error-resolution rule ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) requires financial institutions to investigate reported errors and, in many circumstances, to provide provisional credit if the investigation can not be completed within the defined period. CFPB guidance and compliance materials emphasize that errors include certain unauthorized or incorrect electronic transfers and that institutions must have fair, documented procedures for handling consumer fraud and dispute claims.\n\nAdditionally, national bank regulators such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) provide complaint and enforcement channels for consumers when banks mishandle fraud investigations or disputes. The OCCs HelpWithMyBank.gov and its consumer-complaints pages explain that the OCC can review national banks handling of consumer issues, including fraud and unauthorized transactions. The CFPBs complaint portal and guidance similarly highlight banks obligations to respond to and address consumer complaints and fraud issues related to financial products and services.\n\nBy simply coding my dispute as a routine authorized merchant transaction and refusing to meaningfully consider the fraud-induced nature of the authorization, the illegal status of the recipients law practice, and the absence of any valid contract or services, XXXX XXXX  and CIT Bank have XXXX in my view, failed to meet the spirit of these consumer-protection obligations. \n\nXXXX. Independent verification and role of online research The factual information regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX disciplinary history, suspensions, and revoked privileges in multiple states comes from : The XXXX  Disciplinary Board and Supreme Court orders suspending him for five years, and earlier disciplinary actions. \nThe XXXX State Bar Disciplinary Boards revocation of his privilege to practice law in Virginia for misconduct related to fees, safekeeping property, supervision, and other professional-rule violations. \nPublic summaries and reporting ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, case summaries, secondary commentary ) that corroborate the five-year suspension and its underlying findings. \n\nInitial verification was done through online research using publicly available disciplinary and bar records, and I then confirmed this by directly filing with the XXXX  Disciplinary Board, which issued a confirmation number for my complaint. This documentation supports my position that the {$20000.00} was obtained by an individual who was not authorized to practice law or collect legal fees at the time. \n\nXXXX. What I am asking CIT Bank and XXXX XXXX  to do Given all of the above, I respectfully request that CIT Bank and XXXX XXXX  : XXXX. Treat the {$20000.00} retainer transfer and the {$350.00} consultation charge as fraud-induced transactions tied to an illegal, suspended-attorney operation. \nXXXX. Conduct a full, formal fraud investigation into these transfers, rather than coding them as simple merchant disputes, taking into account the attorneys suspended status and the unauthorized practice of law. \nXXXX. Reverse and refund the total {$20000.00} to my accounts, to the greatest extent permitted under law and network rules, applying the protections of EFTA/Regulation E and other applicable consumer-protection laws. \nXXXX. Block any future payments to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or any related entities connected to this suspended attorney. \nXXXX. Flag the receiving accounts for suspected fraud and cooperate fully with : State bar authorities ( Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, California, and any other relevant jurisdictions ) ; The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ; The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) in the case of CIT ; The Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI/IC3 ) and local law enforcement, to the extent they investigate fraudulent legal-services schemes. \n\nIf, after being provided with this information and supporting documentation, a bank still refuses to investigate or assist, I understand that I have the right to seek further relief from the OCC, the CFPB, state bar authorities, and law-enforcement agencies. My goal is not only to recover my own funds, but also to prevent other consumersespecially vulnerable clients seeking XXXX or civil-rights representationfrom being defrauded in the same way by an attorney who was not legally authorized to practice law or collect fees when these payments were taken.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-18T17:28:17.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17340775","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-18T07:33:26.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Why this is fraud from a banking and consumer-protection standpoint From a banking and consumer-protection perspective, this situation involves misrepresentation and omission of material facts ( including the attorneys suspended status ), services paid for but not <em>rendered</em>, unauthorized practice of law, and collection of fees under false pretenses. These are precisely the kinds of <em>unfair</em> or <em>deceptive</em> acts that consumer financial regulators and courts view as fraud."]},"sort":[10.438645,"17340775"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16063745","_score":8.59728,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Description of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to deliver the promised goods/services, and I immediately attempted to resolve the issue directly. After realizing I had been scammed, I contacted Cash App support through the app on Thursday, XX/XX/year> to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App failed to provide a reasonable investigation or refund as required under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ). Instead, I was informed that the dispute was closed in favor of the merchant with no clear explanation or supporting documentation. I appealed this decision on Thursday, XX/XX/year>, but again Cash App refused to reverse the charge. \n\nThis represents an unauthorized/fraudulent transaction. I complied with all procedures, provided supporting evidence ( screenshots of the agreement and communications ), and reported the issue within the required time frame. Cash App did not provide me with : Written notice of the investigation results, Documentation relied upon in denying my claim, or A provisional credit as required by law. \n\n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen the dispute, XXXX. Provide full documentation of the investigation, and XXXX. Refund the {$40.00} consistent with Regulation XXXX requirements. \n\n\nXXXX. False promise of goods/services I sent {$40.00} on XX/XX/year> for a promised item/service. The other party never delivered anything. That is textbook fraud. \n\n\nXXXX. Misrepresentation The recipient knowingly misled me to obtain funds without intent to fulfill their obligation. \n\n\nXXXX. Unauthorized retention of funds Once I revoked consent by reporting the issue, the transaction should have been treated as unauthorized/fraudulent. \n\n\nXXXX. Pattern of deception I provided screenshots of communications proving the other party engaged in deceptive conduct. \n\n\nXXXX. No merchant accountability Unlike a legitimate business, the recipient can not prove delivery, receipt, or service rendered. \n\n\n\n\n-- - Why I Am Lawfully Entitled to a Refund XXXX. Regulation XXXX ( XXXX CFR XXXX ) Cash App must investigate errors, provide written notice of results, and issue a provisional credit within XXXX business days. \n\n\nXXXX. Constructive denial By closing my case without proof, Cash App failed to meet its legal burden. That constitutes a violation of my consumer protection rights. \n\n\nXXXX. Burden of proof is on XXXX XXXX XXXX must show the transaction was valid and authorized. No such evidence was provided. \n\n\nXXXX. CFPB guidance Peer-to-peer payment apps like Cash App must treat fraud claims with the same protections as debit card transactions. \n\n\nXXXX. Entitlement I complied with all reporting timelines and provided evidence. By law, I am owed a refund of {$40.00} plus any fees. \n\n\nXXXX. No proof of delivery The recipient provided no shipping, receipt, or service documentation. \n\n\nXXXX. Violation of Cash Apps own policies Their User Agreement prohibits fraudulent use and obligates them to reverse fraudulent transactions. \n\n\nXXXX. Deceptive inducement The transaction was induced by false promises, meeting the FTCs definition of unfair/deceptive practices. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure of consideration No goods/services were provided in exchange for payment. \n\n\nXXXX. Unjust enrichment Recipient benefited financially without legal or contractual basis. \n\n\nXXXX. Unauthorized electronic fund transfer XXXX XXXX XXXX, a transfer obtained through fraud is treated as unauthorized. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to mitigate harm Once I reported the fraud, Cash App had a duty to stop further harm by reversing funds. \n\n\nXXXX. Denial without evidence Cash App closed the dispute without presenting supporting documentation, violating XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ). \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to provide provisional credit No temporary credit was issued within XXXX business days as required by law. \n\n\nXXXX. No clear investigation process I was not informed of the investigation scope or method, violating transparency requirements. \n\n\nXXXX. Consumer detriment The decision placed all risk of fraud on me, contrary to federal protections. \n\n\nXXXX. Asymmetric information Cash App has records and technical data to verify fraud, yet withheld them from me. \n\n\nXXXX. Denial of due process I was not given the opportunity to review or challenge evidence against my claim. \n\n\nXXXX. Bad faith handling The speed and lack of detail in denial indicate no good-faith investigation. \n\n\nXXXX. Pattern of complaints CFPB and BBB databases show numerous similar complaints against Cash App, proving systemic failures. \n\n\nXXXX. Violation of fair banking practices Unlike banks, Cash App can not escape XXXX XXXX obligations as a money transmitter. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to protect users Cash App markets safety/security but refused to stand behind their own protections. \n\n\nXXXX. Public interest XXXX Cash App to deny fraud claims without evidence enables further scams. \n\n\nXXXX. Contractual breach As a consumer, I relied on Cash Apps representations of fraud protection. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX oversight requirement As a licensed money transmitter under state/federal law, Cash App must comply with consumer protection statutes and refund fraudulent charges. \n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. This violates my rights under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Part XXXX ) because : XXXX. Cash App did not provide a reasonable investigation or supporting documentation. \n\n\nXXXX. Cash App failed to issue a provisional credit within XXXX business days as required by law. \n\n\nXXXX. The burden of proof lies with the financial institution, yet Cash App closed the claim without evidence. \n\n\nXXXX. I complied with all requirements by reporting promptly and submitting evidence of fraud. \n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. In addition, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my appeals regarding reinstatement. \n\nThis violates my rights under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ) because : XXXX. Cash App did not provide a reasonable investigation or supporting documentation. \n\n\nXXXX. Cash App failed to issue a provisional credit within XXXX business days as required by law. \n\n\nXXXX. The burden of proof lies with the financial institution, yet Cash App closed the claim without evidence. \n\n\nXXXX. My account was suspended without due process, clear reasoning, or response to my appeals. \n\n\n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen the dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide documentation of the investigation, and XXXX. Restore or clearly justify my account suspension consistent with consumer protection standards. \n\n\nOn Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. In addition, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my appeals regarding reinstatement. \n\nThis is not an isolated incident. For several years, I have experienced repeated issues with Cash App involving : Disputes being denied without explanation, Lack of documentation or transparency in investigations, Failure to issue provisional credits as required by Regulation XXXX, and Account restrictions or suspensions imposed without clear reasoning or timely responses to appeals. \n\n\nThis long-standing pattern shows Cash App/Block XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX comply with federal consumer protection laws and is denying users the protections guaranteed under XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ( Regulation XXXX ). \n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide documentation of the investigation, XXXX. Address the wrongful suspension of my account, and XXXX. Correct ongoing compliance failures that have harmed me and many other consumers over the years. \n\n\nOn Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. In addition, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my appeals regarding reinstatement. \n\nThis situation is aggravated by the fact that my identity and Cash App account have been compromised and used without my full authorization. I have reason to believe my account has been accessed or manipulated fraudulently, which qualifies as an unauthorized electronic funds transfer under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ). \n\nThis is not an isolated issue. For years, I have experienced repeated problems with Cash App involving : Unauthorized transactions or account activity, Disputes being denied without clear evidence, Failure to issue provisional credits within the legal timeframe, and Account suspensions without explanation or response to appeals. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide basic consumer protections and is denying me the right to secure access to my own account. \n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide documentation of the investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly explain the suspension, and XXXX. Address the fact that my identity/account has been compromised and take corrective action. \n\n\n\n\nOn Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nWhat frustrates me most is that this has been going on for years. I have faced repeated problems with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes being denied without any evidence or transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits as required under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions that leave me locked out without explanation or resolution. \n\n\nI have spent countless hours trying to get Cash App to follow the law and their own stated policies. Each time I report fraud, I get vague form letters, no documentation, and no accountability. It feels like Cash App is deliberately ignoring its legal obligations and leaving consumers like me powerless. \n\nThis is extremely frustrating and unacceptable. Cash App markets itself as safe and secure, but in reality, they are shifting all the risk of fraud and identity compromise onto their users while refusing to comply with basic consumer protection laws. \n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly explain the suspension, and XXXX. Correct their ongoing systemic failures that are harming consumers. \n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nThis has been an ongoing problem for years. I have faced repeated issues with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes denied without evidence or transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions imposed without explanation or resolution. \n\n\nI have invested significant time and effort trying to get Cash App to follow the law and their own policies. Each time I report fraud, I get vague responses, no documentation, and no accountability. It is extremely frustrating and unacceptable. \n\nI expect communication, cooperation, and compliance from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Specifically, I am requesting that they : XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly explain the suspension, and XXXX. Correct ongoing systemic failures that continue to harm consumers. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nWhat frustrates me most is the complete failure of Cash Apps customer support and appeals process. Every interaction has been generic, unhelpful, and dismissive. Support staff refuse to provide documentation, do not explain their decisions, and ignore repeated follow-ups. The appeals process feels like a closed loop designed to wear customers down instead of providing real resolutions. \n\nThis has been an ongoing problem for years. I have faced repeated issues with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes denied without transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions imposed without explanation or cooperation. \n\n\nI have invested significant time and effort trying to get Cash App to follow the law and their own stated policies. Each time, I am stonewalled by a support process that feels engineered to deny responsibility. It is extremely frustrating and unacceptable. \n\nI expect communication, cooperation, and compliance from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Specifically, I am requesting that they : XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly justify the suspension, and XXXX. Correct their ongoing systemic failures. \n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nWhat frustrates me most is the complete failure of Cash Apps customer support and appeals process. Every interaction has been generic, unhelpful, and dismissive. Support staff refuse to provide documentation, do not explain their decisions, and ignore repeated follow-ups. The appeals process feels like a closed loop designed to wear customers down instead of providing real resolutions. \n\nThis has been an ongoing problem for years. I have faced repeated issues with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes denied without transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX CFR Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions imposed without explanation or cooperation. \n\n\nIn addition, I am a high-profile candidate for public office. This means I must carefully manage financial activity and strictly adhere to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) regulations. Cash Apps suspension of my account and failure to provide documentation not only frustrate me personally, but also jeopardize my ability to demonstrate compliance with campaign finance law. \n\nI expect communication, cooperation, and compliance from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Specifically, I am requesting that they : XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly justify the suspension, and XXXX. Correct their ongoing systemic failures. \n\n\n\nFor the sake of transparency, I want this matter and my complaint to be published publicly so that regulators, voters, and the public can see both the seriousness of Cash Apps failures and my persistence in holding them accountable.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-19T11:53:36.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Check cashing service","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16063745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-19T11:27:13.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Misrepresentation The recipient knowingly misled me to obtain <em>funds</em> without intent to fulfill their obligation. \n\n\nXXXX. Unauthorized retention of <em>funds</em> Once I revoked consent by reporting the issue, the transaction should have been treated as unauthorized/fraudulent. \n\n\nXXXX. Pattern of deception I provided screenshots of communications proving the other party engaged in <em>deceptive</em> <em>conduct</em>. \n\n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[8.59728,"16063745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9416631","_score":4.82918,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"Notice of Billing Error ; Notice of Rescission of Security Interest ; Notice of Dispute ; Entitlement Order/Instruction Account Owner Name : XXXX XXXX Billing Address : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Georgia XXXX Account Number : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Please find below my directions regarding Account Number : XXXX pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of XXXX I am a federally protected consumer and I have reason to believe Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX and AT & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and President and Pascal Desroches , Principal Financial Officer, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer are committing Securities Fraud and Mail Fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are in direct violation of their SEC filings. I am now requesting a billing error as I know per XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SEC Prospectus filing, XXXX, and XXXX report my coupon is a receivable that has been credited. During this investigation of the billing error my services must be reconnected or I will be forced to contact the SEC for Securities Fraud and violations of said agreement on file with SEC. I am the Holder in Due Course here to claim all Equitable rights and interests owed to me, the Principal. Do you disclaim I am the Investor and Beneficiary? If so, furnish documentary evidence for the record. I know what I receive from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX every XXXX weeks is a book entry security based on the Uniform Commercial Code ; I have not and am not receiving my credits as I am supposed to according to the Uniform Commercial Code. It is a fact that my signature secured the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is trading according to the Securities Exchange and Uniform Commercial Code. It is a fact that I am an investor into this company based on the Uniform Commercial Code. It is a fact that my Securities Account is to be credited every month or every four weeks as the dividend payments mature. In bank law Account means a written list of transactions noting money owed and money paid ; a detailed statement of mutual demands arising out of a contract or a fiduciary relationship. According to Article 9-102 of the UCC \" Account '', except as used in \" account for '', means a right to payment of a monetary obligation, whether or not earned by performance, ( i ) for property that has been or is to be sold, leased, licensed, assigned, or otherwise disposed of, ( ii ) for services rendered or to be rendered, ( iii ) for a policy of insurance issued or to be issued, ( iv ) for a secondary obligation incurred or to be incurred, ( v ) for energy provided or to be provided, ( vi ) for the use or hire of a vessel under a charter or other contract, ( vii ) arising out of the use of a credit or charge card or information contained on or for use with the card It is a fact that I do not owe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or any subsidiaries or branches of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  any funds based on the Uniform Commercial Code, but XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in fact owes me. It is a fact XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX trustee is Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company that has a fiduciary duty and obligation to me based on the Uniform Commercial Code. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are in violation of the Securities Exchange by committing Securities Fraud. Securities Fraud has no Statute of Limitations. I am not supposed to be paying a debt with debt. I know they have a custodial primary linked to my account to make sure I am not receiving my credits. The Statements I receive every four weeks from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a book entry to be credited to my Securities Account. Which is on the public and private side. The Statements are actually a dividend payment based on the interest that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made in a four week period and what they send me in the mail is a Statement of my Account. The top portion of the Statement is the bond, the financial asset ; the bottom portion of the Statement is what was credited to my Securities Account and owed to me. This is why it comes in a positive status and never negative. However, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX takes the credits and says I owe them and threatens to disconnect my service when I do not pay them. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is where my Security originated, then XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transferred it to Bank of New York Mellon which Bank of New York Mellon then transfers it over to the Treasury to securitize it to get the CUSIP number and the Treasury gives the funds back to me XXXX. Bank of New York Mellon transfers it out to their Intermediary bank instead of to me as it is supposed to be in ordinary course of business. This is how they are hiding the funds. When these funds come back into my account between the hours of XXXX and XXXX every XXXX except on Saturdays and Sundays it goes through my Account but they transfer it to their Intermediary bank which is their security bank Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association. There has to be equal consideration in a contract. My contract is payable to the bearer at the time it comes into my possession as a holder. My contract is payable on demand at a definite time and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me promising to pay. By the very definition of a negotiable instrument the contract that I initially endorsed with XXXX XXXX XXXX is a negotiable instrument. The negotiable instrument is what XXXX & XXXX purchased therefore they have received consideration. I transferred my financial asset to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 12 CFR 360.6 Treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation. ( a ) definitions ( 2 ) Financial asset means cash or a contract or instrument that conveys to one entity a contractual right to receive cash or another financial instrument from another entity. ( XXXX ) Investor means a person or entity that owns an obligation issued by an issuing entity. ( 6 ) Obligation means a debt or equity ( or mixed ) beneficial interest or security that is primarily serviced by the cash flows of one or more financial assets or financial asset pools, either fixed or revolving, that by their terms convert into cash within a finite time period, or upon the disposition of the underlying financial assets, and by any rights or other assets designed to assure the servicing or timely distributions of proceeds to the security holders issued by an issuing entity. ( 8 ) Securitization means the issuance by an issuing entity of obligations for which the investors are relying on the cash flow or market value characteristics and the credit quality of transferred financial assets ( together with any external credit support permitted by this section ) to repay the obligations. The contract I endorsed is the Security/Negotiable Instrument XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is trading. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sends me in the mail every four weeks is the Interest. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sends me every four weeks in the mail is another Security which I can order XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to deposit to get other Securities from it. The Statements received every four weeks in the mail also fits the UCC definition of a negotiable instrument because it is payable to the bearer at the time it is issued on demand or at a definite time ; it has a issue date that it is due by and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me ordering the payment. When I Endorse these Statements I am receiving every four weeks for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, it is me creating an order. An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection ( a ) of Article XXXX104 of the UCC and falls within the definition of a \" check ''. A promise or order is not a check or instrument at the time it comes into possession it contains a conspicuous statement however expressed to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by Article 3-104. Unless it says on my Statements however expressed it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code it means I have a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT! None, not one of the Statements I have received or still receive up to this day which I get every four weeks in the mail from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX states however expressed that it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code. These Statements I receive every four weeks in the mail are Negotiable Instruments by definition of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3-104 also known as the Bills of Exchange Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fiduciary duty was created when I endorsed the contract. When I endorsed the contract I gave consideration and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX agreed. The Statement I am given every XXXX weeks IS NOT a bill as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX likes to consider it. What I get every four weeks from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Statement of Transactions of money owed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and money paid by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Which I am not receiving from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the Federal Law and Uniform Commercial Code states I am supposed to. Only the president can write a bill. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is committing Language Fraud along with Mail Fraud according to 39 USC 3001 by not listing ( A ) the following notice : This is a solicitation for the order of goods or services, or both, and not a bill, invoice, or statement of account due. You are under no obligation to make any payments on account of this offer unless you accept this offer and Securities Fraud above all. U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ( 2002 ) Uniform Commercial Code 1-103. Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies : Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law. States ( b ) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions. The Uniform Commercial Code rules that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association have agreed upon are automatically assumed to be that known to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association is committing Securities Fraud, Mail Fraud, Language Fraud, and Misrepresentation. I Rescind ALL security interest to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and all subsidiaries and Branches XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that was given written, verbal, express, and/or implied from now and forever. Take any action necessary and/or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created. Uniform Commercial Code 1-105. Severability. States If any provision or clause of the Uniform Commercial Code or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Uniform Commercial Code which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code are severable. Therefore, rescinding the Security Interest and Proceeds in contract does not effect or invalidate the contract. Uniform Commercial Code 1-201. General Definitions. ( b ) Subject to definitions contained in other articles of the Uniform Commercial Code that apply to particular articles or parts thereof : ( 3 ) \" Agreement '', as distinguished from \" contract '', means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in Section 1-303. ( 4 ) \" Bank '' means a person engaged in the business of banking and includes a savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, and trust company. ( 5 ) \" Bearer '' means a person in possession of a negotiable instrument, document of title, or certificated security that is payable to bearer or indorsed in blank. When I receive my securities from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX every 4 weeks/ month, I am the bearer because I am in possession of a negotiable instrument. ( 11 ) \" Consumer '' means an individual who enters into a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. I am the consumer who entered into this transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. ( 12 ) \" Contract '', as distinguished from \" agreement '', means the total legal obligation that results from the parties ' agreement as determined by the Uniform Commercial Code as supplemented by any other applicable laws. An agreement becomes a contract once I sign it and both parties agree ( 13 ) \" Creditor '' includes a general creditor, a secured creditor, a lien creditor, and any representative of creditors, including an assignee for the benefit of creditors, a trustee in bankruptcy, a receiver in equity, and an executor or administrator of an insolvent debtor 's or assignor 's estate. ( 15 ) \" Delivery '', with respect to an instrument, document of title, or XXXX XXXX, means voluntary transfer of possession.I transferred possession of my Security to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX making them a holder in due course of the instrument which makes them entitled to enforce Fiduciary Duties along with their Trustee Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association and Depository Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n( 17 ) \" Fault '' means a default, breach, or wrongful act or omission. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX omitted information of what they are really doing with my Security and the true purpose of this contract ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not disclose that my Security would be deposited or sold over and over to make proceeds and I am to receive interest as an investor in the company. Then XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX tells me I owe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX funds for the services and goods. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association are at Fault. ( 20 ) \" Good faith, '' except as otherwise provided in Article 5, means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. I engaged in this contract in good faith and that the other party to this contract was conducting this contract according to the customs and the way it is supposed to be done. My mistake was assuming XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were doing things as they were supposed to or conducting business the right way. Now that I know XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not doing their Fiduciary Duty it is my right to enforce them to do so. ( 21 ) \" Holder '' means : ( A ) the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; or ( B ) the person in possession of a document of title if the goods are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession. \n( 24 ) \" Money '' means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries. ( 29 ) \" Purchase '' means taking by sale, lease, discount, negotiation, mortgage, pledge, lien, security interest, issue or reissue, gift, or any other voluntary transaction creating an interest in property. ( 32 ) \" Remedy '' means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal. ( 2 ) \" Aggrieved party '' means a party entitled to pursue a remedy. 16 CFR 433.2 - Preservation of consumers ' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices states ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. This notice is listed in my contract, I am the debtor and I am asserting my rights. ( XXXX ) \" Security interest '' means an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation. \" Security interest '' includes any interest of a consignor and a buyer of accounts, chattel paper, a payment intangible, or a promissory note in a transaction that is subject to Article XXXX. I rescind all Security Interest.\n\n( 38 ) \" State '' means a State of the United States, thXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Uniform Commercial Code 3-103. DEFINITIONS. ( 2 ) \" Consumer account '' means an account established by an individual primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. ( 4 ) \" Drawee '' means a person ordered in a draft to make payment. ( 5 ) \" Drawer '' means a person who signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering payment. ( 8 ) \" Order '' means a written instruction to pay money signed by the person giving the instruction My endorsed signature is an instruction to pay money to whoever I am giving it to, in this case my endorsed contract was given to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which they purchased and are trading. ( 15 ) \" Remitter '' means a person who purchases an instrument from its issuer if the instrument is payable to an identified person other than the purchaser. Uniform Commercial Code 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. States ( a ) Except as provided in subsections ( c ) and ( d ), \" negotiable instrument '' means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it : ( XXXX ) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder ; ( XXXX ) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and ( XXXX ) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain ( i ) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, ( ii ) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or ( iii ) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor. There has to be equal consideration in a contract. My contract is payable to the bearer at the time it comes into my possession as a holder. My contract is payable on demand at a definite time and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me promising to pay. By the very definition of a negotiable instrument the contract that I initially signed with XXXX XXXX XXXX is a negotiable instrument. The negotiable instrument is what XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased. The negotiable instrument is the security XXXX XXXX XXXX is trading. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX  sends me in the mail every four weeks is the Interest. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX sends me every four weeks in the mail is another security which I can order XXXX XXXX XXXX to deposit to get other securities from it. The Statements received every four weeks in the mail also fits the definition of a negotiable instrument because it is payable to the bearer at the time it is issued on demand or at a definite time ; it has a issue date that it is due by and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me ordering the payment. When I Endorse these Statements I am receiving every four weeks is me creating an order. An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection ( a ) of Article 3-104 and falls within the definition of a \" check ''. A promise or order is not a check or instrument at the time it comes into possession it contains a conspicuous statement however expressed to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by Article 3-104. Unless it says on my Statements it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code or in any way meaning the same thing, this means I have a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT! None, not one of the Statements I have received or still receive up to this day which I get every four weeks in the mail from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in any way that it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code. These Statements are Negotiable Instruments by definition of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3-104 also known as the Bills of Exchange Act. Uniform Commercial Code 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. ( b ) \" Instrument '' means a negotiable instrument. ( c ) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection ( a ), except paragraph ( XXXX ), and otherwise falls within the definition of \" check '' in subsection ( f ) is a negotiable instrument and a check. ( d ) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article. ( e ) An instrument is a \" note '' if it is a promise and is a \" draft '' if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both \" note '' and \" draft, '' a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either. Uniform Commercial Code 3-204. INDORSEMENT. ( a ) \" Indorsement '' means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of ( i ) negotiating the instrument, ( ii ) restricting payment of the instrument, or ( iii ) incurring indorser 's liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument. ( b ) \" Indorser '' means a person who makes an indorsement. ( c ) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument. ( d ) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holder 's name or both, but signature in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection. I rescind all security interest. 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT. \n\" Person entitled to enforce '' an instrument means ( i ) the holder of the instrument, ( ii ) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or ( iii ) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418 ( d ). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. I am entitled to enforce my instruments as the holder of the instrument and holder in due course, 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.\n\n( a ) Subject to subsection ( c ) and Section 3-106 ( d ), \" holder in due course '' means the holder of an instrument if : ( 1 ) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and ( 2 ) the holder took the instrument ( i ) for value, ( ii ) in good faith, ( iii ) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, ( iv ) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, ( v ) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section XXXX306, and ( vi ) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305 ( a ).\n\n3-303. VALUE AND CONSIDERATION. ( a ) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if : ( 1 ) the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent the promise has been performed ; ( 2 ) the transferee acquires a security interest or other lien in the instrument other than a lien obtained by judicial proceeding ; ( 3 ) the instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due ; ( 4 ) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for a negotiable instrument; or ( XXXX ) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for the incurring of an irrevocable obligation to a third party by the person taking the instrument. ( b ) \" Consideration '' means any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in subsection ( a ), the instrument is also issued for consideration. \nConsideration was given to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the time I performed and endorsed the contract that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased and is now trading via the Securities and Exchange. According to 15 U.S. Code 1666 - Correction of billing errors ( b ) Billing error For the purpose of this section, a billing error consists of any of the following : ( 1 ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit which was not made to the obligor or, if made, was not in the amount reflected on such statement. ( XXXX ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit for which the obligor requests additional clarification including documentary evidence thereof. 15 U.S. Code 1666d - Treatment of credit balances Whenever a credit balance in excess of {$1.00} is created in connection with a consumer credit transaction through ( 1 ) transmittal of funds to a creditor in excess of the total balance due on an account, ( 2 ) rebates of unearned finance charges or insurance premiums, or ( 3 ) amounts otherwise owed to or held for the benefit of an obligor, the creditor shall ( A ) credit the amount of the credit balance to the consumers account ; ( B ) refund any part of the amount of the remaining credit balance, upon request of the consumer ; and ( C ) make a good faith effort to refund to the consumer by cash, check, or money order any part of the amount of the credit balance remaining in the account for more than six months, except that no further action is required in any case in which the consumers current location is not known by the creditor and can not be traced through the consumers last known address or telephone number. The Interest checks I receive every four weeks is an Interest payment according to the Department of Treasury, coupons gain interest every four weeks. The Interest I receive is a credit balance in excess of {$1.00}. My Account with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a credit balance in excess of {$1.00}. How can I pay a positive balance with a debt? IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are committing Securities Fraud. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are to immediately transmit my funds to my Account via the Electronic Funds Transfer. Release my Funds to me immediately as I am currently not receiving my Funds as I am supposed to. This is a Billing Error according to 12 CFR 1026.13 Truth In Lending Regulation Z. 12 CFR 1026.13 - Billing error resolution states ( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 4 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account. ( 6 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence. ( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( 2 ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( 3 ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error. ( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures. ( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice. ( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or othercharges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n16 CFR 433.3 - Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/XXXX from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). 433.3 Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/XXXX from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). ( a ) Any seller who has taken or received an open end consumer credit contract before XX/XX/XXXX, shall be exempt from the requirements of 16 CFR part 433 with respect to such contract provided the contract does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses. ( b ) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this exemption : ( 1 ) All pertinent definitions contained in 16 CFR 433.1. ( 2 ) Open end consumer credit contract : a consumer credit contract pursuant to which open end credit is extended. ( XXXX ) Open end credit : consumer credit extended on an account pursuant to a plan under which a creditor may permit an applicant to make purchases or make loans, from time to time, directly from the creditor or indirectly by use of a credit card, check, or other device, as the plan may provide. The term does not include negotiated advances under an open-end real estate mortgage or a letter of credit. ( d ) Purchase money loan. A cash advance which is received by a consumer in return for a Finance Charge within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, which is applied, in whole or substantial part, to a purchase of goods or services from a seller who ( 1 ) refers consumers to the creditor or ( 2 ) is affiliated with the creditor by common control, contract, or business arrangement. ( i ) Consumer credit contract. Any instrument which evidences or embodies a debt arising from a Purchase Money Loan transaction or a financed sale as defined in paragraphs ( d ) and ( e ) of this section. You know your Fiduciary Duty so do them. If XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company does not perform as they should I will have no choice but to contact Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-03T17:32:29.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"Personal line of credit","zip_code":"30034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9416631","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2024-07-03T16:48:53.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I engaged in this contract in good faith and that the other party to this contract was <em>conducting</em> this contract according to the customs and the way it is supposed to be done. My mistake was assuming XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were doing things as they were supposed to or <em>conducting</em> business the right way."]},"sort":[4.82918,"9416631"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":11,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":11}]}},"product":{"doc_count":11,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":2},{"key":"Check cashing service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Personal line of credit","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":11,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"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":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":11,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":10},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":11,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":11}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":11,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":11}]}},"company":{"doc_count":11,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":11,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"KY","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":11,"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":2},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":11,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}